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 10:50 on 20 December 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

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

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• The current hook for Pablo Busch reads "...that a bandit spared the life of physician Pablo Busch (pictured) because 'he treated the poor for free'?" However, the article currently reads "One account tells of Busch confronting Hurtado in an armed skirmish. The bandit supposedly had the chance to kill Busch but chose to spare him because 'he treated the poor for free'." I can't read Spanish to verify the current phrasing of the article, but if the article is correct, the hook should read something like "...that a bandit supposedly spared the life of physician Pablo Busch (pictured) because 'he treated the poor for free'?" Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeesh, how did that ever manage to make its way to the main page? I have substituted one of the nomination's alt hooks in its place - thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The preceding sentence in the article is In the conflict between Busch and Hurtado, "it is impossible to separate fiction from reality". Hurtado was the bandit in question and it appears that such stories are not reliable. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Exactly. It's no better than a myth, absolutely should not have been presented as a fact, and probably should not have been presented at all. Gatoclass (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Palaeotherium

• ... that a skull of the distant horse relative Palaeotherium was first misidentified as an amphibian, then as a canine?

The early identifications just went by the teeth. The article explains that de Lamanon thought that the teeth indicated that it ate both fish and plants and so had an "amphibious lifestyle". That's quite different from identifying it as an amphibian – a completely different class of creatures like frogs or newts. That hook is misleading. ALT1 seems much better, being well attributed and more impressive:

• ALT1: ... that the science historian Bruno Belhoste argued that Georges Cuvier's study of Palaeotherium (pictured) in 1798 "marks the true birth of paleontology"?

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This was already discussed at WT:DYK and the conclusion was essentially that "amphibious lifestyle" and "amphibian" in the given context is a distinction without a difference, so I personally am not willing to go against consensus. Gatoclass (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(December 20, today)

Monday's FL

(December 23)

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

Main Page Header

suck it. Anyone care to comment on my new layout for the header? I made it because people just aren't following the link, so I moved the relevant links to the start of the each line. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 13:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're never going to get 100% of the editors to use the new section link. I'm not sure how effective these notifications are. Nakon 16:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't expect 100%, but I would like to cut down the off topic remarks so that we might see a day when none are posted, even if for that one day only. The placement of the header to my mined decreased the off topics by a noticeable amount, I'm just trying to optimise this effect. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want a link to where reports on vandalism are posted. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There already is, its second from the bottom, The Administrators Noticeboard. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 18:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant at "the start of the each line". I didn't see that earlier. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For each topic, the talk page of where the link goes (assuming it isn't a talk page) is the place to post vandalism reports, but the Admin Noticeboard covers all, irrelevant of place. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 18:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a new header like this:

Welcome

to the page where you arrive if you come to Wikipedia and click the link that says "discussion".

If you're here to:

• ask a general question about Wikipedia,
• comment on the featured article,
• report an error about a current item on the main page, or
• discuss the structure and the design of the main page,

please do so, and you will receive an informative answer or a link to the information you seek.

If anybody starts complaining that this is not the exactly right place to ask your (or anybody else's) question, feel free to frown upon them.

I wager that one would be more likely to work. Zocky | picture popups 05:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No I'm fairly sure that that would completely, totally and unequivically defeat the purpose of the header... ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that reporting errors here is grand, just so long as its done where all those big Error looking words up there are, and not down here where those big General Discussion looking words here. I know its complicated, but forgive me for not having a brain that converts an ordered system into a chaotic free for all. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should try bigger letters, since people still miss them sometimes? And maybe next time we can try even bigger? Or we could make them flash?

Or, we could just abandon the whole silly over-pedantic tendency and accept that visitors don't read banners? Zocky | picture popups 20:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, since we made the banner more direct the off topic comments have cut down, I just want to optomise the effect, which is very real. The main page is more then important enough to not be misinterpreted as a free-for-all forum, and its not as if the Village Pump etc. doesn't exist. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, counting the current sections on this talk page, there are 4 that "should" be here, 1 jokular, and 5 that "shouldn't" be here. The banner doesn't seem to be doing such a good job, eh? Zocky | picture popups 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Where as it used to be populated almost exclusively be ones that shouldn't, at least the 4 that shouldn't can be forgiven as they relate to the content on the Main Page. We used to have all sorts; policy debates, complaints, even all out disputes, thoroughly enjoyable I'm sure. I'm certain your not so naive as to believe that reviewing the current status is an effective means of finding out how effective a change is without knowing how it was beforehand, and if you are that naive then I'm going to ask you to drop it. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember very well how it was before the header, and before the WP:ERRORS page, and it was quite alright. At least judging by your contribs page, you don't actually remember how it was before, so I'm going to ask you to drop the attitude, OK? Zocky | picture popups 00:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your the one making blind assumptions, two of which you've made so far. I only created an account in the last year or two, but I edited as an IP for a long time. Also, your the one making the unrealistic sarcastic comments, not the least of which was your "proposal" above. Taking into account those two things I think the attitude adjustment needs to be on your end. Having said that, I'm not going to let this turn into a personal dispute, so I'm going to leave this sub-thread as it is. I'll happily talk about serious improvement suggestions for the template above however. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't the one trying to lecture a long-time user about how things worked until relatively recently.

Anyway, while I was obviously somewhat joking with the new banner, my suggestion to stop the whole charade is completely serious. After more than a year, if not two, of the new "system", almost half of all sections on this talk page end with pointers to other places, even when actually answering the questions would often take just as much effort as saying "this is the wrong place". Sneering at people who ask at the wrong place is not as commonplace as it was a year ago, but it does still happen.

We have to be realistic. This is the talk page which is linked from the most visited page on Wikipedia, and it's unrealistic to expect people to read a long banner with a dozen links in detail before posting. If we really need to separate the on-topic discussion from the general questions, it would be much easier to redirect the experienced users to another page and let this one be used as most visitors use it.

In the meantime, tinkering with the header will not change anything. The kind of people who read talk page headers will read it even if it's written in plain text, and the kind of people who don't, won't read it even in giant orange flashing letters. Zocky | picture popups 00:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)This is no charade. A talk page of any page is for its developement, nothing else, high profile or not. Instead of reversing the process were using, which I say again, has had a positive effect; now that the Main Page is in a class of its own after the Betacommandbot sega, I wonder how difficult it would be to add a "Help" tab to the top of the page beside discussion...
That being my main point here, I should also point out that the people who show up on this page and bite the newcomers are usually admonished for doing so. Also, the fact that the invalid posts end in a redirecting link is a plus, because it stops the invalid discussions being carried on here, which is the whole idea, if only a little late in the day. Also, yes, it sometimes takes a little more effort to create the links then to answer, but the repeat offenders are almost 0%, if not that.
I'm also going to sidestep that long-term user line for the reason I posted beforehand. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 01:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A talk page of any page is for its developement, nothing else - I think that we should apply the principle of avoiding foolish consistency here, like we do with the Main page itself, which purists insist should be in the Portal: namespace.

And please, there are no invalid discussions for our purpose. When people who don't know better start a discussion at the most obvious place, they are engaging with the project, which we should encourage not frown upon. Don't get me wrong: It's a good thing that we have more specialized places for discussing specific topics, and it's a good thing that people get directed to them. The underlying problems here are that most visitors don't know how we use the talk pages, and that many if most people don't read boxy headers on top of pages. Both are outside our powers to change.

OTOH, it's a bad thing that we have a large box with traffic signs and big threatening words at the top of the page. We shout in colour, bold, italic and underline at the people who read headers, and it gets ignored by the people that it's meant for, i.e. those that don't read headers. It's also a bad thing that users have to click a non-obvious link on this page to report an error, then when they add the error report and click save, they end up on a different page, and when they find their way back here, the text confusingly (for a newbies) appears on this page.

So, IMO, we should keep the good and get rid of the bad. WP:ERRORS should go, and the banner should be reduced in (font) size and made calmer in tone and appearance. The errors should be reported on this talk page (as they are at every other protected page's talk page), and the general questions should be answered, if possible, and the users directed to the more useful place (the latter already happens most of the time). Zocky | picture popups 01:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think one of the most basic principles of MediaWiki can be considered a "foolish consistency", and now that you mention it, I say Wikipedia is the appropriate name space for this page, but I never argue the point. In the general sense, there is indeed no invalid discussion, but on a single page, of course there is, would you go to a travel agents to report a crime? Thats what reporting Vandalism here is essentially, and if you'd like me to come up with some more metaphors for the other invalid discussions that occur here feel free to ask.

I agree that most people don't know the exact purpose of the talk page, and I might change the first line of the box in a few minutes to suit, but that doesn't change that fact that the purpose is the purpose.

I can concede that maybe we should/could talk about the Main Pages errors here, thats not outside of basic consideration, but general questions should not be answered here, if we do that, the page will develop a reputation as being for that use. If you wish to use a service you learn its policy's and methods, simple as that. If theres a place for something, you go there, not try and make the wrong place into something its not. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 01:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said last time I participated in a discussion like this, I for one am perfectly willing to let the main page talk page be a free for all, if all the people who suggest it are willing to be the ones to ensure the vast majority of free for all issues raised are dealt with. I will not be one of the people who will be dealing with a free for all main page by and large and I suspect nor will a number of people who currently deal with it. Sadly, even though a number of people have supported the either, they don't seem to be volunteering to deal with the mess (or whatever you want to call it) they are planning to create.

The reality is, at the moment there is a very real risk any off topic commentary here is not going to be dealt with. Even if it is left here often all that will happen will be someone will either say it is the wrong place and/or will direct the person to the proper place. But since the vast majority of people probably don't check back, if someone is pointing out vandalism or whatever that needs our attention, it's just going to be missed. This will only get worse if the amount of people dealing with the stuff reduces and/or the amount that we receive increase, both of which I fear your proposal is likely to cause. It is in the best interest of wikipedia, and the people who would otherwise post stuff here in a free for all that they are directed to the proper place

Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My proposal is basically to get rid of WP:ERRORS and reduce the visual screaming in the header. Neither would have any effect on the amount of general questions that are asked here, IMO. Zocky | picture popups 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Line height of Today's Featured Article

Has anyone else noticed the difference in line height on Today's Featured Article? The lines are so close together, I can hardly read it. My eyes keep skipping lines! — Jeremy 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean in the article itself? I don't see anything weird on the main page proper. What style sheet are you using? Psu256 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the "Today's Featured Article" green box thingy on the main page. The actual articles, and all other elements of the main page are fine. But it's moot as of now -- I did a hard refresh, and somebody's fixed it. — Jeremy 04:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Zomg bias!

Not actually a complaint, but I didn't recognize this talk page without some thread about bias. It seemed naked :) Raul654 (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And you have a problem with nakedness? Anti-naturist bias, clearly. Joe 07:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should block Raul for a day or two for his blatant bias-bias ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 11:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately he currently appears to be scheduling the TFA only a day or two in advanced so it will likely mean we risk having no TFA on one day or at least no tomorrow's FA for a long time (yes I know someone else could technically schedule a TFA) Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a cunning plan to prevent him being removed. If he scheduled them long in advance then the agents of the cabal could replace him, and no-one would be any the wiser.... Macbi (talk)

Yes, and replace him with a user called Rual645 and hope no one see's ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 11:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy? Not to mention Rual645 would need a WP:RfA? Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes but don't forget this is the cabal (that obviously exists and can't possibly be a misinterpretation of the experienced Wikipedia community's respect for consensus) that we're talking about here Nil :). ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 21:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There's always User:Raul315. :-) --74.14.17.79 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole conversation is entirely wrong. I move to...ahhh...something...is...controlling...my...thoughts... . I'm sorry, I most go contribute to a GA article. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Raul Castro "In the News" item demonstrates a bias toward people named Raul. There. Mike R (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to Cuban presidential election, 2008?

Should a link to Cuban presidential election, 2008 be added to the thing about Castro? – Zntrip 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should, it would help out a little bit moreAlan’s 1st Sweetheart (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should since he's part of the Cuban governmentAlan’s 1st Sweetheart (talk) 21:53, 24 February

It's there already. Next time, you may want to bring this up at WP:ITN/C, instead of here. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's amusing that Raul Castro is pictured next to a link to No Country for Old Men. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he's very elderly. Mike R (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

spoiler on the front page:<

i wanted to see the oscars at my own time:( --Leladax (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC) (ps. at least link to them, don't say the winners) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leladax (talk • contribs) 10:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but the general agreement is that the main page is not censored and we don't worry about spoilers, whether for sports, awards or fiction anywhere on the main page Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying censorship you make it sound like I proposed Nazism and the removal of the information from all pages. The fact is, all those awards are mostly a show, and they are nearly worthless without watching the show itself. --Leladax (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there isn't a dictionary out there that would define censorship as Nazism, censorship was a word that existed long before them. Nothing Nil said even pointed in Nazisms general direction. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 18:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't literal. geez. --Leladax (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you, actually. I have never found award ceremonies very good viewing, but I am interested in who wins the awards. I don't think spoilers for award ceremonies, sports and the like is quite on par with spoilers for popular culture (films, episodes, newer books etc) J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is for some. The world isn't made in your image. --Leladax (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, and it isn't in yours either. God, there's no need to be so obnoxious. I was trying to be diplomatic. J Milburn (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that the entire purpose of this page is to convey interesting information, and the most interesting thing about and award ceremony, is who got themselves a shiny statue. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 19:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That one could learn by clicking a link. --Leladax (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, alright, we'll just remove all content from the main page, and replace it with links. The idea is that the snippet on the main page sparks your interest, leading to you reading the article. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It'll be great, pretty blue links with no context what-so-ever, I imagine no-one will notice the difference. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm down with links only! Who needs information when you can have simple, pretty links? :) Rayne 19:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.208.93.60 (talk)

I'm personally with Leledax. I think that we should say, the oscars took place, but not announce who won. Right now, it's like announcing that VH1 is doing one of those top video countdown shows, except for we put right out there who's number one, which is really the purpose of the show. People watch the Oscars to see who wins, but also to see the show itself. And anyways, why are we just announcing who won best picture? Is there something magical about best picture that puts it above every single other Oscar? If we could get it down, or at least consider doing so,that would be great, and J Milburn, try not to bite the newbies...and also, I would have to say that the Oscars are pop culture, I'm not sure how you would not put them in a pop culture category. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 21:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

They are meta-culture, rather than culture. I was meaning that it couldn't really be compared to revealing (for instance) plot details of a new film. In any case, I think the appropriate place to point this discussion is towards the content disclaimer. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In any case, compare to the press- newspapers and television/internet/radio/whatever news services reveal the winners within these competitions, but don't reveal the endings of new books and films. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO such awards are mostly about the show announcing them. Nowadays, IMDB is much more important to me compared to such awards by "elite" voters. In that train of thought, while they aren't the most important thing in the universe, they aren't really much worth without watching the show. --Leladax (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see where that's coming from. About the content disclaimer, though, anyone going to Wikipedia is really forced to look at the main page and see about who won four oscars. I mean, you can choose to read an article in a newspaper or on here, but you can't choose not to look at the main page, or at least you shouldn't have to. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 21:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I do sympathise with your view, but I just believe that we should draw the line here. What next, people annoyed we report the winners of a sports competition because they wanted to watch it on the reruns? People annoyed we report anything because they would rather they read it in their favourite paper? J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Watching a re-run is different that having people who live closer to Japan go "nah nah nah-nah nah, I know who won" in your face. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 22:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth the headline "Coen film wins four Oscars" appears on the BBC's "Americas" page, though in small type. On CNN's "Entertainment page" there is a giant "'No Country' takes best picture" headline. APL (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And Leladax should be watching TV (or contributing in article space), instead of surfing the internet (or complaining on this talk page)... --74.14.17.189 (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Violask, I'm not sure what you mean, but there is clearly a great similarity between sports events and awards shows. In both cases, people for a variety of reason may be planning to watch a recorded versiom. re-run or delayed telecast and may not wish to know the results until they've done so. But it doesn't make much sense for us to limit what we say about these events for such people. For starters most news sites will say what the results are. And while wikipedia is not a news site, we do mention events that are of international interest with good encylopaedic coverage. As such, people planning to watch non-live coverage of an event need to be self aware that they should not check out news sites or wikipedia and if they are not, we can't help them. To take it to an extreme, I'm sure there must be a few people who record election coverage in their own countries because they are unable to watch it live and don't want to know what happened until they've watched it themselves. Should we not mention election results for these people either? In other words, if we are going to censor wikipedia for these people, where should we draw the line? And how long? Do we wait 12 hours? 24? 7 days? My point about fiction was that there is also similarity there. We had complaints about Lost spoilers for an episode which had already been broadcast in a number of countries. We had complaints (I'm not sure serious or not) about spoilers for some Shakespear play. The reality is, we are likely to have complaints for every single work of fiction and related FA (e.g. one on Darth Vader) featured on TFA. Where should we draw the line? 5 years after the release of the work of the fiction? 10? IMHO, the best thing is simply not to draw a line. In nearly all cases with TFAs we won't be giving spoilers in the first line or two, so we can hope that readers are smart enough to start reading the blurb from the beginning and if it covers something they probably don't want to know about, stop reading. Just as similarly as with ITN, we can hope that readers are smart enough to realise that given we cover events of international interest, we are going to reveal the results of these events and if they don't want to know them, don't read ITN Nil Einne (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Once more, try not to take this as meaning imposing the Nazi Party to wikipedia. It was strictly about the main page and not internal pages that one would choose to visit. --Leladax (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So far, your the only person to bring up the Nazi Party. And nothing I, or most people have said talked about internal pages Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is a good example of Godwin's law, which states, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Lovelac7 05:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC) (See also Reductio ad Hitlerum). Lovelac7 05:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it only took 3 posts for the first Nazi reference to be made, however it wasn't a Nazi comparison but rather someone claiming that the other side had made a Nazi comparison even though it was never made. I guess you could call it an anti-Godwin's law, when someone accuses the other side of making a Nazi comparison but none was made. BTW, in case anyone is unaware, censorship is practiced by various people, governments, agencies, etc all over the world. It pre-dated and post-dated the Nazi Party Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Godwin's law was a joke that is nowadays used extensively to inflict censorship on the internet by intimidation. I ignore Godwin's law and I propose to do the same because if you are so anti-censorship on the front page, then you'd be also in allowing people to bring up the nazi party. The phenomenon while it may sound trivial at first, took saddening proportions the last few years since it's almost impossible to discuss the middle east wars and the nazis at the same time. Censorship by popular culture intimidation should not be tolerated. Arguments, do you have them? Godwin's law is not one. --Leladax (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Godwin's law isn't about censorship. It's an observation about a common form of hyperbole and irrational argument. APL (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You could ask our lawyer User:Mike Godwin if he think it's a joke and is used to inflict censorship on the internet by intimidation. (Note that Godwin has not argued a Nazi/Hitler comparison is never justified, just that they are overused.) Also regardless of how it is used in the Middle East wars, we aren't talking about them here, and you were the one who brought up Nazism yet have not been able to explain why you feel it was somehow helpful to the discussion. BTW, I never said I was against censorship, I'm actually not in some circumstances. However for better or worse, wikipedia isn't censorsed which is generally taken to mean, amongst other things, we don't hide spoilers. P.S. I made an extensive argument, which you have not responded to other then to bring up Nazism again without explaining how exactly it fits at all into what I have saying. Oh and of course also bringing up internal pages, even though as I have already stated, I didn't discuss internal pages nor did most people, we are solely talking about the main page. I also responded to your old point that seemed to suggest censorship was only evere practiced by the Nazi party (it wasn't). Finally, I didn't bring up Godwin's law, even though I was well aware of it and after it was brought up I pointed out it didn't really apply since you weren't accusing me of being a Nazi or comparing me to a Nazi/Hitler but saying that I was somehow accusing you/comparing you to the Nazi party, even though I wasn't. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Every time you violate Godwin's law, God kills a kitten. :) Lovelac7 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

News isn't supposedly hidden for spoilers, right? That's why they're news. --Howard the Duck 13:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

TO Nil Einne: What I'm saying is, there's a difference between waiting and watching a re-run and not being able to because of your tiem zone. He isn't saying he wants to watching it optionally later, he has not been able to watch it because his time zone has not reached that time yet. Remember, everybody is not watching the awards at the exact same time. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 19:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Backup Main Pages

I was just curious why there are ten backup Main Pages? Also, I was wondering why they all have cascading protection with the Main Page transcluded while the Main Page its self is protected? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised this isn't in the FAQ. Anyway, I believe they're there to make it more difficult for an in-experienced vandal with access to an admin account to unprotect the main page Nil Einne (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. This probably should be in the Main Page FAQ. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been on that page since January. Look carefully at the first few sections. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant more like having its own section. But the way it is makes since. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and gave this question its own section on the FAQ. Lovelac7 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Moon-centric

FA from two days ago being Ban Ki-moon and today Europa? Reeks of Moon-centricism to me -Halo (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I find today's refreshing. Ordinarily, the Main Page is extremely terracentric. This is a nice break from all the Earth-related articles.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Enough talk of moons. We've got kittens to worry about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.11.85 (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WIKIPEDIA'S OBVIOUS PRO-AUSTRALIA BIAS! [1][2][3] Ceiling Cat (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Change interwiki link for Hebrew

The interwiki link to Hebrew - [[he:עמוד ראשי]] in the source code - is currently alphabetized as "Hebrew" and thus appears before "Hrvatski". I suggest alphabetizing it as "Ivrit", thus moving it to right after "Italiano." This is conventional in numerous pages, which I can cite if anyone wants to see the evidence for themselves. Any administrator should feel free to make this uncontroversial change. Thank you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 07:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Watermark on FA image.

Image:Centaur (ARTV09088).png

I removed the watermark (as requested at the bottom of the original image's page - but I can't replace it because it's locked. To avoid further JPEG degradation, I saved the image in PNG format.

Could someone with appropriate privilages get the image where it needs to be - thanks!

SteveBaker (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 06:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There may be some sort of licence issue here. Commons:Image:Centaur (ARTV09088).jpg states that "The copyright has expired on this image. The AWM, however, requires that the AWM watermark is not removed and that permission be sought for commercial use." (emphasis added). As I read the copyright info page, it may be too restrictive for use on as "free use" under Wikipedia and Commons' definition and may have to be deleted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know -- I think we would contest this under Bridgeman v. Corel (which I know is not applicable in Australia, but still). howcheng {chat} 07:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I was also thinking about that. But then again, I do not know how Australian laws would put into play while this web site is based in the USA. But like any other image currently on the main page, I would rather deal with gray, uncertain copyright matter after they have fallen off the home page. See also Meta:Avoid copyright paranoia. Cheers Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If the copyright has expired, the image is in the public domain, and you can do whatever you want with it. They have no claims on the image, and any statements like that are simply wholly optional requests. Raul654 (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Earthquake hits Lincoinshire!

Here is something for in the news. A reported 5.3 earthquake has hit Lincoinshire and was felt throughout much of England. Its epicentre was 8km west of Market Rasen. I didn't feel it down here on the south coast though. Unisouth (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This sort of suggestion should usually go to In The News Candidates:, but while we do have an article (2008 Lincolnshire earthquake), I don't think it's internationally important enough to meet the criteria for the main page. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (PS: I felt it in Oxford.)

Today's featured article (27 Feb 2008)

I don't much care for the lead sentence "There was considerable Axis naval activity in Australian waters..." I note that is the title of the article and the lead sentence of the article follows the same format. But in my opinion articles should always start with the title as a means of getting the reader's attention and making the subject of the article clear from the outset. And this should apply a fortiori to the main page FA box. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the links for German and Japanese warships should be [[Kriegsmarine|German]] and [[Imperial Japanese Navy|Japanese warships]] not links to their respective governments and warship. -Harmil (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Harmil's request done. howcheng {chat} 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)