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 03:49 on 20 June 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 "On this day"

Today's OTD

Queen Victoria (pictured) acceded to the British throne ... shouldn't that be "ascended"? RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I Googled "acceded" and received an example of "assume an office or position. - Elizabeth I acceded to the throne in 1558". SL93 (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 21, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(June 24)

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

Grammar!

Did you know ... that the Church of St Pothinus in Lyon holds a 17th century painting depicting St Paul in front of the Areopagus that was previously kept at the Notre Dame de Paris?

No I didn't know that, and neither did anybody else! The Areopagus is a rocky prominence in Athens. It was never previously kept at the Notre Dame de Paris as is the implication of the statement. The error is caused by the editting out of two crucial factors in the sentence. The result is that the word "that" refers directly to the noun immediately preceding it, "Areopagus", instead of the subject of the sentence, "painting".

Fortunately, although the editors of DYK have changed the wording, the sentence in its original form in the context of the article about Église Saint-Pothin is correct. It reads There is also a 1656 painting depicting St. Paul in front of the Areopagus, and previously kept at Notre-Dame de Paris. The comma and the "and" in this sentence make the different between a worthy DYK and absolute nonsense and misinformation!

I know that this is an error in "good faith" but whoever takes on the responsibility of the Wikipedia Main Page needs to bear in mind the encyclopedia's credibility. Grammatical errors can sometimes create misinformation.

I once shot a tiger in my pyjamas! Good Heavens! What was the tiger doing in your pyjamas? No, No, I was in my pyjamas when I shot a tiger with my musket! Good Heavens! What was the tiger doing with your musket? No, No, I was wearing my pyjams when I shot, with my musket, a tiger from the back of an elephant! Good Heavens! What was the tiger doing on the back of the elephant?

Amandajm (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Call me crazy but you have to read a lot into that sentence to alter the meaning as you have. ;)  f o x  10:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Fox, "a 17th century painting depicting St Paul in front of the Areopagus" is a compound that, as a WHOLE, serves as the "noun immediately preceding" the word "that". I don't think anyone would read the sentence the way Amandajm is suggesting, unless he/she was actively trying to make it more confusing. --Khajidha (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If it is not perfectly clear to the reader that the "that" refers to a compound noun rather than the single noun, then the sense of the sentence is lost. If you are missing the point try "...a painting depicting St Paul in front of a lectern that was previously kept at Notre Dame." An understanding of the sentence is dependent upon the reader's knowing that the Areopagus is something too large to have ever been inside Notre Dame. In fact, most of your readers will not know what the Areopagus is and will be forced to look it up.

Luckily, the error of expression is only in the DYK, not in the article. Amandajm (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how the average reader would come to the conclusion that you have reached. --Khajidha (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm an average reader and I was confused by the sentence. Personally I think it would have been clearer if was two separate sentences. Something like: Did you know ... that the Church of St Pothinus in Lyon holds a 17th century painting depicting St Paul in front of the Areopagus and that until nnnn the painting had been kept at the Notre Dame de Paris?Tgpaul58 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Khajidha, if you are failing to understand the point of grammar, then please read again:

"In (the church) is a a painting depicting St Paul in front of a lectern that was previously kept at Notre Dame.

Does "that was previously kept at Notre Dame" refer to the painting? No. It most definitely refers to the lectern.

The tiger joke, which is well known, illustrates this point of grammar, specifically. The fact that sentences are confusing when constructed in that manner, is the whole point of the joke.

Amandajm (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I understood the point you were making, I don't see that people would read the sentence the way you are asking them to. To me, the "in front of a lectern" is obviously a modifier of St. Paul and not a separate thing. You seem to be reading the sentence as "in (the church) is a painting depicting St. Paul (said painting being) in front of a lectern that was previously kept at Notre Dame." That simply does not seem like a natural reading of the sentence. --Khajidha (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No. You are not getting it. My sentence doesn't imply that the painting is in front of the lectern. The "in front of the lectern" bit comes directly after the noun "Paul", not after the noun "painting". It is clear that Paul is in front of the lectern. But the last add-on implies that the lectern was previously located in Notre Dame. Why? Because the "that was previously..." follows directly after the noun "lectern", not after the noun "painting".

Now, if we go back to the original statement and remember that most people don't know what the Areopagus is and may not bother to interupt their reading by looking it up, then we are left with the problem that this unknown object (not the painting) was once located in Notre Dame. Why? Because the word "that...." pertains to the noun that it follows. This is the rule, unless there is some very clear indication, such as the "and" which Tgpaul158 suggested should be added. The sentence as Tgpaul suggested, or as it actually appears in the article, is perfectly clear. It was only the wording of the DYK that contained a problem.

The bottom line is that the wording of the DYK was not clear. Kajidha, instead of disputing this, why don't you just take it on board, with an aim to improving your own writing style? (I have no idea whether you were the writer of the DYK.) Amandajm (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not the writer, but your point is still stretching the natural reading of the sentence. That reading being "in (the church) is a painting, depicting St. Paul in front of the Areopagus, that was previously kept at Notre Dame." I don't see how any other reading is natural. "In front of the Areopagus" is obviously a descriptor indicating exactly how Paul was depicted in said painting (whether you know what the Areopagus is or not). Obviously neither of us is going to convince the other to change his/her mind and the item is long gone anyway, so I'm going to end this conversation. --Khajidha (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You sneaked in a comma between the word "Areopagus" and the word "that". The comma was not there in the DYK. I rest my point. Amandajm (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "sneak" it in, I was giving my interpretation. The sentence, as originally written, seems to me to mean what the sentence as modified by me means. I still don't see how anyone would read it any other way unless they were trying to not understand it. --Khajidha (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

All this chatter over one sentence! As an Englishman, I have to agree with Fox and Khahidha even though I don't know what a Areopagus is/was/who/can't give a monkeys. Just change it to something else like "that the Church of St Pothinus in Lyon holds a 17th century painting, that was previously kept at Notre Dame de Paris, depicting St Paul in front of the Areopaguse?" and we can all rest. -Dave

There's nothing to change. That "Did You Know" entry was five days ago. As usual at Talk: Main Page, the argument has far outlasted the issue. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The page is sooo 2000's

Isn't it time we lift the main page into the 2010's by some slight modifications? — Edokter • Talk • 01:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! It's the future! 18.111.98.73 (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The future's bright, the future's gradient fills? I'm really not a fan of overusing gradient fills like that, and the font change to 'wikipedia' in the top bar looks strange. I'm not sure what else you changed... Modest Genius ^talk 02:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the internet was done with gradients. Dear internet, please kill gradients. Love, Shep^Talk 02:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I can'actually recal gradients ever being in... — Edokter • Talk • 13:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I like it. The gradient needs to be changed to a background image so that it can work on IE, though. Also, the "Wikipedia" looks a bit strange; using an image might be preferable. --Yair rand (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Or we can simply stick to accessible, non-gimmicky, standards-compliant code that won't one day be ridiculed in the manner that we currently mock pages containing blinking text, animated GIF icons and MIDI music. —David Levy 02:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is non-standard about it? — Edokter • Talk • 13:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Gradient employs nonstandard, browser engine-specific markup. Based on this message, I was under the impression that you knew that. —David Levy 01:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it uses only markup that is compatible between browsers, and uses gracefull fallback for those that do not support it (yet). — Edokter • Talk • 14:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You inquired as to "what exactly is non-standard about it." The aforementioned markup is nonstandard (i.e. not included in the official HTML specifications). That's why the template combines multiple versions to target multiple rendering engines (with the Internet Explorer-specific code present but blocked, as you noted on the template's talk page).

Indeed, in browsers not supporting any of the non-blocked code, the template has no effect. This results in needless disparity (depending on what browser[s] someone uses). While Wikipedias in some other languages have accepted such a setup (most commonly in the form of rounded corners), the English Wikpedia has consistently rejected it in the main page's design and the MediaWiki interface. —David Levy 01:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Gradient, border-radius and box-shadow are standard CSS3 specifications; they only deviate in (beta-)implementation, which the templates help eliminate by only utilizing common functionality. The dradient template still sets the background color for non-supporting browsers, so fallback is present. — Edokter • Talk • 11:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

CSS3 is not yet finalized; "-moz-linear-gradient," "-webkit-gradient" and the inactive "DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Gradient" are nonstandard implementations targeting different rendering engines.

You again cited the fallback (which is undisputed) without addressing my point regarding why many regard it as undesirable. —David Levy 18:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you move your work to a subpage of your user page or some other such page. I'm pretty sure the sandbox is primarily intended for testing simple, uncontroversial or easily approved changes to the main page before they are carried out, not for a redesign which is likely to be difficult to get approved. On a personal note I don't really care either way about the gradient although IMHO using an image for that is a bad idea, but the change in font to Wikipedia, even if it looks closer to the one in the logo, just looks strange in that context Nil Einne (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

These changes are simple; just look at the dif from when it is synced from the main page. The sandbox is freely editable. — Edokter • Talk • 13:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The main page does need a bit of a revamp. It was last changed significantly in 2005, five years ago. Unfortunately, you'll have a have a hard time persuading people to accept change. Aiken (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Shelve as per WP:BIKESHED. As explained by Parkinson's Law of Triviality (a.k.a. the "bikeshed concept"), it is trivial to obtain widespread consensus that a change to the current design would be beneficial, but virtually impossible to gain any meaningful agreement on what form the change should take. --Allen3 ^talk 14:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we just hold another Main Page redesign contest poll? I have several designs I'd like to try out. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's one thing that we've learned from past attempts, it's that inviting people to throw designs at the wall in the hope that one will stick is a guaranteed path to failure.

The successful method is to identify and address deficiencies, not to initiate change for the sake of change.

I issued the same warning last time, was ignored, and watched helplessly as the redesign project went down in flames (after wasting many people's time). Let's not make that mistake again. —David Levy 03:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Aww, man. But I don't think patching it up with gradients and whatnot will help. (I don't like the look of the vector-matching gradient, but that's another story.) What deficiencies are there currently? One thing I find odd is that the lower text is not wrapped in boxes like the upper text, which makes it look slightly out of place. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to get rid of some of the fanciness that's already there. I find the background colors make it more difficult for me to read the text than if it were simply black on white.--Khajidha (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

When the last successful redesign occurred, there were editors advocating fancy designs and editors who wanted precisely the opposite. We knew that we'd struck the right balance (i.e. arrived at a compromise acceptable to as many people as possible) when we began receiving about the same number of complaints (e.g. "Make it fancier!" and "Make it simpler!") from both ends of the spectrum.

Regarding your preference, you might wish to use this alternative page instead. See Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives for other designs and instructions for setting one as your default main page. —David Levy 00:12/00:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably just me, but I can't get this to work following the instructions on Main Page alternatives. --Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It was just me, I figured it out. --Khajidha (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an intentional design element, intended to visually differentiate between the dynamic encyclopedia content (colored boxes) and the largely static meta content (no colored boxes) —David Levy 00:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The last attempted redesign went wrong because everyone was asked to submit a complete rework without any collaboration, which resulted in individual results that failed to gain any consensus on their own. The next redisign should be a collaborative effort, split into two steps: layout and styling. I believe that is the only way to a redisign that has a chance for community support. — Edokter • Talk • 11:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother. Just leave it as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.73.192 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

anyone can edit locked pages? it seems like most pages i look at have locks (76.120.39.39 (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

No you as an unregistered user can not edit semi-protected pages. If you want to edit those pages you can either explain your changes on the talk page of the article and use {{edit semi-protected}} or register with the site, make 10 edits and after 4 days you can edit the semi-protected pages also. The quote in the header does not say that anyone can edit every page. It just says that anyone can edit the encyclopedia and you can edit it. ~~ GB fan ~~ 07:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly not true that most pages are locked so the problem may be the type of pages you are looking at? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The person who is asking the question here, on the talk page of the Main Page, is probably trying to edit the articles that are featured on the Main Page. That is why they are locked. Amandajm (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No, i found an error with the in sane clown posse page which is locked so i can't edit, i posted in that discussion but no one replied so i posted here because i thought it was a discussion page about all articles ... maybe i just should have said what the issue was instead of a generic complaint (76.120.39.39 (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC))

This discussion? It seems to have been archived automatically (a little hastily, in my view - the configuration for the archive bot should probably be changed)

Try using the {{edit semi-protected}} template to request changes to semi-protected pages - when you do that, the page will appear in a "category", which many editors check. Editors who don't necessarily watch Insane Clown Posse will see the request, so you should get a prompt response. TFOWR 11:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In the News

As long as half of the news pieces are regarding SPORTS, maybe it makes more sense to have a separate section for those, since they are not news nor are they newsworthy. Cosprings (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Before I get into whether they're newsworthy (an entirely subjective discussion), where do you suppose such a section would go? ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 21:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

IMO ITN isn't even an encyclopedia-worthy section, but that's for another time... Aiken (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And we're about to have an inundation of Nobel Prizes (five in five days). It's hardly ITN's fault if lots of similar events happen in the same week. Modest Genius ^talk 00:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Norman Wisdon dieing is newsworthy enough to be ITN Still polaris (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN items are discussed at WP:ITN/C, and only posted if there's a consensus to do so. In this case there was, I believe, unanimous agreement for it to be posted. Regardless, you need to comment at WP:ITN/C. TFOWR 09:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth is Norman Wisdom's death on the frontpage? He wasn't even that funny. Lugnuts (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN items are discussed at WP:ITN/C, and only posted if there's a consensus to do so. In this case there was, I believe, unanimous agreement for it to be posted. Regardless, you need to comment at WP:ITN/C. TFOWR 12:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about sourcing.

Resolved

 – Stepshep is correct: this is the wrong venue, WP:Help desk is the right venue. (I can tell you for free, however, that emails are not reliable sources). TFOWR 09:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've attempted to make contact with Brooke Anne Smith via Email and I planned on using the email as a source. However, I need to know if that counts as a reliable source. I really need to know. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Per above: "Please note: The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements relating only to the Main Page. It is not a place to ask general questions or submit content." Try Wikipedia:Help desk Shep^Talk 02:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ravenloft pic

I find it a bit odd that the picture along with the FA today is of Ravenloft's creator, Tracy Hickman, and not the subject of the article it self, I6 Ravenloft.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's because of the practice of placing only freely licensed images on the main page. Unfortunately this particular photo is not very good, but there are very few to choose from here. Jonathunder (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There should be no image instead of a completely horrible one. I've brought this up here: Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 6, 2010. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This one here is a little better image of Hickman, and it's still CC-BY-SA. –MuZemike 01:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's still negating the fact that there are two people who are listed as the authors of the program, and only one is being pictured. I think no picture is a better choice. Killiondude (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We shouldn't be so desperate to include an image that we settle for anything remotely relevant to the article's subject. We're better off with no image than with this. —David Levy 01:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to agree. As such, I've placed the image inside a hidden comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How is an image of the work's creator not relevant? I sense WP:BIAS here, as we have allowed this for similar works; Night comes to mind, as well as Chrono Cross, and even Expedition to the Barrier Peaks which had Gary Gygax as the image. –MuZemike 02:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

When this was at TFAR, I suggested File:Dungeons_and_Dragons_game.jpg could be used as a possible image, as even though it technically doesn't feature this "module", (whatever that is), it does make it obvious it is that this is about a board/dice/card game. I have to admit, at first glance, I assumed it was another video game article. Bob talk 02:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 6, 2010 looks pretty ridiculous. If I'd noticed that on the Main Page, I would've said something. (I don't visit the Main Page as much any more. I'm not really sure why that is.) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not good, but at least Gygax isn't one of two creators. —David Levy 02:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As something of an aside, this is why we should have a sensible policy on allowing fair-use images for TFAs which are intrinsically impossible to illustrate without resorting to fair-use (ie. creative works). But apparently writing an encyclopaedia comes second to spreading free content. Modest Genius ^talk 02:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps most frustrating is the fact that this "policy" began with an ambiguous summary by Jimbo, whose edit was based on a mistaken belief that a suitable free image was available (and who subsequently declined to commit to a concrete statement on the matter). —David Levy 02:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it be a sensible topic to bring up at the village pump? I would have thought if there was community consensus, the policy could be re-examined. Rob (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes please. Hobit (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added a question about this at the TFAR talk page. Bob talk 16:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Picture of the Day has an error in its licensing and information

If you look at the source for the current picture of the day, File:Kew_Gardens_Palm_House,_London_-_July_2009.jpg you'll find it has the date wrong. Its the picture of the day for 2010, not 2009. That's causing an error to appear. Also, some broken links to templates are there in the licensing information. Dream Focus 12:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the date and removed the missing templates. Some one with clue should check what I've done and reinstate the correct templates if required. TFOWR 12:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:ERRORS would be a better bet, for future reference. Not least because it'll get seen by admins-with-clue, instead of idiots like me ;-) TFOWR 12:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK hook for Sister Wives, the article says they have 12 children, the hook says they have 16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.167.170 (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Alert:DYK needs fixing!

The DYK and the article itself provide false information.

... that the first use of bronze doors on an Italian building is attributed to the Amalfi Cathedral, and they came from Constantinople?

These bronze doors are defintiely not the first bronze doors on an Italian building. I am sure that if the reference is located, it will say something like: "... the first medieval bronze doors on and Italian building" or "...the first post-Roman period doors on an Italian building.

Four sets of Ancient Roman bronze doors are in use in Rome, at the Pantheon, at St John's Laterano, at Santa Maria Maggiore and at the Temple of Romulus AKA the Church of SS Cosmas and Damian. They date from the 1st to the 4th century. Amandajm (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The source does actually say: "The imposing bronze doors, the first in Italy, were cast in Constantinople before 1066 ...", which seems unlikely... I'm not sure what to do here, but I've left a note at WP:ERRORS pointing to this section. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed it from WP:ERRORS because it's no longer on the Main Page. Did You Know hooks only last 6 hours. The article isn't protected, so anybody can edit it. Art LaPella (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As an emphasis on Art LaPella's point, as the errors section explains, you should normally discuss and fix and errors or other problems in the article first as the main page defers to articles. In other words, there's no reason to bring attention to the errors section or even here when the problem is still in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Landing Ship, Tank

The second sentence in Today's featured article strikes me as a little confusing, having a comma in an odd spot. It took me a while to make sense of what It comprised ten cargo ships, three Landing Ships, Tank and an escort of five corvettes. actually means, as I couldn't figure out how a Tank could be part of a convoy, other than as freight aboard a ship. I had to follow the link to Landing Ships, Tank to figure it out. Is there a better way to name this article, without the comma? 203.5.252.60 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Modern United States military materiel often has formal names in this particular style that isn't often found elsewhere. We can't use LST, the most common name actually used for the transport, because lots of other things are abbreviated to "LST". In the context of the Featured Article blurb, I think the hyperlinking distinguishes things enough for clarity, though there aren't any hard-and-fast grammatical rules for hypertext that are universally accepted. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is really an instance where semicolons should be used in the stead of serial commas. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How about 'ten cargo ships, five corvettes, and three Landing Ships, Tank'? OK it loses the distinction between the transports and escorts, but is less confusing. Modest Genius ^talk 19:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a case of treating bureaucratese as if it were inherently superior to common usage. The normal English form Tank Landing Ship (which is quite widely attested) should be used as an alias here. The inverted form is obviously used for purposes of manifest lists where it is useful to specify the general class (Tank) Landing Ship among other types of landing ships. Just as the name is not the thing, the form of the name in a manifest is not the name.μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You know, this would be less of a problem if we underlined our hyperlinks. howcheng {chat} 02:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That way we'd only have to worry about the horrific ugliness of the MP - you can turn it on in Special:Preferences, try it and see. There's a reason why almost all major websites now only underline when the mouse is over the link. Modest Genius ^talk 00:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

On this day...why is there no mention of John Lennon's birthday?

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Could've been today's featured article too. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 14:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This only works if people nominate an article at WP:TFAR. Once it's the day, it's too late. There will be another opportunity on 8 December. Bob talk 17:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it's unimportant. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ł