Talk:Main Page

Sections of this page older than three days are automatically archived.

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 07:29 on 9 May 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, determined not to be an error, or the item has rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(May 10, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(May 13)

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.

Main page general discussion

Battle?!?!?!?

Many people mistakenly believe the ship shown exploding is USS Arizona, whose destruction during the attack accounted for over half of the men killed in action during the battle.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was always under the impression that a battle was a fight between two sides.[1]

Whereas the event in Pearl Harbor is commonly referred to as the Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor. Why? Because Uncle Sam took it in the bum without response.

In fact, the clause "during the battle" strikes me as superfluous given that the reader is made aware that this was "during the attack" earlier in the sentence. So get it fixed. --220.86.152.103 03:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken:

• A battle, as you yourself described it is a fight between two sides, more or less. This was a fight, a fight which was one-sided due to the surprise achieved by the Japanese. Whether or not it was one-sided does not make it any less of a battle - you can call it an ambush, treachery etc but its still a battle.

• The United States managed to shoot 29 planes so it was not totally without loss for the Japanese. If you had read the article, you would know that it was one of the reasons why a third wave was avoided by the Imperial forces of Japan.

Next time please report possible errors at the top where it says "Errors in picture of the Day/Today's Featured Picture" Tourskin 05:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So, if I walk up to a stranger on the street an beat him about the head, you call that a battle? I'd call that an attack. That's why it is called the Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor. --220.86.152.103 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet that's not what happened - taking on your poor analogy, the stranger retaliated and broke your arm --> battle. 172.202.161.119 11:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps before arguing over word choice, you should consider style. The word "attack" is used twice in the blurb, so using it a third time (and second in the last sentence) would sound redundant. Sasha Callahan 15:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Two people constitute a battle? Don't you need at least a small army or naval fleet for that? --199.71.174.100

Battle fits fine. They did shoot back at the attackers. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should give such a poor analogy because battle comes from the word batuere which means ‘to strike, beat’. So yes if you were to beat someone on the street, that would be a battle. Or more like a bateure. Tourskin 22:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

...ok buddy. Anyway, I agree with this post - Pearl Harbor isn't generally referred to as a battle. The stylistic complaints are valid too. -Elmer Clark 09:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It may not be referred to as a battle but then again how many people call the 1st Iraq War Operation Desertstorm? Few if any, theyc all it the Gulf War. You see theres a difference between what something is (a battle) and what something is called. Any military or aggressive attack in war is a battle, no matter how small or how one-sided or how sneaky. Full-stop. Tourskin 20:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

87.244.73.107 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation? Oh You want citation? How bout every single recorded encounter in history? Thats called a battle? Hmm? Tourskin 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be taking this a little personally Fourskin. I suggest you chill out. And for what it's worth, it wasn't a battle. It was an attack. --JohnO 09:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Great Freudian slip - or were you calling him a dick? Either way - kudos.64.37.159.196 00:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh gees. The only dicks around here are people who leave such immature nonesense. If you check out Pacific Ocean theater of World War II#Major campaigns and battles, it has Pearl Harbour beneath. Hmmm, looks like it was a battle. Tourskin 00:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr mystery guest - yes, user 64.37.159.196. We at wikipedia don't normally call each other dicks. And we try not too. So understand that there is no room here for immature cuss matches. Tourskin 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not meaning to patronize you, but it's quite clear that you are not a native speaker; English is obviously not your first language. So trust me on this, you are wrong. --JohnO 08:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke guys - lighten up. And still - it wasn't me who first wrote "Fourskin", so get off of my case - all I was doing was making a comical observation.

Also - "Mr mystery guest"? - give me a break, I can't possibly be the first WP user to feel lazy and not log in properly just to leave a Talk comment.

Finally, "we at Wikipedia"? Get off of your high horse, I have just as much cause to speak for WP as you do. I am no stranger here and I have seen much more vulgar, much less civil behavior displayed at WP.Drewson99 15:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fourskin? Aha! It all becomes clear. I must have made a typo. I didn't realize. So sorry. Tourskin, I may not agree with your opinion and I think your supercilious attitude is a disgraceful advertisement for the Wikipedia project, but had I wished to pun on your name, I would have gone with Foreskin. Why? Because I can spell and I know the meaning of words. Thanks. --JohnO 03:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My high horse? I was addressing the person who hadn't signed in - and I didn't notice that it was you at the time. You knew this. Nice contradiction to yourself. Now my advice to you, as an over-reacting and high-horsed wikipedian is that you stop the personal attacks. Some users here can be on wikipeda for a long time but they still can't get th hang of the game, just as your talk page does with its comments about incivility. No English is not my first language. Aramaic is. Do you know what that is? Can you speak more than one language? I wouldn't believe that you would answer yes to these questions. I don't give damn if my first language is not English. It means that I, unlike native users, have an excuse to mispell once in a while. Tourskin 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think his point is that someone who speaks English as a second language shouldn't act like they're intimately familiar with its workings.

You argue it should be referred to as a "battle", not because of the actual definition, but because it's commonly referred to as a battle. Words shouldn't be used by their popular meaning, especially not in an encyclopedia. 87.244.73.107 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the above in which I used the definition of Battle. You are mistaken - why are you making stuff up? I never argued that battle was the more commonly used word. In fact the word "Attack" is more commonly used (as the first user argued) and the word Battle, for a battle did take place indeed, is the correct wording that should be used since it fits with the convention of all other engagements in World War 2. Like the Battle of Taranto - which was Britains' pearl harbour to Italy. Tourskin 18:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing Drewson99 with me. But I can guess which comments are aimed at me, so allow me to respond.

1. I have made no personal attacks on you.
2. I keep the "warning" from P.B.Pilhet on my talk page because it reminds me of just how many wankers are patrolling these pages as self-elected policemen.
3. I do know what Aramaic is.
4. I speak three languages. (One Romance, one West Germanic and one [possibly] Altaic.)
5. I don't care what you believe.
6. The poor syntax of your sentences and your atrocious spelling (mispell!! [sic]) leads me to question your expertise on the meaning of words such as attack and battle.
7. But most importantly, while the original poster (User:220.86.152.103) was being a little provocative with the phrase Uncle Sam took it in the bum, his point that "the clause "during the battle" [is] superfluous given that the reader is made aware that this was "during the attack" earlier in the sentence" is wholly valid. What is wrong with the reading "Many people mistakenly believe the ship shown exploding is USS Arizona, whose destruction during the attack accounted for over half of the men killed in action."?

• The final phrase is superfluous. (That means extra, if you didn't know...)

--JohnO 10:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I never stated my beliefs so i dont know what u r on about. I think that this argument is "superfluous". Tourskin 04:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me see...

"I wouldn't believe that you would answer yes to these questions."

That's my point. Strands of this argument are a waste of time. But User:220.86.152.103 made a valid point and that's all I wanted to discuss. --JohnO 12:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If you call that a "belief". Tourskin 16:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I do. --JohnO 18:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Guest here, I was just amazed that you guys would argue that much about the meaning of "battle" and get all flustered. In the grand scope of over 2 bil. articles does it really matter? Moreover, not many of you have excellent syntax or style, nor do I for that matter, but that's alright, not everyone can be an English whiz. In the end I guess I'm trying to tell you guys to go do more productive things with your time. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.218.69.80 (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In the grand scope of things someone decided that Pearl Harbour was not a battle, another user (or should I say loser 64.37.159.196) thought that he was smart by pointing out a typo accidentally done by John and I was taking this " a little too personally". Well when someone calls you "Foreskin" and points out that your not an English native, it gets personal because personal things are involved, such as names and nationality. Should have just deleted User: 64.37.159.196's comment and not started the whole thing - that I regret. Tourskin 01:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your comments on Talk:Main_Page#Battle.3F.3F.21.21.3F ("another user (or should I say loser 64.37.159.196)...") Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --JohnO 02:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your comments on Talk:Main_Page#Battle.3F.3F.21.21.3F ("but it's quite clear that you are not a native speaker...That means extra, if you didn't know...I think your supercilious attitude is a disgraceful advertisement for the Wikipedia project)") Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Tourskin 02:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, the Personal attacks in this discussion were mutual of nature - thats often the case. Can you not see the personal attack of the user who didn't login? Tourskin 02:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from being angry mastodons. You are arguing over the wording of a single sentence that was on the page more than a week ago. Let's all just calm down. Atropos 03:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would consider a battle to be between two opponents postured for an ensuing engagement. In the case of Pearl Harbor, it was a covert operation making it an attack or ambush rather than a battle. Srazzano 12:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Then what about the Battle of Taranto? Hmm? Thats just like Pearl Harbour as well. An ambush is a battle. Just one-sided and carefully planned out in favor of the ambusher (for the most part). Tourskin 18:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this, but an ATTACK (initiated) was executed by the Japanese on Pearl Harbour, therein sparking a BATTLE. Nevertheless, the Japanese were on the ATTACK throughout the BATTLE. Therefore, one could say, "during the attack" and be contextually correct.

"The Attack on Pearl Harbor" is the name given to this event and has it's roots in Rosevelt's speach immediately afterward.

It was both an attack and ensuing battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.156 (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was an attack. I don't deny that. What I don't understad is why some individuals refuse to call it a battle. Tourskin 03:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This attack/battle/conflict/discussion is no longer relevant to MainPage. Please consider continuing elsewhere. Perhaps on one of the participants' usertalk page. Thank you. --PFHLai 03:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we continue it on your page? --JohnO 02:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Preferably not, unless you have something to tell me. User talk:JohnOw may be a better place, esp. when Tourskin has already started to post there. --PFHLai 21:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Moved to the usertalk of the Wikipedian who asked the question.

Non-free image on the Main Page

So we finally decided to use non-free images on the Main Page. The FA write up on the Main Page does look good with the Image:Ernest Emerson.jpg. -- Jreferee t/c 01:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The image description page is kinda of confusing with {{GFDL}}, {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}} and {{Non-free fair use rationale}} all on there. Someone who has access to the OTRS system and can look up OTRS number 2007010410021786 would be appreciated. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My best guess is that the image was orginally used under fair use, but was subsequently released and confirmed under GFDL, and the rationale template just got left on there. Hard to be totally sure, though.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have verified that that ticket does in fact license that image under the GFDL. – ABCD✉ 11:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that if this has not been a free image, I don't think there is much support for it to be allowed. While there have been calls for fair use images on the main page, most of these have concentrated on cases when a free image is unlikely or not possible and said image is allowed in the article. However fair use images to simply show what a living person looks like, particularly when said person is from an English speaking developed country like the US, and who regularly makes public apperances, is a completely different matter and is generally not allowed on articles either Nil Einne 13:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the rationale template. --- RockMFR 03:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

standardized main page layout across languages

This is probably quite random, but why is the main page layout (and, to some extent, the Wikipedia UI) not standardized across languages? 143.195.202.18

Well, each language sort of does its own thing. The Wikimedia Foundation oversees the projects, but it doesn't demand a certain layout, and I imagine trying to gather a consensus among the different projects would be pretty hard. 17Drew 05:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WIkipedias by size and language

Forgive me, if this has been raised some where in the 101 archives, but why are other Wikipedias listed on the front page as >250K, >75K, >50K, >25K entries? Meanwhile the listing by size is by order of magnitude, base 10. Which means it breaks at 100K which the front page list ignores. I know the numbers are abitrary, but I would have expected something like >500K, >250K, >100K, >50K, >25K, giving a roughly gemetrical progression with increments of x2, or x2.5.--Peter cohen 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a tad early to create a 500K+ section, but I've no objection to shifting the 75K to 100K. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I also have no objection to shifting the 75K limit to 100K. feydey 21:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The limits have been chosen such that there are approximately the same number of items in each section of the list. Your best bet is to contribute 25,000 articles to each of the wikis in the 75K section, thereby allowing us to change the limit without affecting the layout – – Gurch 22:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's nice, but they won't always be so evenly distributed. As they grow, we will either have to adapt by changing the limits or we'll have some lopsided listings. I like the geometrical progression idea. So what if it's a little uneven? Antimatter--talk-- 01:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's been done before, there's nothing wrong with it. It's not just a matter of being a little uneven. If we were to change 75k back to 100k (I believe it was 100k for a while but this was changed because people realised it look bad) we would have 5 items in 100k and 9 (existing) + 6 (under 100k) = 15 items in 50k. Edit: here's what it used to look like before 100k was changed to 75k. [2] It would still look fairly similar Nil Einne 02:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind lop-sided listings. So what if only two languages will be in the 500K plus category? 2m+ compared with 250K+ makes it look as if the English wiki is an order of magnitude bigger than the others. Some in the 500+ and we're only three or four times bigger than our nearest rival. I think it's good for Wikipedia to say that the German and French wikis aren't that far behind the English. And 75K is such a strange number, it looks as if none of those wikis are bigger than 100K when six are.

BTW, it's interesting to look at the list from 2.5 months ago and see that 7 wikis (Swedish, Lithuanian, Slovenian, Serb, Persian, Newar and Nynorsk) have gone up a size category in that time and one (Volapuk) has gone up two. --Peter cohen 15:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't see why anyone should assume we have no wiki's bigger then 100k but smaller then 250k any more then they should assume we have no wiki's bigger then 150k but smaller then 250k or with 63,791 articles or whatever. It seems fairly clear to me that any wiki's in the 50k cat have less then 75k articles but 50k or more. Whether that's 74999 or 50000 is indeterminate and the cat doesn't imply either way. Similarly any wiki in the 75k cat has between 75000 and 249999 articles. In particular, I don't think there will be much support for a 500k cat since one of the whole reasons we have a 25k minimum is to keep the list shortish. By adding another cat, you're going to make it unnecessarily longer. Nil Einne 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be discussed at Template:Wikipedialang. --Quiddity 19:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Still all in Arial Black with IE7!

WTH is going on with Wikipedia and Internet Explorer? IE6 and now IE7 (and ONLY IE!) displays ALL fonts on Wikipedia as Arial Black. It does that with SOME fonts on a few other sites, but Wikipedia is the only site I've found where the whole thing is in Arial Black. IT DOES NOT DO THIS ON FIREFOX OR NETSCAPE. Nor is any other program afflicted with font problems, so it can't be a problem with the fonts, it has to be something screwed up with IE- something that not even "upgrading" to IE7 corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.250.124 (talk) 04:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You probably set your browser's default font to Arial Black somehow. Check your preferences. -Elmer Clark 05:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Specifically Tools>Internet Options>General>that little "Fonts..." button at the bottom. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the best place to request an event to be added to the news section?

Two people I greatly admire had a very good day. Viswanathan Anand won the world chess championship and Haile Gebrselassie set a new world record in the marathon. I found out about Anand's achievement through Wikipedia but I found out about Haile's record elsewhere. I'd like to nominate the marathon record for the news section but I'm not sure where the best place to do that is. Thanks! Synesthetic 05:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, which has the shortcut WP:ITN/C. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks like there's a whole discussion going on on over there about this. Synesthetic 06:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Font?

Did Wikipedia change the font or is something wrong with my computer? Why the change? 65.2.68.60 22:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not changed its font. You may have changed the default font size for your browser, which will affect font size on Wikipedia. —Verrai 22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see also #Still all in Arial Black with IE7! above. --PFHLai 03:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried it on AOL explorer and changed my default font on IE and the font is still weird. Arigont 19:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears others have had this problem before Talk:Main Page/Archive 107. Upgrading to IE7 may help. If you don't want to, you can try asking on WP:VPT to see if there's a way to fix this Nil Einne 12:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

News

http://www.novinky.cz/krimi/v-obchodni-zone-u-prahy-se-zritil-jerab--dva-mrtvi_123942_1bdmf.html 2 people died in a crane collapse and dozens were injured --85.71.211.66 15:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)