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 10:32 on 9 August 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)

Tomorrow's FA

• When she became its leader, she evaded capture by the authorities making her a heroine for the Other Backward Classes.

Missing a second comma after "authorities." As it is, it reads like the authorities made her a heroine, and that was what allowed her to evade capture. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, do you concur? Seems a sensible change to make. Schwede66 05:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The comma was deliberately omitted and to my eye - and school of commaisation - it reads better without it, but it is not an issue which greatly concerns me either way. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• Item on 2025 Philippine general election: please hyphenate to read "voting-system provider". JMCHutchinson (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• In the section for 1944, the link for Bambi is Bambi (i.e. the film) not Bambi (character). Aydoh8^[contribs] 01:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Fixed the link. Schwede66 02:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe clarify that link change? Per the Smokey Bear article, it was specifically the Disney Bambi ("Walt Disney allowed his characters to appear") rather than the original character from Salten's novel. Perhaps clarify by changing "mascot to replace Bambi" to 'mascot to replace Disney's Bambi.'... or... change Bambi link to section 'Bambi (1942)'? JennyOz (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD

• 1904 Battle of the Yellow Sea - the sentence that has "naval history's first major confrontation" is not sourced. It may be in sources of next para but I can't access Forczyk and a search gives ambiguous results (some say that the following year's Battle of Tsushima was the first).

Instead of pulling, we could change the item to something else from article that is sourced? JennyOz (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• 2019 Typhoon Lekima - has been superseded as costliest in Chinese history (by Typhoon Doksuri 2023). Also Lekima's article suggests Typhoon Fitow 2013 was costlier.

Swap "made landfall in Zhejiang, China, and went on to become the costliest typhoon in Chinese history." to 'killing 45 people in the province'? JennyOz (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done as suggested. Schwede66 05:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 9, today)

Monday's FL

(August 12)

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

Must we have so much Christian stuff on the main page?

It seems that every day there is something to do with Christianity on either the "did you know?" or "on this day" sections....and it's often to do with one creed, Catholicism. I could care less about what Pope Bulldust said or did on any day in history. Is this some kind of cabal of religious people putting that dross up? I never see much on Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim related articles (not that I want to, seeing I'm a rational person, i.e. an atheist). With the unending list of far more interesting articles to cite, why all this religion on a supposedly secular site?

United Kingdom election

Old discussion also ongoing at WP:ITNC#United Kingdom general election, 2010.

While I appreciate I may be a tad biased, is the whole "most important and on-the-rocks British general election in 30 years" thing not worth an "on this day.." piece? Ironholds (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ITN/C (there seems to be strong support there), although I'm sure that elections aren't really considered newsworthy until a result is declared; even more newsworty if there is a hung parliament? 79.67.153.54 (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... It's not a holiday and it's not an anniversary of an event. That's why it's not there. When the results are in, it'll appear on ITN. I hate to sound curt, but when you have more than 50,000 edits and two years under your belt, it's really annoying to get this kind of complaint. It's quite apparent, even from first glance, what some of the most basic criteria for OTD are. But, now you're telling me that after the hundreds, if not thousands, of times you've seen the Main Page, you still don't recognize this. Wow. -- tariqabjotu 10:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not curt, just rude. A search through any of those 50,000 edits and two years of contributions would find that I've never really contributed anything to the main page, other than the articles I spend my time writing. A simple explanation as given below by HJ Mitchell would have been sufficient. Ironholds (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Say what you want, but I have no qualms expressing annoyance or surprise that an apparently experienced editor doesn't know the purpose of OTD. The tone of my response met the tone of your inquiry just fine. -- tariqabjotu 01:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't qualify for OTD because it's not an anniversary or anything like that, but the results will be on ITN when they're known. I'm not a huge fan of that rule, but it was the same for the last US presidential election and every other election. It would be nice to be able to give more MP coverage to these kinds of events, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm also an experienced editor, and I have to agree with Ironholds. The 2008 US election was well covered, even going to the unprecidented step of having a double TFA. Not even mentioning the UK election will no doubt elicit false claims of American bias. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Because we had a featured article on John McCain, which had never appeared as TFA before. But there was concern that might look bad to only feature one of the candidates and Barack Obama, while having been TFA before, was also featured. So, we went with two. In this case, is Gordon Brown or David Cameron or Nick Clegg featured? No, no, and no. Do we have any article related to the election that's featured? Maybe, but we also have a 100th-anniversary article, which, if it is any consolation, is related to the UK. We cannot be compelled to slap something on the Main Page, when we have nothing that meets qualifications, just because it is one of the biggest news stories or because it's important in a particular person's country. Perhaps the current setup will elicit false claims of American bias, but as they are false we are perfectly right to ignore them. But what seems to be suggested is that we go out of our way to include something on one country's election, even though there is nothing that fits the criteria; now that's bias. -- tariqabjotu 11:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, maybe waiting for the results..?  f o x  10:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is worth pointing out that whilst a different system is used in the US, Election Day (US) is added to OTD every year between Nov 2-8 [1] [2] [3] , the period during which all elections must occur in the US. There is an article Election Day (United Kingdom), which could have been used to do the same in this case... --Daviessimo (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Election days in presidential democracies are sorta "fixed", in the U.S. case it's in November's second Tuesday of the leap year. In parliamentary democracies it is not so, but it is worth mentioning that the UK's election date this year was almost the same 5 years ago. –Howard the Duck 10:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really- by convention (one of the many, many unwritten rules that make up the "constitution"!), British elections are usually held on the first Thursday in May. The only thing unusual about it is that Brown decided to go right to the end of his 5-year term when his predecessors have generally held an election after 4 years. As I said above, it would be nice to give it more coverage on the Main Page, especially since a lot of people are going to want to read about it, but we don't have anything that meets the criteria for any of the sections. I believe it was suggested a while back the we put a "sticky link" at the bottom of ITN for major elections like we do for the Olympics... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(←)I don't get why we can't add "The United Kingdom holds a parliamentary election" to ITN now, and update it with the results after. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 14:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the blurb should be added now, but the link at the bottom is a good idea imo and I think we should do it for all major elections. I'm tempted to be bold and do it but I don't think WP:BOLD was intended for fully-protected pages! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what I had in mind- I added it and then immediately reverted myself so I could provide an illustration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably would have been better putting it in another page. ;)  f o x  15:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added it back per a comment on ITN/C. I'm open to suggestions on moving/rewording etc, but I think we should leave it up as an experiment- if it works well, we can use it in future, if it doesn't, we can scrap it or come up with something else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate how this conversation is split in two places, but this is a poor idea that should be wiped from any consideration in the future. This article will not be updated much until results pour in, and just as any other article, including any other country's election, needs to wait until an update, this one does too. The disregard for the section's guidelines is unbelievable. -- tariqabjotu 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

HJM, it's certainly not a constitutional convention to hold elections in May. It's just a tendency. Peter jackson (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call it a tendency. This is the third in a row in May but there have only been four May elections in the last 11 (since the voting age was reduced to 18), see here.

My understanding is that general elections are not held during quite a few months of the year because of concerns about low turn out. Thus, essentially, excluding November to February (bad weather) and July to September (holidays).

Also there are mandatory local elections in May and so a general election is unlikely to be held close to, but not on, that date, because of concerns that the turn out at the second one will be reduced.

Currently it looks like being a hung Parliament and a new election relatively soon seems likely. If that is as a result of the government losing a confidence vote it could be at any time of the year.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think "British voters take part in a general election" should be in the news. Until the results are in, nothing interesting or notable has actually happened to report on. It struck me as really out of place when I saw the main page. The2crowrox (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

Resolved

 – After 917 days of nail-biting, I briefly got the government I voted for. And then there was a Prime Minister again :-( This unhappy state-of-affairs has now been reported at ITN. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 07:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact Gordon Brown, has stood down, i think deserves a place in the news section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireandy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean, presumably, "the fact that he has announced his intention to stand down prior to the Labour Party conference in September"? I'm not convinced that's hugely Main Page worthy... maybe when he actually stands down... TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That is fair enough, although it is a major development in the situation and so will deserve a mention at some point —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireandy talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

This is currently being discussed at WP:ITN/C. Feel free to join in teh conversation there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Animal cruelty

Now I know Wikipeida is not censored, but do we have to feature Goose pulling in DYK thereby giving it publicity? This isn't a simple case of 'I don't like it' - there are serious animal welfare issues here: the RSPCA here in the UK has shown that many animal cruelty attacks are a direct result of 'copycatting' where the perpetrator has seen animal cruelty on the internet and decided to copy it. Please, can we just quietly drop Goose pulling from the front page and leave it as a backwater article where it will get little notice? 81.156.124.135 (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As this was a widespread practice at least two centuries ago (note, dead geese are used the few places it's still practiced), I fail to see the issue. If somebody's really going to be motivated to go catch a goose, acquire a horse, set up the apparatus, et-cetera... Also, as noted, Wikipedia is not censored. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That, and there've been many issues on DYK which, if copied, could result in more consequence than a few geese dying.  f o x  18:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! Did you know "that when the Byzantine usurper John Komnenos the Fat tried to sit on the imperial throne, it broke under his weight?" (from May 6) I bet more than a few geese were harmed in the making of that man's epithet... clearly DYK should only feature vegans. ;) Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 19:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Horrible plant-killer! :P - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a case of you-don't-like-it. You don't like animal cruelty - some of us don't have a problem with it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh... ignoring the rather odd comment/probable troll above me, I think it is highly unlikely that anyone will read about this and then be inspired to go and find a geese and a horse to try it at home. Also wikipedia is not censored, etc. --Laryaghat (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd assumed the editor meant "...[I] don't have a problem with [animal cruelty on Wikipedia]. But aye, it's not censored. And anyway- where would the line get drawn? Fox hunting was legal in Britain until very recently, and may yet be legalised again - I regard it as animal cruelty, but I acknowledge that Wikipedia should have an article about it... TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In the News article on Neanderthal and homo sapiens sapiens interbreeding

Is there a better link that can be used in this in the news story? It currently jumps the reader to a portion of the Neanderthal article that doesn't appear to mention the discovery in any kind of great detail. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, we would have used Neanderthal genome project but that's in no state to be on the MP- it's got a load of ugly tags at the top and the body is full of "clarification needed" tags, but if anybody wants to improve it (I would but my knowledge of genetics is 0) I'd be happy to put it up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh geez... that page is in pretty rough shape. Not sure I can fix it, but I'll give it a shot. If nothing else, I'll reduce the page for the purpose of giving the news item a better target for the short term... Hiberniantears (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. I've given Neanderthal genome project a little initial TLC by reorganizing it, and making a far more concise intro which includes references to the published results in this month's Science (journal) as well as the Max Planck PR. It still needs substantial expansion on the results, but I think this might be a good enough first step to change to the target in the news item. Thoughts? Hiberniantears (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant! That's much better. There are still a lot of those "clarify" tags and it could use a bit of work, but I'd say it's postable so I'll do it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The NGP page was in such a bad shape because of edit-warring in the past, ironically due to a user who wanted interbreeding to be true at a time when evidence still pointed against it. --dab (𒁳) 19:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone had confused English wikipedia with England wikipedia

That explains how the Front Page has 'Harrods' as a 'big news'. --195.74.250.52 (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A Qatari-owned business? Recently sold by an Egyptian? I'd say it's international news, and that's before the consideration as to whether Harrods is itself internationally known... Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Love it, people from the UK complain of US bias and it works out the other way around. We're all patriotic twats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.202.155 (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Promoting being a Patriot Twat is normal and good is very nasty. You are a human; you have the capacity to stop yourself acting like an animal. --Leladax (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly an Australian insect bias. Too many Australian flies are contributors. User A1 (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

People are biased. Wikipedia is not Antimatter--talk-- 21:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Totally saw "Wikipedia is not antimatter".  f o x  22:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how I read it! Lol! Punctuation is your friend! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A very small percentage of our articles bother to mention antimatter at all, and when they do, it's often in passing. This systematic bias in favor of "regular" matter needs to be addressed. Perhaps if some of our editors had direct experience with antimatter, things would improve. Jonathunder (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, you're going to make be serious on Talk:Main Page... people (us) make Wikipedia biased. If we're aware of that we can deal with bias more effectively. Apologies, I'm Cap'n Bringdown right now! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm really starting to wonder if the daily claims of bias are merely facetious.--WaltCip (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Rule of thumb: If everyone thinks you are biased, you probably aren't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Saying that just proves how biased you are :P Rd232 ^talk 23:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • If you really feel the need to point that out, you just might be biased yourself.--WaltCip (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • At least I know I'm biased. "The wise man is he who knows that he knows nothing", and things like that. Rd232 ^talk 16:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Please don't call yourself "biased" ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding a how-to-contribute box

I've been doing some initial mucking around with how a Main Page "how to contribute" box could work. See here: User:Rd232/sandbox. My main conclusion: adding the box is easy enough, but filling the box with good content is really quite hard (though very worthwhile). It's hard to present the different ways people can contribute, and lead complete newbies into them in an easy or at least non-scary way. It's hard even to choose between different tasks in terms what can be simplified appropriately. Possibly part of the solution will be creating specialised, simplified versions of relevant instructions, so we don't lob newcomers right into the full-and-complete instructions intended for experienced users.

This Main Page development is not going to be easy or quick, but is really worth doing I think, and I hope others will "get it" and collaborate in this effort. I certainly can't do it alone, and present a "so brilliant no-one could fail to see how worthwhile this is" version immediately. (What I've done is barely even a placeholder; but hopefully enough to give an impression of what might be.) Rd232 ^talk 23:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved separate proposal to MediaWiki talk:Viewsource to avoid confusing the issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
PS In a somewhat similar vein, point 2 at Wikipedia:VPR#Alternatives_to_TFA_unprotection was (briefly) "change View Source to Edit This Page". I don't suppose anyone is willing to pick up the baton on that? It needs an RFC on that specific issue, probably, because it's such a visible change. (see VPR for the detailed motivation, which is essentially getting more people to edit) Not specific to the Main Page I know, but it would have a particular impact here. Rd232 talk 23:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC) If I understand the proposal correctly I think new users and existing editors alike are going to find it terribly confusing if there's nothing to differentiate between pages where they can only view the source and pages they can actually edit. And many, new users even more so, are likely to be rather annoyed if they click edit this page only to find out they can't. In fact, if anything I would say this would be far more oftputting to getting them to edit wikipedia then 'view source'. Let's not forget people usually won't need to view the source to propose changes to the page. If I see an article says "Bill Gates, the former CEO of Apple Computers" it's much easier for someone to just go to the discussion page and mention this rather then view the source and then be told they can't edit this page and be linked to the talk page. (In reality, such vandalism will be fixed so fast there's probably little point but I feel this example still illustrates the point). To put it a different way, if you feel new users are too stupid to realise they can propose changes on the "discussion" tab when they can't edit the page, you'll need to come up with an alternative to get users to the talk page rather then confusing the hell out of users by making them think they can edit the page when they can't and viewing the source for no apparent reason. If you do have a reason for wanting people who can't edit the page to view the source, I don't know what it is, but if it's something like you want to teach them they can edit articles, I'm not convinced misleading them into thinking they can and linking them to a page they can't actually edit to show them this is what it's like when you can edit, um except you can't; is a good idea. Even more so since they won't even see the proper edit window anyway. In other words, while you're free to try it, I'm resonably confident that any such RFC would be a waste of time. P.S. If you feel that an 'edit request' or some sort of explaination of why they can't edit is necessary then I suggest you look at ways that can either be implemented in the talk page, or maybe even add a new tab for something like that rather then misleading people into thinking they can edit, and directing them to the view source page for no reason. P.P.S. And without wanting to be too much of a downer, I don't see much point pushing the TFA protection change angle at the moment either given the fact flagged protection could only be a few months away as I mentioned in a new reply to the VPR discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Well thank you for your response, though I do think in general "so you think people are too stupid..." is in general a pretty unhelpful reaction to trying to make things easier and clearer. For instance, many people don't get at all (or don't really quite get) that "anyone can edit" means exactly what it says, and proposing things on the talk page may be easy, but it requires a "I can contribute" mindset which statistics tell us only 0.1% of visitors have. Foregrounding that is not in any way labelling people as stupid. Also, these ideas may have come out of the TFA protection discussion, but they are really not linked and mention of flagged protection whenever is irrelevant to them. Rather than reply in detail, I reiterate my idea in hopefully clearer form based on what you said. PS rereading what you wrote, you seem not to have clicked on a "View Source" tab (for a page you can't edit) for a long time. Rd232 talk 10:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Moved clarified version of proposal to MediaWiki talk:Viewsource. Better place for it, especially as I don't want to obscure the discussion about the Main Page "how to contribute" box, an issue you didn't address at all. Rd232 talk 10:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Just for clarification, my point about TFA protection related to the fact that while nothing here concerned TFA protection, this was still being pushed fairly recently (the TFA protection discussion was only about 1 week ago). I mentioned it here as I didn't know if you would check out the older discussion as it hadn't been edited in a while. P.S. I did check out the view source at the time I made my first reply by logging out, it was irrelevant to my answer. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just a thought, but, since the default skin is changing, we could do something very similar to the way they do over at |Wikinews, where they have a "newsroom" with collaboration requests and article under development. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

New skin

Further information: WP:Skin

How do you turn the damn new skin off? Where is my search box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.76.202 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure The new skin can be turned off if you're a registered user. (Just click "Take me back.")

The search box is in the upper right now. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The new logo is horrible!!! I'm sure keeping the classic logo on the Nahuatl Wikipedia --Fluence (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Are unregistered users able to turn off the new skin? Jonathunder (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No.  f o x  19:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I switched back- I've only just got used to having the admin buttons where they were- I don't want them moving around! not that this is the right forum but... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You people do realise if you actually want anyone involved in designing the skin to read your comments, in other words the people who can actually make a difference and actually give a damn, you probably should use the feedback system they designed rather then posting messages in some random place which they will almost definitely never see, right? If you can't find it, try clicking on 'take me back', 'new features' or 'learn more' or visit this link [4]. Edit: Just realised the feedback only works if you have an account. Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I did. I told 'em I like my buttons where they are. :) I'm sure some (even many) people like the new look, but I'm just awkward like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Was there an on-wiki community discussion of this? Is there one now? Jonathunder (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

New format SUCKS

I HATE it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.220.209 (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I HATE it when people post messages to completely the wrong place where they're only likely to be read by people who don't give a damn and can't do anything about it and also when people post a new message basically saying the same thing as the previous message by someone else right above their new message we're they've already been offered advice on what do to. But after a long time on Talk:Main Page, I've learnt to live with it. Maybe you will too for your hate... Edit: While this is still the wrong place and it's unlikely anyone useful will read what you say here I stroke that portion out as I'm not sure how anon users are supposed to offer feedback, if they are at all. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you register an account, which can be done here, you have the option changing back to the old format. Simply clicking on "Take me back" on the top bar, and clicking the "Turn new features off" button at the bottom of the page will restore the old format. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants a conspiracy theory to dwell on, it is my educated belief that the new skin was created by Userist administrators to weed out nonregistered users, either forcing them to register or making them leave Wikipedia.--WaltCip (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Have I gone blind, or has the "watch" "unwatch" button disappeared? I had to switch back to the old format temporarily, just to unwatch a page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

New format ROCKS

Just for the neutrality (and pollution of this talk page), I'm gonna say it. I love the new format. No, this is not a joke. No, I'm not being sarcastic. Yes, I really mean it.

Okay, maybe I think the new logo has the globe too little, and the puzzle pieces intersection isn't really clear. Aaaaand its more difficult for me to read an article because the left bar makes more contrast (being gray and everything). But taking out those little issues, I LOVE it. --Fixman (talk!) 21:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind the new layout. What is this 'Association Football' of which you speak?

EOM. 90.199.112.178 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a Wikipedia term for what the rest of the world calls either football or soccer. Jonathunder (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a sport originally defined by The Football Association. Confusingly, it's nothing like God's own football. From "association" British private school boys coined the term "soccer", which is widely used in preference to "association football".

...oh, and I believe in Britain it now tends to be called "football" ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 22:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why, exactly, do we pay these cretins millions of pounds for wearing short shorts and kicking a ball from one end of a field to the other? Would it not be cheaper to get chimps to do it? They's probably be better at it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Orcs are better at it, or so I've read. Jonathunder (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For the horde! No, wait a second, WAAAGH! Buggie111 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand has a different approach: this guy is the highest-paid sportsman - but he has to rely on an American. The national sport pays its players well enough that, first chance they get, they leave the country. If British football would benefit from having chimps as players, New Zealand rugby would benefit from having chimps as administrators... TFOWR^propaganda 23:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)