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 16:41 on 10 July 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 the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 12)

Monday's FL

(July 15)

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

Punctuation @ In the News

In the first item, the sentence reads, "...a main shopping street Cyprus' divided capital of Nicosia."

In any dictionary you care to reference, whether it's the O.E.D. or Webster's, the rule dealing with the formation of the possessive in English states "add an apostrophe and the letter 's' to singular nouns and names". A few exceptions are commonly made for Biblical and mythological names (Jesus' or Zeus'), but the vast majority of words in English should be handled accordingly. This rule reflects the way the genitive case in English changed between the time of Chaucer and Shakespeare (Chaucer's 'my lordes warre' became 'my lord's war'), and the way most people pronounce the possessive even today.

I realise that a so-called 'convention' has crept into the copy-editing protocols of many publications that eliminates the final 's' for the possessive of singular nouns ending in 's'. This lunacy has infected even such august rags as Time Magazine and The Wall Street Journal. To me, the lone apostrophe just doesn't 'read' correctly, because it doesn't reflect how one actually says the word in question!

All I can say is: there's no justification for the perpetuation of ignorance, whatever the source. If all the periodicals in the English-speaking world were to adopt this bogus practice (and I'm happy to say, not all of them have), it still doesn't make it right. Cbrodersen (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanna have something changed? See #Main Page error reports above. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Spot on! Darn the torpedos and full steam ahead!!! I for one agree that this linguistically cognitive crap consists of nothing but communication conundrums and should be corrected. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Linguistically cognitive crap consist[ing] of nothing but communication conundrums" that should be "corrected"--unbridled alliteration at its finest! Love it!! Cbrodersen (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cbroderson and 68.143.88.2, my new heroes! May the 's always be used! I already requested a change, but someone ignorant in punctuation said either way is acceptable. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If the manual of style says it's okay then it's okay. Either reach consensus to change the manual of style (which should take place there not here), or accept that it is okay. We are not going to fix an 'error' when our own manual of style says it's not an error. The MOS is there for a reason and that reason isn't so it can be arbirarily ignored Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you're correct--this talk page is not the place to make the correction. But the MOS is flat-out wrong, and I believe the history of English grammar (and the dictionaries) are the irrefutable authorities on the matter. It should be noted that Wikipedia contains many far more serious errors than this waiting to be fixed. Most people don't give a rat's ass about grammar, and when confronted with their mistake, will defend their error to the death, or accuse the person who pointed out the mistake of being an 'anal-retentive pedant'. Cbrodersen (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have no personal opinion on this 'error' except to note the MOS doesn't agree with you it is an error. If you were to try to change the MOS, I probably wouldn't be involved in that. As you have already acknowledged, this is not the place to change the MOS and if the MOS is flat out wrong, then it has to be changed. Adhoc changing 'errors' resulting from a flawed MOS is clearly not the way to go and having long arguments on irrelevant places which will achieve nothing, whenever this comes up, is also pointless. Since you seem to be a bit of an expert on this matter, I don't personally get why you don't just try to reach consensus to change the MOS. If you do, then it will be simple to fix this error in the future and ultimately this error will be removed from the whole of wikipedia over time. If you try but fail, then you just have to accept that despite your opinion, there is no consensus for your views of English grammar in this particular matter. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"This rule reflects the way the genitive case in English changed between the time of Chaucer and Shakespeare (Chaucer's 'my lordes warre' became 'my lord's war')"... "If [everyone] were to adopt this bogus practice... it still doesn't make it right."

So which one is it? English is allowed to change or it isn't? Maybe it should be "Cypruses". ;) Cigarette (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You're basically talking through your hat. Dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's are the authorities governing grammar and usage in English (despite what the MOS may say). Currently, the primary rule for the formation of the possessive in both these reference works is as I have stated above--there are no 'changes' underfoot that I am aware of, unless one feels that the preponderance of errors made by illiterate, uneducated users of English on the Internet and elsewhere is justification for making a 'change'.

I, for one, feel that if these grammatical dunces can't get with the program, then they should just 'get out of the way'. There are a lot more pressing problems in the world to solve, and I've already expended more energy on this subject than I care to.Cbrodersen (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing, in essence, for prescription over description, and toward the proposition that certain long-standing grammatical rules, at least as codified by two chosen (although prominent) reference works, are immutable. One may very reasonably so argue—I, in fact, was once exceedingly sympathetic to the argument you advance—but it is the consensus of the community that our MoS properly reflects what the community, in their considered judgment, understand to be "proper English", and one, even if he/she is unquestionably correct, does well to quibble with that understanding at WT:MOS (or perhaps WP:RD/L) and not at an insular page. Joe (I can has barnstar?) 22:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather then accusing people of being 'grammatical dunces' who can't 'get with the program' and giving long off-topic arguments here, I suggest again you take it to the MOS. So far, from what I can tell, no one has defended the way the MOS is written in this particular matter, simply pointed out that it is the way it is written, so you are basically arguing with no one. If you had diverted your energy wasted here to actually trying to change the MOS, for all we know it might have been changed by now. Or perhaps not... At least you would have achieved more then going on a long off-topic rant about an issue no one has tried to debate with you Nil Einne (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If you see here - http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50010512?query_type=word&queryword=apostrophe&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=2&search_id=SHad-jOMw2B-17911&hilite=50010512 (you need a subscription, however the contents of the web page should be available in any full OED under the second sense of apostrophe), you will see that Moses' uses only an apostrophe. It is widely accepted that Greco-Roman names of people and places of historical notability ending in 's' use a single hanging apostrophe: Socrates', Jesus', Cyprus', Zeus'. I really take exception to the fact that you've hidden behind the OED to make yourself look all-knowing, when in fact you are wrong. Joy.discovery.invention (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this punctuation issue can drag on for so long. The blurb on ITN now says "...Nicosia, the divided capital of Cyprus", hopefully avoiding the punctuation issue completely. I hope everyone is happy and can get back to writing encyclopedic articles (and more DYK candidates to nominate....) --PFHLai (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should all check the OED more often on other topics, too, such as the pronunciation guide for "aluminium", and you'll see how wrong Americans have been saying it all these years..... With respect to the usage of the 's termination, may I point out that it is a general rule, and, as such, is affected by a number of exceptions. Again, if you check either OED or Collins Dictionary in their entirety, maybe you'll get to see that, in fact, nouns ended in s only need to have an apostrophe added in order to denote posession, and only in the case of persons' names can an "s" be, optionally, added after the punctuation sign. So, enough of gratuitously insulting the rest of us, thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.39.161 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We respect many local variations of English in English Wikipedia. The use of American English is okay here. --74.13.130.186 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• So it's okay for language to evolve as long as it's not happening right before our eyes? The changes in the genitive case between Middle English and Modern is okay, but Modern English has to remain static? Where is that written? -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 22:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Written? Actually, the development of printing stabilized things. Dictionaries and grammar textbooks are cheap. Read them. ... Mind you, languages are still changing before our eyes. Only stable "intermediates" should be used, or too many new things that don't last will get people confused. --74.14.16.227 (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetics

I've just been browsing through the alternate wikipedias and I've noticed that the Italian version looks great and makes ours look like a joke. Better skins, icons, layout and a far more noticeable title. The English main page is in desperate need of an update. N. Roberts 07:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree adamantly. I think the Italian one is a bit crowded due to a lack of padding, but I like how there are buttons that change color, and some just look better. I like the design now, but I recall visiting a Wikipedia with an intricate design (I think it was one of the Cyrillic countries). Found it, it's the Serbian Wikipedia (http://sr.wikipedia.org/). Also, I would like to see a space between the top bar and the page title, like the French Wikipedia. The thing with the French Wikipedia is that the editors there know padding very well and they use it to their advantage. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't like the Italian design. It takes far too long to load, and I think that's why this page isn't as overly complex, for easy access for a, say, dailup connection. Sorry to disappoint, like. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you, too. Some are over the top; I'm fine with the page it is now. Another cool idea to save space is to do a tab system like the Catalonian Wikipedia. I don't care for the buttons they have, but it's a good idea. I like ours for its pure design; it strikes me as pure. In fact, I used that to makeover WikiProject Hawaii. I would put a little more padding, though. It looks so close to the edge. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 08:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The box at the top looks bland to me, though. I would bold "Welcome to Wikipedia"... and put "There are..." before the content of the third line. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 08:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, but there's nothing I can do about it, unfortunately. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Serbian wiki looks pretty good, but I don't think it's as useful, considering you have to scroll way down for OTD and DYK, while stuff like the other project links are nearer to the top. Also, they don't have a Featured Pic. So pretty much, I like their style but not the layout. My only real issue with our main page is the bland and dead space around the header. The individual templates all look fine, but the top of the page could use some work. Random89 17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives, specifically Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Italian-style). Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft (Italian Inspired) was a draft in the redesign 2 years ago. They were too colorful and unprofessional for many editor's tastes.

Possibly a link to Main Page alternatives should be added to the header here, as people keep asking about redesigns, but it isn't linked from here currently. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Something to add to Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Is there some way to make the Main Page look better?, perhaps? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Italians look great, with better skin, have a good eye for design and make the rest of us look like a joke" (I paraphrase somewhat). Tell us something we don't already know. Annatto (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured picture

The Today's featured picture section is a little narrower than the rest of the sections. Who can fix this please? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me (latest Firefox, 17" LCD, 1280×1024). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, too. Could you perhaps show us what your alternative is in the userspace, or something? J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe he/she's referring to this Image:En.wikipedia.org.Main Page.showing FP issue.2008.04.08.png‎ which occurs in IE7 (but not FireFox 2). To be honest, I don't think I would have noticed this before, so I have no idea how long it's been like that. Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied to Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely the template or some right and left margins set on it, not the particular daily picture itself. I've tested it with IE 6 and 7 and it still shows the problem in both. And, yes, I mean the issue pictured in the link provided by Nil Einne. The featured picture section is narrower than the rest of the content. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I found what the problem is. It can be viewed from different angles. It's either that the featured picture section is narrower, or that the featured articles, did you know, news, and on this day are too wide. I would say the latter. This is the code that is currently being used:

-------------------------Today's featured article, Did you know------------------------>
{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;"
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5fffa;"
...

Notice the

{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;"

instead of

{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px 0px;"

That makes the upper section wider. You could either edit it to be 0px, which I suggest, or changing the featured picture's section to be -8px instead of 0px. The last option would make the featured content to be wider (4px to each side) than the rest of the content. The result can be viewed in my Main Page sandbox.

There you have it. The dirty work is done. Someone please fix it? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I think you need to test that more since it's now screwed up in FireFox 2 (as I mentioned, it's normally fine in FireFox). I don't think this solution would be acceptable, especially since I will have to say your version in FireFox looks worse then the current version in IE. Either you'd have to make it work in FireFox and IE or do something so IE does uses one version and FireFox the other (if this is possible). Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

N.B. It appears the problem originates from the fact that FireFox has white space between the two columns whereas IE does not Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) Your fix causes the reverse issue in Firefox 2.0.0.13. [1] APL (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I nailed it for both Firefox and IE. Please check it out and let me know. If you find it good enough please fix the Main Page! ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 20:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I also made a version for tomorrow's page available here. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 20:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Works here on firefox 2.0.0.13 APL (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Implemented on Main Page now. Perhaps you'd also like to tackle the problem of the right edge not going all the way to the right margin when the caption is too short (as is the case with today's FP)? howcheng {chat} 21:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I'm home I'm able to check more browsers. I noticed the spacing between the green section was narrower than the space between the green and purple sections. I made better versions for the Main Page - here and Main Page/Tomorrow - here. I guess today's doesn't matter too much anymore, but tomorrow's does. Admins please update as desired. The right caption problem must be addressed in the templates. I'll try to see what I can do. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 22:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work. BTW, it sounds like your still not aware, today's code and tomorrows code does matter since it's always the same code. We don't create new main pages every day, the server simply chooses what's shown automatically based on the day. The only thing we do have is seperate daily templates for certain things like TFA Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 11, 2008 but these don't use much code. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realize they are templates with transclusions of content that is updated somewhere else. Tomorrow's page has (everything)+1day though. So it's not exactly the same code. But the templates definitely are. I just made the two pages (with their respective transclusion variables) so that it is easier for the admins to just copy and past the code in the corresponding pages. If you go check the pages I made, you will note that they are automatically updated with today's and tomorrow's content too. I just wanted to straighten the templates out for as many different browsers as possible. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that the same code is used every day. It sounded to me like you were still under the impression we re-code the page every day (since you said 'I guess today's doesn't matter too much anymore'), which we don't so I just wanted to clear that up, but perhaps I was mistaken... BTW, if you're going to continue to work on improvements, you may also want to remember Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday. While I'm sure it'll be easy for most admins to transfer your code to the yesterday version, it'll probably be easier if you just give the code for all Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive Index

Anyone object to my employing the help of HBC Archive Indexerbot to index the many archives of Main Page Talk? It could only help cut down on repeat topics as far as I can see. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 00:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, scratch that, I've just read that the bot can't handle pages with lots of archives, pitty. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 00:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Lets change the inro from "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "the sort-of free encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit". Its a lot more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjhfowlxjw (talk • contribs) 04:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Its free in that you don't pay a dime for it. And anyone can edit it, but if you act like an ass, you will be blocked. Have a nice day. Tourskin (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But 'free' isn't being used in that sense, hence the translation into all the other languages with the 'liberty' meaning. It's free in that it's not copyright. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a pun isn't it? I thought it was being used in both senses. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the primary intent by far is Free Content. Thats why if you check out Wikipedia:About or Wikipedia it only discusses that aspect. If we ever publish wikipedia in book form or on DVD or whatever, we may very well sell some but even then, it will still be Wikipedia the free encylopaedia Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And anyone can edit it, but if you act like an ass, you will be blocked. - or if you chose the wrong username, or if you don't understand COI and your first edits are COI conflicts, or if you don't understand WP doesn't like role accounts etc etc. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

-or if someone else has misunderstood the username guidelines and does not correct their mistake when this is brought to their attention... (It still worries me, thinking about the account that was blocked that day) 130.88.140.121 (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not completely free in the liberty sense either. We have lots of unfree images, including the logo. You might not be able to edit if you're using Tor, or simply don't have an Internet connection.
But let's face it, it's a slogan. And "the sort-of free encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit" just doesn't sound nice. Let's keep the current one. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more succint to say, if you act like an ass whether accidentally or on purpose you will be blocked. Violating policy, especially around COI is acting like an ass whether your aware of it or not (just because of WP:BITE, WP:AGF etc doesn't mean that you don't have to use common sense). Indeed I'm somewhat doubtful it's common people are blocked without warning for COI concerns. Also, it's not as if you'd be indefinitely blocked for stuff you do accidentally (except for username issues), just for a fairly short time unless you repeatly do the same thing in which case you can hardly claim it was completely accidental. Of course, in some cases a block was simply wrong, but this is rare enough to be largely irrelevant in the big scheme of things Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And on the outside, you can always just make a new account and avoid the mistakes of the old. I mean, if your assery shines through, then you'll get a whole lot more blocks when they catch you for block evasion. If you were making legitimate mistakes though, and you've learned from them and avoid them, no one will know or care that you were blocked before.

If you want to make useful contributions, you can do it. 99.248.214.86 (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow April 11, 2008 Main Page

The code is way uglier than today's code AND it has errors. The green section seems to be jammed on the purple one. I thought the same code would be used by changing only minor variables to reflect new content. Admins editing tomorrow's page seem to be high on something. I'm using IE. I would suggest to use this base code for building tomorrow's page. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, it looks fine to me on Firefox. But here's the important part: No admins editing are high. Why? Because no admins are editing it. The Main Page changes every day through WP:Transclusion. Admins edit each of the rubrics of the Main Page, and then the Main Page magically changes at midnight reflecting the new content.
However, the "jammed on sections" are indeed a problem. Could you provide a screen shot? Thanks. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not "jammed in" anymore since Zzyzx11 fixed coding with the (now current version) 10:41, April 10, 2008 edit, so that it is consistent with the Main Page. However, I had also addressed the Main Page's problem in the Today's featured picture section on this discussion page, for which I also posted a solution. Note that Tomorrow's page has the same problem. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 15:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why are there so many main articles on video games and wrestling and such sophmoric nonsense?--208.102.189.190 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Because you have a selective memory? FYI, you can examine all of our front page FAs here.-Wafulz (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a well known aspect of psychology. See confirmation bias Raul654 (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Systemic bias. People write about what they care about; the demographics that edit Wikipedia the most are more likely to be interested in certain things than others. Although honestly I don't agree that this is the case nearly as much as I'd expect. -Elmer Clark (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Though it's partly because of systemic bias, I think your selective memory has played a larger part. I've looked through the featured articles for March. There's a grand total of one article on video games (ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion). There's a grand total of one article on wrestling (December to Dismember (2006)). Look through the list. There are plenty of other fine articles, you just don't remember them. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You can change this, and here's how: First create an account. Then find a few good articles not about video games or professional wrestling, improve them to featured article quality, and suggest one of them as TFA. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One can hardly blame us for having not so scholarly featured content when there is only so much to choose from. Richard001 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured images or featured media

Why don't we ever have featured sounds or video? I know this isn't Commons, but isn't it a bit biased just to have pictures? We could call it 'featured media' instead and have the occasional audio or even video file. We could also just have a featured audio/video as well as an image (perhaps only every few days or so).

The only objection I can imagine is that images can be viewed from the main page whereas audio cannot, and the OGG file is much less accessible to most people. I would counter that it would raise awareness about the non 2D-visual-only forms of media and get more people downloading the OGG patch. If enough people want to listen to our audio we might even see the major media players start making it a standard. Richard001 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, media other than pictures is much harder to evaluate. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in starting a Featured Media page, then be bold and start one. Once you get some good clips selected, then come back here and suggest that we add it to the front page. Lovelac7 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're looking forPortal:Featured_content. To avoid clutter, and to avoid detracting from articles, not all types of 'Featured' stuff makes the main page. (Though what should go on the main page and what shouldn't, has certainly been debated before.) APL (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) We do, in fact, have featured sounds, although at present only 14, of which 10 were featured in the three months following FS's implementation. We don't, if we elect not to use sounds that are featured at Commons only (or at least those featured at Commons that did not originate here), seem to have enough FS to permit any useful sort of rotation, but I don't know that there'd be any grand objection to the inclusion of a "featured sounds" section had we enough material with which to work (the proposal to add a "featured list" section encountered some significant opposition, but that, AFAIK, was due mainly to the section's probable intrusiveness). We generally do permit video files or animations to be featured as pictures, and a good many have appeared on the main page. To be sure, though, we might marry our featured videos/animations with our featured sounds to create "featured media", but the frequency of addition of "featured media" still might be insufficient to permit the daily changing of the item without repetition. In the absence of logistical issues, though, the idea would, IMHO, be a fine one, and one might do well to create a proposal if there is some support for the idea in the abstract. Joe 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't featured sounds have similar issues to featured lists, in particular it's almost impossible to summarise a featured sound? Unlike with a feature picture or video where you can put a thumbnail. Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. Personally I won't object to TFP being expanded to TFM covering all media. However in the absence of simple alternative I would suggest we keep the current system going largely by order of promotion without any special consideration given to sounds Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember several videos that have appeared as FPs. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to these portals to other featured content can also be added to the purple section in the main page with a link, something like: Other featured media..., or something. I'm pretty comfortable with having only featured pictures on the main page though. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

we've had least one featured video there. Just don't have many featured videos so it doesn't happen very often.Geni 13:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Main Page/Tomorrow

Please copy the code from User:Mistman123/Testing/Main_Page/Tomorrow and paste into Main Page/Tomorrow so that the code in the Main Page and the Main Page/Tomorrow match. That way we'll have a better idea of how tomorrow's page will look like exactly. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Two questions

1. Why was there no picture from the featured article on the main page yesterday (Chrono Trigger). Did it have something to do with the pictures in the article being fair use?

2. Is it normal to protect the featured article (like the one today). I know that J. K. Rowling is an attractive target and I'm not objecting to the protection, but in general, isn't it discouraged?--Urban Rose 17:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that would be due to no free images - Wikipedia policy states that no fair-use images can be used on the main page. And the article was probably protected before it showed up as Today's FA - it's not normal to have the FA protected, although occasionally it's semied in case of massive vandalism. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Pls see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page, #15, and Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

J K Rowling

Page is way messed up!!!--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to fix things up yourself or discuss clean-up plans at Talk:J. K. Rowling. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Experimenting

I've been experimenting with a shadowing template I created and decided to test it in my Main Page sandbox. Please check it out and give me feedback. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 23:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. It doesn't work for Firefox. Darn I hate these differences. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 23:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It works fine in my Firefox, having said that I'm using Firefox 3b5. I took a look, its an interesting effect, might steal it for my userpage if you don't mind. Time to see if the masses like it now :). ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 12:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work for Firefox 2. So people won't like it. I'll try and fix it later some time and let you guys know. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 14:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What was supposed to happen anyway? I saw little gray boxes at the corners. FF 2.0 user. --Howard the Duck 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll screenshot it in a few minutes, thanks for the intel on my talk page btw Mistman123. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 16:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears my work PC is being as useful as ever, so I'm going to have to extend that "in a few minutes" to in a few hours :( ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 17:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bite Me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.160.64 (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Czech Disaster

One of the worst tram disasters in europe. http://www.novinky.cz/clanek/137461-v-ostrave-se-celne-stretly-tramvaje-tri-lide-zemreli.html