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 05:14 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

Archiving

Hi everybody. Currently, when a topic isn't replied to for 3 days, it's archived by User:MiszaBot I. I propose shortening this to only two days. My main reason is that because main page content changes every day, a thread that hasn't been replied to for three days is really out dated, and probably not useful for somebody reading this talk page. Furthermore, most posts that haven't been replied to in the last two days won't get replied to in the third day either, they just take up space. Right now, we've got a lot of irrelevant discussions-error reports and bias jokes. If these got archived quicker, the page would be a lot more readable. Any thoughts? Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that for the reasons you gave, but there's one problem, I've noticed that almost almost all of the discussions that actually should be here usually go through short 3 day periods where no one replays to them, then at the last minute someone does and the discussion carry's on. As those are the conversations that this page is actually used for I'd say we need to either leave it at three, or manually archive the discussions that are obviously finished,

On that topic, does anyone know if there is a tag that MiszaBot will recognise and archive the discussion irrelevant of time restraints? ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 15:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I haven't observed the trend of threads being inactive for three days and then being replied to, but perhaps you're right. I'd still like to see further discussion on this matter though.
No, there isn't such a template. I don't think it would be very useful, MiszaBot only runs once a day (twice for the administrators noticeboard). However, nothing prevents us from manually archiving finished discussions. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It does happen sometimes (having been the person who replied after about 3 days sometimes) although I'm not quite sure myself how important some of those threads are. We could settle on a compromise of 60 hours...? Does anyone know who chose 3 days? I couldn't remember how I decided on 3 days when setting up the Miszabot archiving [2], it appears I just followed the old Werdnabot code [3]. There doesn't appear to be a way to force an archive on next update and you're right, it doesn't sound like it would be that useful but I noticed on User talk:Misza13 it's suggested you use sometimes like <!-- 00:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)--> to prevent an archive Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a fake time stamp will work of course. I didn't think of that. But that can obviously only work to delay archival, not to make it quicker (unless you delete the timestamps of all who have replied in the last three days, but still leave a timestamp older than three days).
I think we should manually archive threads that are obviously finished but I'm hesitant to make judgement calls, maybe it really is better to wait until the posts are archived automatically. I think your choice of three days was a good one at the time, but I think that today we're getting a lot more posts and it might be time to discuss this issue. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this is needed. It's not like this page gets that long for the most part. howcheng {chat} 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Howcheng. The length of this page is pretty manageable right now. If it starts getting a lot longer though, then I would tweak the bot settings. Lovelac7 13:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Today it's nice and short, just eight topics. But when I came back from Easter break yesterday this is what I saw. A talk page with fourteen posts, most of them no longer active. Add to that the error discussions transcluded at the top of this page, and you get quite a lot of reading. This is what led me to create this topic (it was the fifteenth one at the time) Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Help me...

Im having some trouble with this. I just joined. Im very interested on the wikipedia. How do i edit pages? Or can i even do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilehun24 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Press the 'edit this page' button on any page you think you can improve. -- Naerii 21:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is probably worth noting that the main page is protected, so only administrators can edit it (this is due to potential vandalism to the most visible page on Wikipedia). However, the vast majority of pages are editable by anyone. Happy editing! nneonneo (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Next time, please be so kind that both of you comply with the above template; thank you. Tourskin (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Welcome. -Elmer Clark (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comply with what template? -- Naerii 16:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The one that says that you're only supposed to use this page for Main Page related queries. But I don't think it matters now... Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, pls be nice to newbies. --74.13.129.178 (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

All I can see is experienced users aiding a new editor, I'd like you to point out to me what you think is not nice. Troplock (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was aimed at Tourskin... 81.157.46.230 (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Troplock (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Black main page to support dimming light?

Several cities worldwide will turn off light. Sydney has just begun as one of the world's first cities. What about a black main page at Wikipedia to support this protest against climate change? As far as I know Google will do so, too. 85.178.35.174 (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't take a stance on things like this, and we don't 'decorate' the main page to go along with holidays either. It's good idea, but not a Wikipedia thing, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See Earth Hour#Google for the google info (though google.com is not currently black for me? but google.ca is). See also Blackle.com#Criticism for why it isn't helpful to go black permanently. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone removed the Google section from that article. -- Naerii 19:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Decorating the main page or any other page will create lag. So making it simple is better. Otherwise users with slow internet will lag a lot. Jaewonnie (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, displaying black in place of white would certainly not cause lag... -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You never know... :P Jaewonnie (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with J Milburn, we are an encyclopedia, our job is to give information in a neutral manner, blacking the main page only serves to disrupt that neutrality. Troplock (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to being a source of potential confusion for users. Meanwhile interested parties could compile a news item or article about it: aims, organizers, impact, etc. Happy Editing! Shir-El too 16:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

10 million articles? WOOHOO!

Wow, 10,000,000??? Awesome, Wikipedias! Hadn't thought of a global language count before, so this is impressive to me. Gotta start working on 10,000,000 more, now! Kreachure (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If anything it shows how weak the other language wikis are as the English Wikipedia takes up nearly 1/4 of those 10,000,000 articles. -- Naerii 17:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, it shows how much crap we have on this one. J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Also shows how much more room for expansion there is globally. Joshdboz (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only that but the top 10 (including English) represent about 6.5/10 million Nil Einne (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And we have 12M pages overall (articles plus other crap) while the German WP has just over 2M pages *swoon*. What's taking all the space?! On the other han,d we have 212M edits while the de-wp has 45M, snigger. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Pages and pages of deletion discussions, talk pages for most articles, and thousands of useless user subpages make up a lot of that, I would imagine. Oh, and redirects. J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So, no woohoo then? :P Kreachure (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we can try to get the woohoo back. How about creating articles about Tennis racquets and stuff :P (yah its lame...but still). And I'm to noob to know how to cite references otherwise I would've already made them. Jaewonnie (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, with the page-wide orange box at the top of the main page, I keep thinking that I have new messages. Lovelac7 02:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it highly suspect. I bet it was written about dildos but who wants that banner on the frontpage?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Wikipedia! Whoa, 10 million articles! Great job, keep working! -- MR.CRO95 (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, congrats Wikipedia and for the Sloan grant.......and I noticed in checking out the 10 millionth that, although the current number of articles in English is updated with each one, the numbers for the leading other languages are not..... and, after checking out Deutsch/German, I see there are over 430,000 more than stated on the MaIN PAGE.....

(I wondered how yu oculd be at 10,000,000 with the second so far behind and the leader at only 23% of that total)

maybe someone is considering updating tht info on the home page...seems like a great time....

67.163.141.14 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read the main page carefully, you will find that our largest category is for wikipedias with more then 300 thousand articles. The German and French (2nd and 3rd largest) wikipedias have 730,454 and 641,061 articles respectively, which are indeed more then 300k so there is nothing outdated or incorrect about the categorisation. The reason we don't include a larger category is because it looks silly with a category only containing say 2 items Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

10M overall main page banner

Template_talk:Main_Page_banner#10M_overall -- Zanimum (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

the template should say "was the 10 millionth article".--24.109.218.172 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

10 million? Yes ... but

10 million articles is an achievement ... if you don't take into account all "non really encylopedical" articles... I mean, in "traditionnal" encyclopedias such as Encarta, Univers or Brittanica, you'll never find articles about episodes of TV series ... I mean you'll find an article about the Simpsons but that's it. Still, I think that wiki is an outstanding tool which shows us that knowledge is not limited to the english language.Mitch1981 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think that having articles about the works of Shakespeare is encyclopeadic? If so - then to write about Shakespeare and not about The Simpsons is POV. They are both works of fiction - they are both enjoyed by similar numbers of people (well, that's a guess - but I'm pretty sure Shakespeare would lose out if we put it to the test). Most importantly - I absolutely guarantee that more of our readership find the Simpsons articles useful than find the Shakespeare articles useful. This even-handed approach to having articles means that we can actually answer the questions people truly have on a day-to-day basis - something that Encarta, Univers and Brittanica cannot hope to achieve. Our neutrality (and lack of snobbery) is what makes us the success we are. SteveBaker (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No "buts" about it!

In all this flap two very important points are being ignored, and I quote: "In December 2007, the German magazine Stern announced in an independent study of 50 articles that the German Wikipedia was more accurate, complete and up-to-date than the longstanding print encyclopedia Brockhaus. In April 2007, a study conducted by the Hewlett Packard Information Dynamics Laboratory found that the best articles on the English Wikipedia are those that have been edited the most frequently, by the largest number of people. It concluded that the correlation between article quality and the number of edits validates Wikipedia as a successful collaborative effort."

In another study (I missed the citation) over 70% of English Wikipedia articles were found accurate - about on a par with printed encyclopedias!

As to the above caveat about "traditional" encyclopedias, I prefer this: that I do not have to find 5-10 different out-of-date reference books to track down anything I need or want to know!

LONG LIVE WIKIPEDIA! GOD BLESS JIM WALES and the other mad GENIUSES who came up with WIKIS!!! Shir-El too 17:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we done yet?

The 10 million articles banner looks too much like "you have new messages". How long does an arbitrary self-congratulatory milestone have to last for? BigBlueFish (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I vote for 3 days total. Any other thoughts? Dragons flight (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How about one of those "hide" buttons like on the wikimania banners? Troplock (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Howabout just removing it altogether?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm for that plan to, lets just drop it, it looks terrible, and its very debatable weither 10,000,000 articles is a good thing or not. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 08:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Note that the 10mth article was created at the beginning of the 27th, making it 4 days 9 hours gone; the press release was 2 days 11 hours ago. I'm not too fussed when it goes but at least by tonight does seem reasonable. BigBlueFish (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like consensus to me. I'm removing it. J Milburn (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. J Milburn (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Main page/tomorrow discussion error?

Why does the discussion page of the Main Page/Tomorrow display questions from 2006? Is there a problem with the system? Troplock (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed now. Maybe that's why a link was red a while ago. --Howard the Duck 08:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, best regards, Troplock (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ma Ying-jeou' picture on main page...

Please change it. Thank you, Shir-El too 16:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion in WP:Errors at the top of this page Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

April Fools Day

Since April Fools Day is coming up, can we have some reminder not to create false articles? 68.100.224.185 (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, just a sack full of editors and admins ready to tag, revert and delete. J Milburn (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok then...68.100.224.185 (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

the april fools blurb epically fails. its not funny.--24.109.218.172 (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. It is funny as fuck. Mike R (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another lame front page.. and to think people work on this throughout most of the year? *rolls eyes*. - Boochan (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what's not funny. What's all the lame? 68.100.224.185 (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The front page (apart from the news section) are meant to be "funny" , but tend to fail miserably every single April the 1st. - Boochan (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that. How about one really funny and somewhat plausible main article or something else tactfully put among real pieces, rather than an over the top page like this the next time? 66.65.42.76 (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That is real, that's the point. Nothing in the main page is false. J Milburn (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not say it is false, I said it is over the top and unfunny. Repeating that it is all true does not make it any funnier. The thing is, it tries too hard to be unbelievable and as a result coherence is lost. It was a pain to read Ima Hogg piece where even the sentences did not make sense and people were so obviously trying hard to be unbelievable with the other pieces that you lost interest immediately. I was suggesting that instead one may try what BBC did with the spaghetti trees pieces back in 50's or 60's, which is real funny and entertaining. Well if you think that is not original enough, I will have to ask what is so original about making an April Fool's joke, and then keep repeating the same joke each year. 66.65.42.76 (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to tell the truth in an unbelievable fashion that people think it is a lie. That is why last year was so epically awesome. The Placebo Effect (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)'Did you know?' is also not meant to be funny. OTD, FA and FP are, though. J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK is meant to be funny too; we were just late doing the update today. howcheng {chat} 03:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Ya know what we should do? Under the news section, we ought to say that the US government has nationalized Wikipedia. Wikipedia now belongs to the government.  Marlith (Talk)  00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, because that wouldn't be true. The point is that everything on the main page is still true. J Milburn (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure we can find something MORE ridiculous or funny. What's currently on the main page is ḸΆṃΞ68.100.224.185 (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, well, we did do the Brittanica thing a few years back. But the times have changed.  Marlith (Talk)  00:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Further proving why humor can't be created by committee. Cigarette (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC) I completely agree68.100.224.185 (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I admit the blurb wasn't particularly inspired work, but a few people claimed to like it. If y'all are so goddamned funny, get involved and go write something knee-slappingly silly next year.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Silliness ≠ comedy. If you want to make a joke, make it within the confines of Wikipedia's style and rules. Otherwise it seems crass. The featured picture I like because it's a ridiculous subject treated just like any other page. Here's the problem Wikipedia faces: We don't want to turn off those who may not be familiar with AFD, so we can't use blatantly false information told in the traditional Wikipedia editorial voice. On the other hand, we shouldn't be displaying a sophomoric sense of humor, because then we're just some kids wearing their clothes backwards to school. This, I think, leaves two options: a joke about Wikipedia itself that does not tarnish its image as a provider of information (I thought the Encyclopedia Britannica joke was a good concept), or something like last year's George Washington, inventor of instant coffee, wherein one uses subtlety (or tries to) to playfully misdirect without giving misinformation. The Ima Hogg blurb is just silliness. Cigarette (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nothing in the Hogg blurb is false (check the article if you dispute this), though that I concede it is unsubtle and unrepentantly silly. As I said, you are most welcome to apply your sophistication toward a superior joke next year.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. We learned about Ima Hogg in Texas History back in middle school. I've also visited her house a few times. It's legit, even though her name is weird. --Jmatlock (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we just blank the main page. It seems any time anything is on the main page, it's worthy of dozens of complaints.-Wafulz (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't DYK, news, and featured picture join in this year? The effect is diluted by not having everyone in like last year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Struck, whew, I see DYK was just late, but now they're there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think its funny, I was like wait a minute, cus i forgot about April Fools day then i read this. :D Terrasidius (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the Featured Picture? I'm pretty sure that was choosen for today for that reason. Cause it is so crazy a coat of arms. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, love it. Well done, everybody who worked on this. Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does this sort of stuff get discussed beforehand? All the planning etc? 203.97.51.149 (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks! 203.97.51.149 (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done, all, thanks so much. And for the preview in the commons Image:Sa-warthog.jpg picture of the day yesterday, too, whether accidental or nay, it anticipated a hog theme. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The principle of still telling the truth - even though it's April 1st is a valid one. I can't imagine any circumstance under which you'd get a consensus for making fake articles. After all, not all of our English readership celebrate April Fools Day and we'd be doing them a disservice. Now, having said that - it's very hard to find articles that are unbelievable AND funny AND good enough to make the front page. I believe that our April 1st front page educates people just as well as any other day. Ima Hogg was a very notable Texan - her colorful life is interesting to read about - and her name simply makes the article just unbelievable enough to make people wonder whether we cheated and wrote a fake article. We don't drop our standards for FAC - Ima Hogg had to get through that process just like any other. The DYK section does relax standards just a little - we allow somewhat larger articles - and we relax the rule that they had to be written during the last week to allow anything written in the past year to be accepted. It may very well be that you don't find them funny...not everyone has the same sense of humor. The only way to improve the process - just like anything else on Wikipedia is to contribute. So start now - help find articles for next year's April 1st and your humor preference will be better represented. SteveBaker (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto that. Now would be the time to start working up to featured standard (for next year) Lick me in the ass, Casu marzu or Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116. We (I) put out pleas far and wide for people to work up these articles; kudos to the Ima Hogg editors for doing it (in two weeks). No one else did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How the hell can anyone say this shit is true? Indendence Day in a non-existent country? FALSE. This is why wikipedia is respected by no one.

• The joke's on these people who can't see past their navels. Really, they should get a life; the Ima Hogg main-page stunt was clever and well pitched. TONY (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April 1 Featured Article

I mean to say, Ima Hogg [sic]? And an achievement of arms with 719(!) quarterings?

Both of these appear to have been added with the date in mind. :-) -- 217.171.129.75 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ima's a real person, believe it or not. We learned about her in middle school in Texas History. Jmatlock (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Should have been Uncyclopedia, I say! 76.84.12.144 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Try this again next year, if you like. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay so how is Google's G-mail notable enough to be featured on the 'this day' thing?

??? Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's one of the most notable email services, and was created on 2004-04-01? Admittedly the entry is slightly tongue-in-cheek, but essentially true. -- Korax1214 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an error in the statement. It says Google provided 1000 megabytes of storage for "spam". Needs to be changed to "email". Hari (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy April Fools' Day. If you insist, please see #Main Page error reports above. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an article about an email account that can store spam, but there is no mention of the formation of the world's oldest independent air force, the RAF, not only that but it is also the 90th anniversary of the RAF, who decides these things because they need to know what is an interesting event and what a handful of geeks may find vaguely interesting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.84.51 (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There are far too many notable and important things that happened on one particular day to mention them all - note that there is a link under that section to More events on this day... - and if you take a moment to click on it - you'll discover that the formation of the RAF is indeed listed - along with more than 50 other notable events - not including over 100 notable births and deaths that occurred on April 1st. The choice of which of those 150 things appear in that list is largely a value judgement - and hence a community decision. If you don't like the choices that are made - then there is an easy way to fix that: join in the discussion and you can influence that debate. SteveBaker (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to FA

It seems to me that today's FA entry might have been vandalized a bit. If it hasn't, then the tone doesn't seem quite right for the front page in my opinion. I know "Ima Hogg" was a real person and the article is certainly worthy of the front page, it's just the language seems a bit too lighthearted and knowing for an encyclopedia article (a good example is the "just ask" addendum at the end). -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

On any other day, you'd be absolutely correct. But even Wikipedia can have fun once a year. --Herald Alberich (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I love the goofy choice of articles but the last sentence of the FA blurb is complete fucking bullshit

Cut the authors a little slack - ending blurbs are a real pain.

It's supposed to be. '''[[User:WBOSITG|<font color="darkblue">weburiedoursecrets</font>]][[User talk:WBOSITG|<font color="navy">inthegarden</font>]]''' (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Torre Agbar"

That blue and red erection picture in the news. It's an April first joke, right? Wanderer57 (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Pls see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#Pritzker Prize. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They are the anti-Earth Hour peeps who installed colorful lights on their building. 122.2.95.29 (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ima Hogg Vandalism

Today's featured article seems to have been vandalized. Not sure how to revert.--81.80.196.44 (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Ok, sorry... had forgotten about the date. D'oh!--81.80.196.44 (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha! '''[[User:WBOSITG|<font color="darkblue">weburiedoursecrets</font>]][[User talk:WBOSITG|<font color="navy">inthegarden</font>]]''' (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not vandalized. It's all true. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-01 15:05Z

Bias?

I know people are going to jump on me for this but that anyone else feel that with the concentration on making things funny for April Fools, we've let too much systemic bias creep into the main page today [4]? Ignoring ITN and the holidays bit of SA/OTD (both of which are serious enough that this issue isn't relevant), in TFA, DYK, events part of SA/OTD and FP, there is basically only 2 things not more or less exclusively concerning North America or the UK, the Google entry (which I guess you could say is international) and the illegal to die bit (which mentions France, Spain and Brazil) are really the only exceptions. Systemic bias is always a problem but particularly given the planning which I presume went into this, it would have been good if people could have avoided this, perhaps including something from Africa, Asia or South America in the events part of SA/OTD and perhaps something other then the illegal to die in DYK. DYK next update looks slightly better with something about Eastern Europe, Jupiter and Australia. Just to be clear, I'm serious here and this isn't intended to be an April Fools Joke (as I agree, bias jokes are no longer funny). Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! This is me - jumping on you for this. Bias for one day out of the year is not systemic - it's mere statistical variation. You can only call it systemic bias if the random variations don't even out over the long term. And the holidays bit of OTD wasn't 100% serious...(San Serriffe?!)...Gotcha! SteveBaker (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is very serious business. Concering the LG/DYK variations, I feel there is too much of a TG bias in the NWA GOP-SAP marketplace. Maybe we can ROFL the MBA-themed OMGF's? I'm also extremely worried about the DYK getting into the DNP statistical PPM RTV-QWERTY abbreviations. This is no laughing matter. Deepfryer99 (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

AFDFA

The above title can be interpreted in two ways

1. We send featured articles to the bin and create chaos which would be nice...

2. Talking about today's FA

I am afraid that i am going to go into an uncontrollable rant about the subject on which i want to talk about which i am going to soon talk about or rather write about just as soon as i can get it out of my head down through my fingers hitting letters on the keyboard and having the screen in front of me displaying large rectangles with gaps in them and shapes within these rectangles which are bothe blocky and curved which are called letters and therefore the unusual rectangles are called words but what i am trying ty do is not going to be long and rambling oh i just realised i am doing that already sorry my mistake iw will continue but currently i think that maybe this sentence is a little over the top.

Well okay, the title is talking about FAs on AFD (April Fools Day, that is). I feel that it seems that for the last few years, the articles, although humourous i'll admit, have been focussed on American-based things. Next year, could the humourous article be on an unexpected play on a character or similar, from another country? Simply south (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been mentioned before. It may be a coincidence that it is an American person, or it may just be that Wikipedians are naturally biased (well, most are from the US). It really doesn't matter, though, in my opinion. '''[[User:WBOSITG|<font color="darkblue">weburiedoursecrets</font>]][[User talk:WBOSITG|<font color="navy">inthegarden</font>]]''' (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's basically a matter of who's motivated enough to write an article about a wack topic and get it to FA status. Two weeks ago the FA director noticed that there weren't any appropriate articles ready for April Fool's, so about a dozen people chose a topic and started writing. Ima Hogg was chosen primarily because several of us had access to biographies about her. It's not too early for someone else to start writing next year's article! Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. And for those worried about bias, none of the following (mentioned in the Signpost at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Dispatches) are US-centric (but no one wrote them): Lick me in the ass, Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 and Casu marzu. Now's the time to get on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that Lick me in the ass could be much improved as an April 1 item. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism!

Has anyone even noticed the text on the main page? It's protected now, so I can't revert it. Is there an administrator out there? --Jcmo (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

what text? ..--Cometstyles 14:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The text of the article of the day looks very dodgy to me. --Jcmo (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The date? [slaps forehead] '''[[User:WBOSITG|<font color="darkblue">weburiedoursecrets</font>]][[User talk:WBOSITG|<font color="navy">inthegarden</font>]]''' (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I was caught! Nice one guys. --Jcmo (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for being a good sport! '''[[User:WBOSITG|<font color="darkblue">weburiedoursecrets</font>]][[User talk:WBOSITG|<font color="navy">inthegarden</font>]]''' (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What? Vandalism?! Oh, no! RED ALERT! RED ALERT !!!! Art LaPella (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Relax, tomorrow this will pass, April's Fools is just 1 in 365 days.--MCP9999 (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fools Stupidity

This is an encyclopedia, People come here for accurate information, not jokes. All this April Fools bullshit has no place on wikipedia. It is not funny so the entire gag is a miserable failure. But more importantly, the goal of an encyclopedia does NOT included releasing information once each year. No real encyclpedia worth its salt would do such nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.66.35 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of it is accurate and the rest just a stretching of the truth. 128.227.117.193 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all of it is accurate, but a lot (OK, all) is tongue-in-cheek. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What parts are incorrect? None of it is fake. I guess you can blame people for living more interesting lives...? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-01 16:31Z

I don't understand what is meant by "releasing information once each year." As the others said, nothing on the main page is false. Leebo ^T/C 16:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And it's very interesting stuff as well. nedargehtnistercesruodeirubew 16:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand that phrase either, but the rest of it says he doesn't like April Fools Day. He might want to check places like Template talk:Did you know next mid-March, search for "April Fool" and follow the links to express his opinion, when we're first getting organized. Art LaPella (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he meant "releasing false information". — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-01 17:33Z

I fully agree. This is part of the reason that people don't take the wikipedia seriously. If the wikipedia is to have any clout, stuff like this needs to end. On top of which, this now makes me wonder how much of the "information" on the front page is really crap.Bobbit bob (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Except all of the "information" on the front page today is real, so... --Maxamegalon2000 18:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say "crap"? As many have said, nothing on the page is false. None of it is inaccurate. You should follow Art LaPella's advice if you want to provide input for the main page design next year. If you are agreeing with the original editor's sentiment against false information, that's not what the page contains. Leebo ^T/C 18:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea that people won't take Wikipedia seriously because it takes part in the spirt of a holiday is complete nonsense. Even serious news sources and documentaries have gotten in on the act, both this year and in the past. For a contemporary example, see the BBC's coverage of flying penguins, and for a less recent one, see their documentary on the Spaghetti tree. Irreverent news on an irreverent day doesn't make one instantly lose faith in a source of information (it's when stuff like this happens on any other day of the year that that happens). In short: lighten up before you give yourself an ulcer. --Jayunderscorezero (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• First and foremost, it's all true - everything we put on the front page today is every bit as true as the material we put up there on any other day.
• Secondly, other encyclopedias don't do it because they can't do it. They are in print or on CD-ROM and you can't make the pages change depending on what day it is.
• Thirdly - the Wikipedia front page ISN'T a part of the encyclopedia - it's an interesting portal that points to things that may be of interest to our readers within the encyclopedia itself. The actual encyclopedia CONTENT doesn't change on April 1st any more than on any other day. The Ima Hogg article has been around since June 4th 2005 - and will still be there for as long as Wikipedia continues to exist. It truly is a featured article that's been brought up to the required standard. Today is merely a suitable day to suggest to people that they might like to read it.
• Finally - if you think all other encyclopedias are monuments to purity of thought and the last bastions of humorlessness - check out our article on Lillian Virginia Mountweazel - and Mountweazels in general.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if the stuff on the main page was fake, I would still opine that humorlessness can be more dangerous than misleading information. Perhaps next year the main page could be so ridiculous and impossibly foolish that no one could even mistake it for reliable accurate information. Didn't someone once suggest switching main pages with Uncyclopedia for a day? Think about it...today kind of flopped, though (some of it was genuinely funny). Antimatter--talk-- 18:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC) .

Those britons in their wonderful flying machines

The RAF is exactly 90 years old today, shouldn't that get a front page mention on en.wikipedia.org, like a Spitfire photo included, or something else to annoy fans of the the Luftwaffe? 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Ò

Well, if you noticed the other, more obscure things on that page... nedargehtnistercesruodeirubew 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind of unfortunate that notable events that happened to occur on April 1 don't get to make the front page if no one thinks of a way to make them funny. Actually, there seems to be good comedic potential for the 90th anniversary of the RAF. Like the original poster said, "Those Britons in their wonderful flying machines". Someone should think of a way to make it fit with the rest of the front page quickly, because it won't be a significant anniversary next year when they turn 91. DOSGuy (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Good work, chaps! 1918 – The British Armed Forces established a new branch to grant personnel the power to fly. 76.10.162.250 (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The information is NOT correct. Looking at the front page, one learns the Grand Canyon is in Pennsylvania. Any REAL encyclopedia does not put out false, or even misleading, information. It's just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.66.35 (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't simply "false", without mentioning that the Main Page links to the Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania. Yes it's "misleading", in the spirit of April Fools' Day. Whether it's "just wrong" is debated in the previous section, #April Fools Stupidity. Art LaPella (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

lol wut

hey hi i dont knw much abt this page but would like to knw abt it...can any1 help me out with this...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imran one (talk • contribs) 17:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Try Main Page FAQ, Questions or New contributors' help page. Art LaPella (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's try speaking in english, this isn't MSN, so we talk proper english here, secondly, this is the main page discussion section, there is a newbie section linked above. Troplock (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ima Hogg Vandalism

Will an admin PLEASE lock this article for 24 hours? It's receiving excessive vandalism. Fuzzform (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times in the past, but it's usually been agreed upon that it's worth more to have the featured article of the day open to everyone than to prevent vandalism that can be reverted by the many who have the page watched. Leebo ^T/C 19:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think we changed that a while back. There used to be a "Don't protect the Main page featured article" page that I can't find anymore, and I've noticed that increasingly we semi-protect it. Is that what happened? Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That may indeed be the case. I haven't been editing quite as regularly over the last few months, so if a new policy came up, I might have missed it. But the place to request such a thing would be Requests for page protection, not this page. Leebo ^T/C 20:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And upon looking at RFPP, someone already declined to protect Ima Hogg on the basis of that page you mentioned. Leebo ^T/C 20:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The page in question is at WP:NOPRO. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Main page summary

SOMEONE FIX THE MAIN PAGE SUMMARY. That summary has almost nothing to do with the Ima Hogg article, and looks like a hoax. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Because of today, the summary has a little humor added, but it's not factually inaccurate by any means. Leebo ^T/C 20:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Aargh... I just noticed the date on my signature. Nevermind! ~Amatulić (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OVERCLOCKING

Many thanks for assistance. It worked ... hence I'm back on-line! Thank you immensely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.166.22 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you're looking for another page, perhaps the computing reference desk or the talk page of the overclocking article, or maybe even an entirely different website.--VectorPotential^Talk 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ima Hogg

201.230.203.18 (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Hi!

While I'm not an expert on Ima Hogg, I am originally from Houston, Texas and remember when we studied the Hogg family in college at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. Some of the information in your article is incorrect and/or incomplete.

Jim Hogg was the twice elected governor of Texas in the late 1800s.

His brother, whose name I can't recall, wrote a not-very-widely-read poem about the civil war. In the poem, the heroine was namded Ima. Jim liked the name so much that he gave the name to his only daughter. There is no evidence in the historical record to indicate that Jim ever thought about the consequences of such a funny sounding name.

Ima had 3 brothers. I believe she was the second oldest child. There was never a "Ura," a "Heesa," or a "Sheesa" Hogg.

There is no indication in the historical record that Ima was ever involved in any schemes, nor is there any evidence that Jim ever mistreated Ima or forbid her to sell any portion of her inheritance.

Jim Hogg was injured in a railroad accident in 1905, and died the following year, after not ever having fully recovered from his ijuries.

Jim created the Texas Railroad Commission (TRC)to regulate the railroad companies. After the oil business took off, Texas couldn't decide what department should oversee the oil and drilling business. In a hasty political decision, the TRC was assigned oversight of the oil industry. The TRC is one of the most politically powerful agencies in Texas.

Being from Texas, I've heard just about every Ima joke there is.

By the way, think that political trash talking like that between Obama and Clinton is new? While campaigning for a second term as Texas governor in 1892 (I think it 1892), Governor Hogg declared that his oponent wasn't "worth a bucket of warm spit."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.203.18 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but you said some of the information in the article was incorrect or incomplete, while putting out a long list of information that is correctly included and cited in the article. Looks like you failed to read the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, the main article clearly says the sisters were created by the media and the blurb even says they were "apocryphal." The train death thing is a problem though. 128.227.171.238 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no. The sentence I wrote in the blurb about the train is absolutely true (though devilishly worded to mislead). The great Elcobbola parses the sentence here[5].--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The "bucket of warm spit" comment was made by John Nance Garner about the vice presidency. FCYTravis (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Learn something every day - it was "bucket of warm piss." FCYTravis (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here - if there are errors in the article and you have citations to prove it - then change it. If you believe there are errors and you don't have citations and there are citations in the article to support it - then you're wrong. If neither point of view has citations or if you have dualling citations then discuss it on the Ima Hogg talk page - not here. This is Wikipedia for chrissakes! SteveBaker (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nunavut

I am writing about today in the news the NWT article it makes it sound like the people themselves are being shredded and it needs to be checked for syntax

a better choice of words would be

"Today, the Northwest Territories was split in two, with the Western half retaining the same name and the eastern half becoming the new territory of Nunavut (which should be linked to).

Otherwise it is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.255.225 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't mention that the whole page is similarly confusing. April fool! Art LaPella (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that it's not April Fools' Day anymore...

...shouldn't we replace the fully lit Torre Agbar with something better suited? Æetlr Creejl 00:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That isn't a joke, it's an example of that guy's work. What's wrong with it? J Milburn (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the same thing that's "wrong" with 30 St Mary Axe. But seriously, Torre Agbar is one of Nouvel's best-known designs. We don't have a free picture of the man himself. Would you rather have an image of some other work of his? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong with it - I thought it was a joke for Earth Hour. Æetlr Creejl 09:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was included in April Fools because it looked like a giant......--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Main Page on April 1: Masterpiece

The April 1st main page was a thing of beauty. Congratulations to all who obviously did a lot of work on it. The criticism was per usual, from the confused to the wet blankets to the self-proclaimed comedic experts who could do better if they ever got around to being funny. I do agree with Nil, however: next year be sure to make more fun of foreigners. They talk funny. —Kevin Myers 01:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, thanks, regardless of the racist comment... =P Then again, I think Novacastrians speak funny. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Feature article

How do I nominate an article for the FA, if someone knows I would like to nominate and cast my vote for Persecution of Jews, the article is very well written and very relevant in this day and age.Hebrewpridehebrewpower (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:Featured article candidates. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)