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 21:26 on 5 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)

Errors with "In the news"

"Protesters riot" sounds like a pleonasm (as protests may also be violent and include riots). Suggest "far-right riots take place across the United Kingdom" or something like that. Brandmeister^talk 17:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Not all protests are riotous. ‘Take place’ sounds particularly passive. Stephen 18:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that Jack White released his sixth studio album unannounced by including unmarked vinyl copies of it with purchases made at Third Man Records stores? Shouldn't Jack White be linked? Sincerely, Dilettante 04:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, we can, but I'm not sure how it would help anyone understand the hook? people can click through from the album article if they're that interested in the artist... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  There's no hard and fast rule on what should be linked in a hook, but the general idea is that we're trying to show off the article that's linked in bold. Other links just distract from that. But I see somebody already added the link, so "meh" either way. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 9)

Monday's FL

(August 5, today)

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.

Tomorrow's POTD

Just noting that I just moved the POTD scheduled for August 12 up to August 6 (tomorrow) because there was nothing scheduled. Someone will still need to create the protected subpage because it is now fully protected. Pinging User:Amakuru and User:Aviafanboi who originally scheduled this.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 01:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done thanks for sorting this. I'm currently on vacation but I should be able to keep the POTDs ticking over in yhe next few dage.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Main page general discussion

news

Is the Irish general election, 2007 more important than the destruction of Eurasia's only Geyser Valley? It may well be doubted. Give us some air! Never-ending news about elections are inherently boring. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just taken a while to fall off the bottom of the news items. At this stage it's also rather out of date as we've moved on to govt. formation, with only a week and a half left for parties and individuals to agree. zoney ♣ talk 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the new item you mentioned: relax. It was only propsoed a few hours ago, and ITN isn't updated magically. Patience, grasshopper.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My gripe is with the proliferation of political trivia in ITN, rather than with hot springs. For most people there can be nothing more boring than elections in tiny prosperous democratic countries such as Latvia and Ireland. Imho we should give more coverage to news from other fields of knowledge. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, then your comments on the issues, concerns, and problems raised on Loosen up the rules would be appreciated. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, while I agree that more science based items would be beneficial to ITN. I must say that insulting "tiny prosperous democratic countries" isn't going to help the cause. Election news is limited to only National election results, not "political trivia", we don't get into subjective calls on which country is more important than others. What we need rather than name calling, is people getting candidates up to encyclopaedic standard, and then suggesting them on the candidates' page. --Monotonehell 17:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how "tiny prosperous democratic country" qualifies as "name-calling" or "insult". That the news about elections in such countries are boring is a stern fact of life. I checked the page recommended by Zzyzx11 and found that some folks over there are seriously deluded about the purpose of the Main Page, leaving the ITN section to languish in its current sorry state. I had to leave this page in disgust, so as to let them to "highlight encyclopaedia" as they term it by posting thrilling "international" headlines about elections in Lesoto and Sierra Leone ad infinitum. Case closed. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I must apologise to you, I misread your "prosperous" as "preposterous". But the rest of what I said is still valid. A lot of people don't know of the consensus that has developed behind ITN, and the history, events and reasons for the consensus. Every guideline and practise that is upheld has a good reason for its existence. You're appearing very hot-headed and irrational about this by the way. --Monotonehell 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I discovered that there are no guidelines along the lines I was expected to follow. Not every practice "upheld" in the project is beneficial. For instance, I was told with an air of utmost authority that ITN is here to "highlight" the quality of encyclopaedia. No it's not. Its purpose is to link our readers to essential pages about ongoing events, however stubby these may be, so that they could be expanded by dint of collaborative effort. It's about collective work rather than about pleasing a group of formalistic, adminitis-infected people who don't give a hoot about what's happening in mainspace. My favorite guideline in Wikipedia states that our encyclopaedia is not consistent, and that's its not really a defect. Consequently, let's stop building Potemkin villages on Main Page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need extra guidelines to remind you that you need references in encyclopedia articles? --74.14.20.186 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that admins in charge of ITN think they should give "mainspace people" enough time to expand a news article, to provide at least dozen references, and to make sure that enough people commented on the nomination, so that it would not be perceived as "controversial". A week may pass before the entry is "promoted"; by that time it is hopelessly stale. In other words, they replicate the DYK model, without understanding the fundamental difference between these templates. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, I'm not following you. DYK is to highlight new or newly unstubed articles. TFA is to showcase articles that are our best work. OTD is to highlight articles that have date specific events in them. So what does ITN do? --Monotonehell 09:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally ITN is not specifically new news headlines, but rather highlighting updated articles that pertain to subjects in the news. Hence the section is current, but not necessarily up to date. It's all rather ad-hoc at present, but then, so are most other areas of Wikipedia; given the "rules/guidelines/random mutterings" are ad-hoc. zoney ♣ talk 12:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ad-hoc or no ad-hoc, the incident highlights the absence of ITN guidelines because the people responsible for this project are content to follow their own preconceptions and whims on the subject (claimed to represent "unwritten consensus" or something alone these lines). Of course it's easy to replicate the structure and rules of DYK without bothering to frame guidelines and to refer newbies to "unwritten guidelines" or "consensus" when inspiration strikes. I expect something more productive than constant appellations to "ad hoc", however. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would it take a week to write a short paragraph and add references? DYK asks for more. --74.14.20.186 13:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Geyser Valley is more than a short paragraph, yet it is deemed inappropriately short and unreferenced on account of "unwritten guidelines" advocated by Monotonehell and others. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"unwritten guidelines" is harsh words and that really alludes to the fact that the article is not in good shape and needs to be improved before it is showcased on the frontpage. Instead of complaining here, the efforts should be put in improving the article. Geyser Valley might have reached ITN by now if you've properly directed your energy. BTW, I support getting this on ITN. Beef up the article! I suggest a map and a free photo of the place before the mudslide. --74.14.20.186 14:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your question made me understand who you are. Please log in and then we shall talk. It's irritating to see your IP change every two minutes. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That question was a bad joke I shouldn't have made, and I do not think you understand who I am. Goodbye. --74.14.20.186 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If I had sufficient interest in the subject, it would have been on DYK long ago.[1] I want to make a point that we don't link articles from Main Page to "showcase" something. Only featured stuff appears on Main Page to showcase the project. It is erronenous to "showcase" all other articles as well. As I recall, stubs have been banned from DYK in order to cut the ever increasing flood of nominations, rather than to "showcase" these articles. On the contrary, we bring articles to the attention of a wider audience in order to encourage their expansion and improval. That's the Main Page philosophy in a nutshell. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

When you want to "bring articles to the attention of a wider audience in order to encourage their expansion and improval", and the articles are related to current events, try Portal:Current events.

Is there an article on that "Main Page philosophy in a nutshell"? Original research? Any references? Now, really, goodbye. --74.14.20.186 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. One of the reasons for all articles on the mainpage is bring them to highly them to a wider audience for improvement. This is true for TFA as well and it is why we don't protect them. I've never seen anyone make the suggestion that an article needs to reach a state where it doesn't need to be improved for it to be on ITN (or DYK, OTD etc). All articles that are on ITN, DYK and OTD generally can do with vast amounts of improvement. However, quite a number of people feel they have to reach a resonable standard before they are on ITN, DYK and OTD to be highlighted for improvement in the first place. This standard, as I've already pointed out, is quite clearly very different from the standard for featured articles. Nil Einne 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never ever claimed that ITN items are expected to be on the par with featured articles. Please don't misrepresent my point of view. Your point about "a reasonable standard" is taken. However, this "reasonable standard" is a highly subjective concept. People who don't contribute to mainspace tend to have strange ideas about its standards, so feelings of "a number of people" are not the substitute for a guideline. They cannot and should not be relied on. Perhaps "a number of people" have different feelings, has it never occurred to you? --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Valley of Geysers is now on DYK. --74.13.124.115 06:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Real Wiki Library

Wiki has a lot of very general and brief entries on subjects. However, it would be SO much better if people can start putting in BOOKS instead of mere paragraphs on a subject. Of course it would be books that can be distributed without violations.

To prove my point, the subject of philosophy has no where near the amount of information that would be needed to understand the subject. Nothing short of giving a comprehensive guide and host of all the BASIC books would make it helpful to understand the subject.

Please allow the automatic upload of PDF and/or text files to wiki —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twinscythe (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in our sister project, Wikibooks. Corvus cornix 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a database of books. But as Corvus cornix just mentionned there's wikibooks, but I beleive that's for community-written textbooks. However if you want to upload public domain books, you'd want to go to wikisource. --Dandin1 21:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why User:Twinscythe didn't know about Wikibooks and Wikisource. It's probably because TFA & DYK are excessively long, forcing ITN & OTD to be also long just to balance the two sides on the main page, then forcing POTD down, and then shoving the section on the sister projects so far down that he/she misses them.

Please stick to the limits. --74.13.129.83 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

While sticking to the limits may be wise I question your claims. Wikinews is linked to in ITN and it's usually visible with scrolling but we still get lots of people who don't know about wikinews and think ITN is wikinews. The fact is that most people only give the main page a cursory glance and therefore miss things even if they are fairly prominent and this holds true even when people decide to come here to complain about something Nil Einne 05:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the link to Wikinews is at the bottom of ITN, just above OTD. --74.14.20.186 13:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so it's easily visible. And the fact that people are still missing it suggests that in fact the biggest reason why Twinscythe and others aren't aware of wikibooks, wikisource and wikinews is not because the links aren't visible enough. But because most people only give a cursory glance to the main page and only take in what they think is important which sadly isn't links to other wikiprojects most of the time. Therefore, while keeping to the limits is a good idea, it's not likely to have that great an effect on whether people notice our links to wikisource and wikibooks Nil Einne 16:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's hard not to think that the excessively long layout makes things at the bottom less visible and less accessible. Not everyone will scroll all the way down. --74.14.19.65 04:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's less visible for sure and some people will miss it because of that. But I'm still not convinced that it's likely the average reader who doesn't see it, would have seen it were it not so low down. As I've said from the start, I'm not arguing with your point that we should stick to the limits. There are good reasons we should and one of them is that it pushes stuff further down. However IMHO, the reality is most people are still going to miss the stuff at the bottom even when we stick to the limits. I don't believe, as you seem to be suggesting that a lot of people are missing the links at the bottom because we're not sticking to the limits. (As an aside, I'm not even convinced moving them up to the top as has been suggested below will make that big a difference in how many people will click on them.) Also, I have to say the bigger issue in any case when it comes to the links at the bottom IMHO is not so much the extra text when we don't stick to the limits. The reality is there is a lot of other 'junk' that people have to scroll to first before they get to the links to the other project (I don't mean the other stuff is really useless, simply that it's something that other people see first). To avoid confusion, I'll repeat my conclusions. Yes we should stick to the limits. Yes it makes a (probably very small) difference in how many people see the other project links. But no, I don't think twinscythe would have seen the other project links if we'd stuck to the limits Nil Einne 20:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Radical proposal to help our Wikimedia sister projects

The m:Wikimedia brand survey discussion has had me thinking, and what I think we need is a better way to promote our Wikimedia sister projects (Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikisource etc.), you know, the ones languishing on the bottom of the other side of this page. I have this crazy feeling that people just don't pay attention to the bottom and that if we moved them to the top, we might just see the leverage of this page propel some projects that are struggling a little into projects that could really thrive with more participation. I know, I know, this will be different, and it just won't feel right to some of us, but please just look at the the demo (not a finished idea at all, just an idea of placement), and decide for yourself whether or not this can help us further our larger goals at Wikimedia. Thanks.--Pharos 06:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)RE

This might work, if there were a way to make the vertical space used by the {{WikipediaSister}} template much smaller. Perhaps by removing the mottos and shrinking icons? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A definite possibility.--Pharos 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Main page probably isn't the biggest advert for our sister projects. I'd say the in article templates do a lot more to alert people to them - for example. --Monotonehell 06:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the long tail and all, but the MainPage is still a pretty big draw — certainly the equivalent of many thousands of dollars in advertising at least. And of course, it would be a considerably bigger advert for the projects if they were placed more prominently.--Pharos 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, wikinews isn't just at the bottom of the side of the page but most people still seem to miss it. Nil Einne 07:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews is pretty well-hidden in that ITN box, I'd say. We probably get even less clicks from that link than from the one at the bottom.--Pharos 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Main Page advertising would really help. What about linking to Wikinews in Template:Current? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A question for Template talk:Current? --74.13.124.115 05:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia and not a central place to link to all the different sister projects. Moving the front page content down detracts from our content here. Personally I think that we just have to face it and realise that the other projects will never be as big as this one. violet/riga (t) 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that finding ways to promote other projects is a good thing, but, and no offense intended, I don't think we want to make the Main Page into a billboard.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's what the talk page is for. Go to Wikiversity.  ;-P ShadowHalo 20:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What if you put the icons down the right side of the page? People might just be intrigued... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.101.123.219 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Or the 'navbar' on the left. --74.13.124.115 05:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree, and it'll clog up the main page completely. And, why does Wikipedia need a better way to promote its sister projects? I don't think Wikipedia is an advertising vehicle for random-Wikimedia-project-10121, which should live and die on its own merits as much as possible. If you believe the page is too long at the moment, perhaps simplifying the icons or removing the sister projects entirely would be a much better solution for getting rid of extraneous non-Wikipedia-related information. -Halo 19:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think we should let our sister projects "live or die". We have to recognize that Wikimedia is a whole, a coordinated effort to improve the availability of free knowledge in the world, and we have to let our casual readers know it too. Does Google hide Google Images or Google News at the bottom of their page because they're not "true Google"? We have to rise above such thinking. The other projects may never grow to the size of Wikipedia, but their success is limited not by their current participation only, but by the fundamental low level of awareness of the general public of these projects. And relocating the links to the sister projects will not lengthen the MainPage one iota, nor will it be made in any way less useful to our readers; indeed, they will be more clearly pointed toward where some of the things they expect to find in Wikipedia actually belong.--Pharos 21:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Google advertise Google News, Google Images et al because it's in their commercial (and indeed shareholders) interests to do so and extend their brand, whereas the Wikimedia Foundation is not-for-profit and not chasing page-views to sell ad-space. It's also worth mentioning that Google's solution was to supply easily-ignorable links to their other products, letting them live-and-die, rather than spamming you with large descriptions and icons which is seemingly what you're suggesting. I think the fundamental reason why the other projects have relatively floundered compared to Wikipedia is that, functionally, the wiki-model doesn't work as well, the content overlaps, and there's generally less interest in original news reporting or writing a textbook, and I don't think using half the front-page to push less popular projects is the solution and letting them live-or-die on their own merits, such as Wikipedia did, is better. But then I also don't see Wikimedia Foundation as a "co-ordinated effort to improve the availability of free knowledge in the world" - I see them as a necessary evil and bureaucracy to host several free projects, nothing more or less. -Halo 22:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a strange idea that just because Wikimedia is a non-profit we don't have "interests"; indeed we have non-commercial interests just as every other charitable organization does, and our primary one is improving the availability of free knowledge in the world, whether you agree with that goal or not. I will point out yet again that moving the sister projects box will not eat up one more pixel of screenspace than is used currently.--Pharos 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. People come here for Wikipedia, so that is what they should get. I hate websites that try to tell me what I want instead of giving me what I asked for. Commercial websites do that all the time, because they make money on directing people to things they didn't really want, but we should respect our readers. --Apoc2400 08:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Think about it though the whole of all the wiki's is to deliever knowledge to the world and that was one of the main goals that Jimmy Wales set. I believe putting some kind of links at the top of the page will help but not dominant on the page. As mentioned above many people don't know about these sister projects but people that i know would find them very useful. Wikipedia is wikipedia though and people did come here for wikipedia so if this does go ahead i wouldn't make it big on the main page, maybe put it by the links where the portals are. Also shouldn't this be on the proposals page by the village pump.Wiki.user 08:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this is the solution to promote other Wikimedia projects (and there's the question on whether we should be). There's also the view that Wikiquote, Wikinews, etc. are projects to help Wikipedia, and not separate projects. My view is that they are separate projects, but to use the Main page to promote them is not a good idea. More interwiki stuff like the box on the right is the way to go. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote has quotations related to Moo.

Pharos mentioned Google's linking to their other projects on their main search page. The thing is that Google doesn't use big, flashy logos for their links like we do— just simple text links. If we eliminate the logo links at the bottom, and add in text links at the top, we could actually free up some space for other uses while promoting the sister projects at the same time. I personally prefer simple text links to clickable logos anyway.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not change it for a few days or a week and see how traffic on the sister sites changes? --- RockMFR 01:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested we include a link to them on every page, not just the main page, but working small icons of them all somewhere on the page (e.g. the bottom). All the projects should do this, IMO. It is difficult to work into the layout, but just for convenience it would be worth it. Richard001 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We need something like this User:This, that and the other/mpbox, in a strip below the header. But I haven't got time to make smaller images (16x16 or 20x20). This, that and the other 10:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 11:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should try it for a few days and see how it goes like RockMFR suggested. This should carry on on the proposals page as this is attracting a lot of interest here. Wiki.user 19:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Atheism picture

Anyone find it odd that the illustration comes from the Bible? 209.190.233.125 13:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ironic, but still illustrative of the word in original Greek usage. It's not an easy subject to have an image for. —Cuiviénen 14:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that the blurb requires an illustration, since the article concerns a difficult-to-photograph philosophical notion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, don't I know... Raul654 17:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that dead horse had it comin'. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Page color

What code can I use to change the color of my entire user page? Not just a table or something... the whole page. ► Adriaan90 ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) ♪♫ 23:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the actual layout of the page is determined on the viewer's side, rendered according to the style (the default is monobook). I don't think it's possible to change the entire page. I don't think you can actually edit the HTML of the entire page, I think you can only edit the source... Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 00:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Help:User style should give you a sense of what is possible, while WP:VPT or WP:VPA would be the best place for further questions. - BanyanTree 04:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrow's featured picture

On my browsers its coming up as a red link for a template that seems to have been deleted -- Brent Ward

Not deleted, just not yet created. Need an admin to create the POTD file and protect it right after. --74.14.21.36 14:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

For some reason, people keep vandalizing the main page somehow. I guess that sometimes the Main Page is unprotected and the vandals get there at just the right time. How can this be fixed? Another thing is how about protecting all of the templates that appear on the Main Page and the template that appears on the templates that appear on the Main Page, and so on? ANNAfoxlover 20:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about any vandalism, I didn't see it. But everything that appears on the main page, including templates should in theory be cascade protected automatically. Occasionally problems happen or admins go rogue or admin accounts get hacked but generally it works well. Nil Einne 20:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• There hasn't been any vandalism to the main page in over a month, according to the history. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 20:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• But lots of vandalism in Talk:Main Page, mostly newbies testing and blanking. --74.13.126.49 06:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• And all things appearing on Main Page are auto-protected anyway. ffm ✎talk 11:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How do I add U.S. Open starting to In the News Headlines???

Please add:

The U.S. Open begins at Oakmont Country Club near Pittsburgh.

To the news! Thanks. Hholt01 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We normally only mention when the results are final. You want WP:ITN/C. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-11 18:17Z

Thanks 208.0.121.248 18:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured article picture on Main page

Can someone changed the picture of the featured article on the main page, looks extremely small, maybe we should put the image (or another one in the article or resized the image) on the infobox for now. --JForget 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured article protection

Our why we generally don't protect an article whilst it's featured on the main page explanatory guideline has, it has been suggested in a few places of late, undergone some meaningful if ostensibly insignificant changes of late (I don't know that it appears that our fundamental approach has changed; it's more likely that that approach simply no longer, rightly or wrongly, comports with policy [which should, of course, be descriptive]), and so editors interested in the issue—which presents itself not infrequently here and which is referenced at the main page FAQ—might do well to weigh in here. Joe 03:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Big gap to the right of the featured picture

Today there's a huge white space next to the featured picture box. Not intentional right? LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I see a purple space. If it is this to which you are refereing to, then this is just because the POTD is so large today. ffm ✎talk 13:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Spaceflights on ITN

The ITN section seems to frequently mention spaceflights, particularly Space Shuttle launches. However, most of these launches are quite routine ones; there's typically a Shuttle flight every couple of months, and Soyuz launches every 5 months or so, and most of these missions, while important, are not necessary news-worthy: yes, the ISS needs more Integrated Truss Structures, but is it really more news-worthy than any of the other stuff which happened on 8 June, 2007 (in particular, the 2007 Hunter region and Central Coast storms, which caused death, injury and property damage, have a medium-length article, with some striking images, which could have done with a little main-page exposure). Perhaps in future, these should be limited to major flights only (ie; the sort that are widely reported in non-specialised news sources), such as the launch of a well-publicized space probe or when the last ISS component is launched. Laïka 12:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of what's more important (which is terribly subjective), it's the fact that no one has suggested the article you mentioned. --Monotonehell 12:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Compliment

I think This page is very well set up I will forever use wikipedia

Thanks, but this isn't exactly appropreate for wikipedia's main page. ffm ✎talk 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

oh noes censor! censor!

you're linking to sex in film! kids will see it! parents will be angry! rawr! (i know about Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored#Wikipedia is not censored).--Ithinkiexist 20:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see which section you are talking about, but I like it none-the-less... Raul654 20:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

First item in DYK. I demand this filth and any servers it is stored on be burned, and the ashes microwaved and then flushed down a toilet, after which the sewage treatment plant must also be burned. For the children!--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to ask that anyone who has seen it be shot. After all, if they've seen it, it's always possible they'll tell someone. And then we have to burn the bodies. If we don't, it's always possible that at some point in the future, some advanced alien civilization might be able to scan their brains. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! (Alien or otherwise) Raul654 20:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Big Dongs Express, baby Bubby the Tour G 20:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

PS - Every time you say "think of the children", god snuffs a dozen of them out. And if you say it in all caps, it's two dozen... Raul654 20:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)