Talk:Main Page

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

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 11:03 on 13 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"

Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, has announced his resignation but does not appear to have actually resigned yet. The BBC reports 'It was not immediately clear when the archbishop would leave his post but the process of finding a replacement is likely to take at least six months.' It may be best to remove the ITN segment until this is clarified. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Next DYK

• ... that the creator of the Barney & Friends theme song laughed when he found out that it was used in torture at Guantanamo Bay?

Two things here. The Gitmo playlist isn't actually a playlist, according to the article. Secondly, and more importantly, the hook makes the subject seem quite callous when the article it comes from explains that he found it ludicrous. [1] Secretlondon (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• The article title is currently subject to a move discussion, which does not preclude inclusion on DYK. As for the phrasing... the full quote certainly seems to indicate that he felt the concept of music torture was ludicrous: "It seemed so ludicrous that something totally innocuous for children could threaten the mental state of an adult," he says. "I would rate the annoyance factor to be about equal with hearing my neighbour's leaf blower. It can set my teeth on edge, but it won't break me down and make me confess to crimes against humanity". It downplays that these songs were played on repeat, at high volumes, for captive listeners.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I will comment as the original writer of the hook that I was slightly more comfortable with the previous phrasing of the hook that didn't mention torture, but it does seem to be the consensus (Clive Stafford Smith included) that the music was used in torture. I don't think it violates any Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guidelines, but I am open to changes to the hook. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that the wording is misleading in making the subject seem callous towards torture. This seems like a serious violation of our BLP principles. We could replace "laughed" to "considered it ludicrous". JMCHutchinson (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Changed per above.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

In what sense was Bob Singleton "the creator" of the theme song? According to Barney & Friends the tune was an old, public domain, song This Old Man, and the words were by "homemaker Lee Bernstein for a children's book titled "Piggyback Songs"". DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• He may have brought the two together; the article also mentions that Bernstein ended up pursuing a lawsuit. Would "music composer" be a better descriptor? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the problem, we don't know how to describe him. Arranger maybe? He's not the composer if it's an old old tune. The "Piggyback Songs" book was made up of new words to old tunes, so it seems Bernstein brought the old tune and her new words together. Singleton is not mentioned in this report of the law suit. DuncanHill (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Wikia has him as music director. I've been looking for an RS that has the same thing.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Alright, his LA-times editorial (from which the "I Just Laughed" quote can also be derived) has "music director".  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Replaced with "... that the music producer of Barney & Friends laughed when he found out that its theme song was used in torture at Guantanamo Bay?" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Has anyone here ever checked the film which we present as showing the destruction of Tirpitz on 12 November 1944 in Operation Catechism? The film's own initial title frames, as well as its description page on the Australian War Memorial web site where we got it from, both present it as being from the operation of 15 September 1944, which was Operation Paravane. Catechism only gets an after-the-fact mention on the Australian War Memorial page, with no apparent mention or footage in the film itself. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed. The video is of the bombing of that battleship, but from 2 months earlier! Secretlondon (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the caption to "Bombing of Tirpitz in September 1944" Secretlondon (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD

• 1969 – Apollo 12 (pictured) launches from the Kennedy Space Center, becoming the second crewed flight to land on the moon.

Pls change "launches" to past tense 'launched'. (And maybe change "becoming" to 'and became'?) JennyOz (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Pls add cap to "moon" per MOS:CELESTIALBODIES. JennyOz (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Already  Done per WP:OTDTENSE by A.N.Other. — Voice of Clam (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 15)

Monday's FL

(November 18)

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

Really notable?

A plane just crashed at my local airport. It missed the runway, and nearly crashed into a car that was coming out of the aiport restaurant. Luckily, there were no fatalities, but the plane is totally done for and there were an additional $100,000 (2 pounds sterling) worth of damage. Can this be featured in the ITN section? Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the story about British Airways Flight 38 in ITN is more interesting than your story ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.135.116 (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about a worldwide perspective, but in terms of Britain and Europe, this is recieving A LOT of attention. Not honestly sure why, I kind of agree with Benjamin, but there is attention. J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the first hull loss for a 777 ever. That is the significance. Oh yeah, and there was a world leader at the airport. And there might have been a instrumentation failure in flight. Lots of little things that add up to big ones. spryde | talk 17:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Our crash was pretty notable. Governor Jim Douglas was in the state at the time which is a pretty big thing (considering Vermont is about, give or take a few acres, as big as Heathrow). It's been getting A LOT of attention around here: The Times-Argus ran a front page story on it! And it was on the front page of the Burlington Free Press...very good articles, mind you. And check this out: It was a Piper Saratoga II HP, the SAME kind of airplane that John F. Kennedy, Jr. crashed in! Now tell me that doesn't deserve to be put on the front page! Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 18:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't deserve to be on the front page. London Heathrow is one of the biggest international airline hubs and the loss of a 777 in the circumstances reported must be of considerable international significance. The story merits its place in ITN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.108.167 (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a major international event, I think it should be included. Noobeditor (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The media love stories of plane crashes nowadays, so yes it's receiving a lot of attention. So it should. Exciting it was. Boeing 777 nearly knocked a taxi driver's head off then dropped clean out of the air from 100 feet. BOOOM!! :D Sky News are lovin' it. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who's been confused by my sarcastic wit, or lack thereof, there was no plane crash at the airport I'm talking about. I was merely highlighting what seems to me to be the sheer foolishness of putting a plane crash on the main page. I mean, check out this page: The only known fatality resulting from a 777 doesn't even have it's own article, let alone it's own spot on ITN! Unless I'm missing something, which is very probably, there are not any articles on any other 777 incidents, and I'm pretty damn sure that nothing about any of them made it to ITN. This crash, which had no fatalities, doesn't deserve the coverage it's getting. It hasn't even been deemed a hull-loss accident yet! For the sake of any [[deity which you choose, be it God, the invisible pink unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, could someone tell me why this deserves front page coverage? What makes it so much more notable than other of the other 4 incidents which Wikipedia (although as everyone knows, Wikipedia isn't very reliable) lists? Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Items selected for inclusion in ITN, as far as I know, have some kind of international significance. About 50 to 60 million people pass through Heathrow annually, most of whom are international travellers (and many of whom are USAmericans no doubt). The 777 is one of the leading types of aircraft that carries these people internationally and very many other people between other airports. The loss of a 777, in the circumstances that have been reported, may well have implications for all other 777s in operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.118.125 (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My fellow IP editor is correct. Additionally, the fact that nobody died is not a reason for this crash to not be notable, but one of the many reasons why it is notable. 152 on board, and not one killed. 65.4.50.162 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Plane crashes without fatalities are the most common kind of plane crash. (However, I'm not disputing that this plane crash is notable.) 24.2.176.64 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Resistance is futile, Wikipedia is Britocentric. You can't do anything about it. --Howard the Duck 07:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

But the Boeing 777 is a USAmerican aircraft. Flight 38 had flown from Beijing and many of its passengers would be travelling on to other countries. If Wikipedia really is Britcentric, the story about Flight 38 most certainly is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.223.71 (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The main bone of contention on why this article was saved from deletion was that it happened on Heathrow, not to mention it's BA and it occurred "meters" (about 4 football pitches) away from the British PM. If an airplane had a similar accident in another airport I doubt it'll be posted at the ITN, let alone have an article (That's following the "all airplane accidents are notable by default" rule). --Howard the Duck 08:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You implied that the story is Britcentric. It isn't for the foregoing reasons. I don't know what would happen in the hypothetical case you mention and neither does anybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.223.71 (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is Brit-O-Centric. As I've said, if the reason why it is saved from deletion is that 1) It's BA, 2) It's Heathrow, 3) Gordon Brown was meters (4 football pitches) away. If the accident happened on another airline and on an airport no one goes to it won't be posted on the ITN and even have an article. If this happened at JFK and it got posted, Jooler and a dozen other non-Americans will be up in arms crying "US-centrism! Remove all* US-related items in the Main Page! Heck, even Super Bowl I. (*excluding TFA and TFL) --Howard the Duck 09:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to find out what people said about what actually happened immediately before the plane crash-landed. The story is really Boeing 777centric - and that is of major international significance. If you continue to think the story isn't ITNewsworthy and is Britcentric, then so be it. I happen to disagree with you. 'Nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.217.72 (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the AfD you're linking to? Because if you had, you would have noticed the nominator withdrew it not because of Gordon Brown (which he/she said was laughable in affecting its notability) nor because of Heathrow, nor because of BA but because it was the first hull lost of a 777. And in fact reading it further, only 2, yep do you hear me?, two people even mentioned Gordon Brown in a reason to keep and neither of them used it as their sole reason. Besides that your claims are laugable in themselves because if George W. Bush had been within metres of a plane crash we wouldn't even be having this conversation because few people would bother disputing keeping the article Nil Einne (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't resolve the fact that it was saved due to it's "Britishness". I mean, come on, if this happened in a anywhere else, even in the U.S., and no casualties were reported it would've been deleted. The fact that it happened in Britain, is a British aircraft, and missed the British PM by four football pitches (LOL) was enough reason for it to be saved, er, withdrawn. --Howard the Duck 05:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Again read the AfD which clearly contradicts what you're saying. If you're going to ignore what the AfD says and come up with your own conspiracy theories, then I suggest you do it somewhere else since the main page isn't the place for people to publish conspiracy theories which don't agree with the evidence. And actually I completely disagree with you, if this had been an American airliner or had happened in JFK or any other large American airport and had missed Bush by four American football pitches as I said above we wouldn't even be having this discussion because people wouldn't be asking to delete it. This of course doesn't change the fact that there are much more important reasons to keep this article but anyway... Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article, however, says, or at least did, that it isn't even a complete hull lose, or whatever the term is, yet. That's my beef. It's like saying "Hilary Clinton is notable because she is the first woman president of the United States", which is untrue and only speculation. And if George Bush had been with feet of a plane crash, people would most likely yelling at the pilot for bad aim. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to debate whether we should keep the article or the facts contained or even to defend the AfD per se. This clearly isn't the place. What I am saying is the reason why the AfD failed had nothing to do with the claims Howard the Duck made. If you wish another AfD or want to dispute what the article says, I suggest you take that to the appropriate forum not here. You may be right that the opinion of the person who withdrew was slightly inaccurate but an analysis of the accident suggests to me the right decision was made whatever the reasons (although as I keep saying, the reason had nothing to do with what HtD claimed). Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to try and AFD JetBlue Airways Flight 292? This was an American budget airliner, in an American airport with no prominent politicans involved and without even coming close to a hull loss. The AfD should be a piece of cake according to the theories above Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Flight 292 was an Airbus aircraft, Airbus was partially owned (until a couple of years ago) by BAE systems, formerly known as BRITISH Aerospace, so that article's retention is clearly due to Britocentrism. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not gunning for an AFD on the crash, I just don't think that it deserves to be on the front page. It's notability is based on something that has yet to be determined, so I'm just saying that it does not deserve front page coverage: It's not that big of a deal (yet, perhaps). We should have an article on it, that's cool and encyclopedic. However, It's just not notable enough to be put on the front page. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wanna see this AFD? --Howard the Duck 06:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(Comment) Howard the Duck voted keep in this AFD Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually my vote was "Keep for the mean time until notability guidelines are agreed upon, with no prejudice for re-nomination." I'm waiting for the appropriate WikiProject to finally iron out notability guidelines so this and BA38 can both go to Wikipedia heaven. --Howard the Duck 03:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

both engines appeared to have failed at the same time. thats fairly notable. the chances are something like 1 in a million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.5.191.140 (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of multiple sclerosis image on main page

Might I suggest removing the image that's currently on the main page? Firstly, it doesn't have much to do with the subject matter, and frankly when I opened up my browser today I would've sworn the featured article was about intravenous injection. Removing it may nullify confusion, I think. Anyone else agree? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone should put up the marijuana plants for the sake of hilarity.-Wafulz (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --71.133.74.137 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul654

How did he get the job of scheduling TFAs? When is the next election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Raul first became the defacto featured articles director when the whole FA system essentially started four years ago in 2004. Of course, Wikipedia did not have as much activity, publicity, and users back then – and the only one who was willing to work on it regularly was Raul. Several months later, a discussion now archived here, led to him being ratified as the official director. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need any more information, I suggest carrying this discussion on at WT:TFA, which would be the correct talk page for the topic at hand. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to "carry this discussion on." I want his job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Request denied.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

...especially when you are editing as an anonymous IP address without the benefits you get when you create an account. ::::::Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My IP address isn't anonymous. You know exactly what it is. And it's your sort of snide comments that get this farce of a website a bad name. Powerless in the real world, so you get your kicks from being churlish to anybody with less than 6 million edits. And please excuse the expression , but WTF does it matter where this discussion is held? NOBODY'S GONNA DIE IF I ASK THE QUESTION HERE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple, this page is here to discuss the main page as a whole, the page I recommended is to discuss the topic you want to discuss, I'm sorry if that seems complicated to you, but I don't see how you can expect to become TFA Director without understanding one of the more basic concepts of Wikipedia... well, that and the other very obvious reasons why you wouldn't qualify for the job. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 09:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But the post will rotate to someone else at some stage? right? --Fredrick day (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Raul has had the job for a long time, I'd say the only way someone else will take the post is if he gives it up, which will require either (god forbid) Raul leaving us, or community support for the idea of a weekly/monthly/yearly/whatever rotation of the job, which hasn't really come up because he's doing such a good job. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 12:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is going to dies if you ask the question here, but it has the following disadvantages:

1. Threads here get archived rather quickly, it's not a good place to do a long term discussion.
2. The people who frequently visit this page might not be interested in things unrelated to it.
3. People interested in TFA aren't notified of this.
   I think Raul is doing an excellent job, and should stay the director. There are few people who have time, energy, and skills to do this job. Further discussion should be held at WT:TFA. A non-administrator can't get the post, because the templates are fully protected. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd just like to thank (sarcastically) whoever allowed a summary of the plot of a classic which I have not read on the main page. Thanks a bunch! Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 00:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

All it gives away is the initial situation at the beginning of the play. It doesn't mention any major plot points, let alone give away the ending. What exactly are you unhappy with? -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER for more information. Puchiko (Talk-email) 08:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think 400 years is a tad long for a statute of limitations on these things. And besides, Hamlet isn't written to be read as a book. I guarantee you'll enjoy it more as a play. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"the play tells how Prince Hamlet exacts revenge on his uncle for murdering the previous king, Hamlet's father." Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 18:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not a major spoiler; that's the premise of the play (see what Elmer Clark said.) Gracenotes^T § 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I too was intrigued and want to see it played out!!Tourskin (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to make knowledge more accessible, not to conceal it.
The blurb intrigued me so much, I think I'll read Hamlet sometime this week (a version with explanatory notes of course-my English isn't nearly that good). Thanks to whoever allowed this on the main page! Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian Open

Could the Australian Open Women's singles tennis results be included in the news section? I've seen gridiron and baseball results published, and they are only notable in America, whereas one could argue this is more notable in the wider world. Maria Sharapova beat Ana Ivanovic 7-5 6-3. BalkanFever 01:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Waiting for the Tsonga-Djokovic result, it's sure to be added. For more info, see WP:ITN/C. --Howard the Duck 05:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's already been announced. It should be added. миражinred (speak, my child...) 22:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Check WP:ITN/C, this is not the place for this discussion. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. primaries

Interesting the "In the news" section has ignored the US primary election results, even though they're being widely reported by both US and non-US media sources as they occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.66.243 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the results (at least the main states) are in Portal:Current Events section. There is no need to mention every primary on the main page except maybe when the nominees will be official for each party.--JForget 01:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey 141.213.66.243, as you can see from the information box at the top of the page, this discussion belongs at Wikipedia:In The News Candidates, but just for your information, the preliminarys to the election itself fail the criteria for inclusion. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 01:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by widely played out? In California, were I live yes, maybe. But you see half of wikipedians contribute from overseas and don't know, and half of the US population probably don't even care who is running for what! Tourskin (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured Picture

The featured picture just changed from a "folly" to a young boy riding a blue Yamaha Motocross bike. I presume the author was suggesting that he is participating in a "moto" (for individual moto event) not "mono". Bbump (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The "mono" is the trick he's doing, not the event he's partaking in. BTW, this belongs in Main Page Errors above :). ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when did the USSR try to destroy Polish culture?

Back it up with credible resources wiki.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Click the link and find out. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 01:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

it is kinda late so u probably shouldnt post it

Lego anniversary

Today, January 28, Google celebrates the 50 years aniversary of Lego's patent on Lego bricks. Should it be on our main page too? The date is recorded in the article Lego; I'm about to add it to January 28.--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you can suggest that for DYK here, or if you wish, you can suggest it for ITN here depending on which you had in mind... ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 09:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I meant the "On this day..." section. I can only find the section above for reproting errors, not for suggesting items.--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think 'on this day' items that have been missed are best suggested here. I am not adding it myself, but for what it's worth, I support its addition. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here? No heres not the place J :) ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 11:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Where, then? J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, read my first post, or the help box, but just for you, here it is again!; the lovely suggestions section over at Template: Did You Know. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You can sneak in some event a few dates before the day (or before an admin protects it since it'll be in the Main Page). --Howard the Duck 12:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries, not DYK or ITN. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Niels Ø (noe) was originally looking for the OTD, where SA is a part... --Howard the Duck 13:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually yeah, that like DYK tangent was my fault, my bad! ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 13:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I think that, if something was to be added to OTD after it had been protected, here would be the place to post. We don't have an OTD proposals page- we just protect whatever is there a couple of days beforehand and stick it on the main page... J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not entirely true. There are in fact a couple of admins including myself that double check each OTD page before they go onto the main page to make sure they are acceptable under the WP:OTD guidelines – they are not blindly protected. Also, there is really no proposals page because these OTD pages are generally unprotected throughout most of the year; anybody can suggest something by just being bold and editing the OTD page before it is protected. However, in a case such as this, if an event is suggested right in the middle of the day (including being posted on the article in question[2] and the date page[3]), more often than not it will unlikely to be included. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after Zzyzx11 readied Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 30, I managed to sneak a little edit so any registered user can sneak a "minor" edit. --Howard the Duck 03:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's rather late, but try posting a request at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/January 28 anyway. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

picture of penis

Can this be taken off the front page?--72.209.9.246 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)thanks, --72.209.9.246 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, what? What picture are you referring to? Is this some kind of crude joke? Dreamy ^§ 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the humor so I'll assume its not a joke, can I suggest you refresh your browser cache (could be vandalism that was reverted by now), if it remains, I'd suggest that you may have malware on your PC, and will need to take the appropriate action. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard this one before, and there was nothing from the history of the page.

Tourskin (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

AGF, Tourskin, Wiki knows its not easy but we gotta try to AGF :). ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 00:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Janae Larson

--216.146.122.66 (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Janae Larsonshit man this sucks balls badd asss mofo lol haha