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 22:25 on 29 June 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

Bermuda onion

I think Bermuda ought to be hyperlinked in this hook. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It's borderline... we don't generally wikilink countries on the main page, although Bermuda technically isn't one as it's an overseas territory. DYK people also like to not link things where possible so as not to distract from the main hook. I'd be happy to add a link myself, but will await any further comments. Also pinging @Dumelow, Soulbust, and Lightburst:  — Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary: it was a good suggestion but I agree with @Amakuru: that we should try to avoid additional links in hooks. I share that opinion, and I believe several other DYK regulars agree. We hope that readers will investigate Bermuda when they click on the main link. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 5)

Monday's FL

(July 1)

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

• Two minor punctuation errors. (1) Gibson's albatross is classified as ... , but is ...": please remove comma before "but" since the second clause reuses the subject of the first. (2) "...except in older males in which it may be completely white,"; please add comma before "in which" since a non-restrictive relative clause. Thanks. JMCHutchinson (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Raul 654

How did he get the job of scheduling TFAs? When is the next election?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk)

My understanding is that Raul first became the defacto featured articles director when the whole FA system essentially started four years ago in 2004. Of course, Wikipedia did not have as much activity, publicity, and users back then – and the only one who was willing to work on it regularly was Raul. Several months later, a discussion now archived here, led to him being ratified as the official director. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need any more information, I suggest carrying this discussion on at WT:TFA, which would be the correct talk page for the topic at hand. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to "carry this discussion on." I want his job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Request denied.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

...especially when you are editing as an anonymous IP address without the benefits you get when you create an account. ::::::Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My IP address isn't anonymous. You know exactly what it is. And it's your sort of snide comments that get this farce of a website a bad name. Powerless in the real world, so you get your kicks from being churlish to anybody with less than 6 million edits. And please excuse the expression , but WTF does it matter where this discussion is held? NOBODY'S GONNA DIE IF I ASK THE QUESTION HERE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple, this page is here to discuss the main page as a whole, the page I recommended is to discuss the topic you want to discuss, I'm sorry if that seems complicated to you, but I don't see how you can expect to become TFA Director without understanding one of the more basic concepts of Wikipedia... well, that and the other very obvious reasons why you wouldn't qualify for the job. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 09:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But the post will rotate to someone else at some stage? right? --Fredrick day (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Raul has had the job for a long time, I'd say the only way someone else will take the post is if he gives it up, which will require either (god forbid) Raul leaving us, or community support for the idea of a weekly/monthly/yearly/whatever rotation of the job, which hasn't really come up because he's doing such a good job. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 12:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is going to dies if you ask the question here, but it has the following disadvantages:

1. Threads here get archived rather quickly, it's not a good place to do a long term discussion.
2. The people who frequently visit this page might not be interested in things unrelated to it.
3. People interested in TFA aren't notified of this.
   I think Raul is doing an excellent job, and should stay the director. There are few people who have time, energy, and skills to do this job. Further discussion should be held at WT:TFA. A non-administrator can't get the post, because the templates are fully protected. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But the post will rotate to someone else at some stage? right? --Fredrick day

Alas, the position will never rotate as long as this cabal remains in control of things.

There are few people who have time, energy, and skills to do this job.

What sort of nonsense is that? You should lay off the hyperbole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - thousands of people work on this project. Claiming that only a few have the time and/or are qualified to do something as simple as choose the FA for the main page is a load of bollocks. John Smith 06:54, 30 January 2008 (GMT+9) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.95.144.10 (talk)

Some of the qualifications include being extremely trustworthy, impartial (and seen to be impartial) and very familiar with the way wikipedia works. For whatever reason, as people approach these qualifications they tend to also spend less time and energy on Wikipedia. Finding someone with a long, respectable history on here who can be trusted with the job, and who spends enough time and energy, is not that easy. Most of the thousand of people who work on this project are not sufficiently known to be trustworthy. I'm certainly not. 130.88.140.13 (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Extremely trustworthy as opposed to just trustworthy? Again, you're talking up something that really amounts to very little.
2. Nobody on the sodding planet is impartial about everything.
3. Very familiar with the way wikipedia works? What does that even mean? You sound so unconvinced by your own statements that you have to add superfluous words like extremely, very, etc. I suppose he has to be a super guy, too?
4. People who are nice don't spend much time on wikipedia? Well, finally something I agree with. The regulars here are nothing more than a bunch of infants who love to jump on things in the collective. There is rarely any real debate. You all relish the opportunity of jumping down the throat of any newbie who turns up with ideas for improvement. Rather reminds one of Plato's cave.
5. Your final point about most people not being known to be trustworthy is, I have to say, shit. I do apologise, but there simply isn't a better word to describe that comment. It is shit. And repetitive shit at that. So,

a.) How much damage can the TFA director actually do? Very little. Abuse his power once and he'd be voted away anyway. (Yes, yes, I know wikipedia is not a democracy. But, let's face it, IT IS!)

b.) Nobody can be seen to be trustworthy until they are put in a position of responsibility and fail to abuse it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk)

130.88.140.13 said nothing about being impartial about everything, they were clearly implying that TFA Director would have to not be biased towards certain category's appearing on the main page on a regular basis, which Raul654 has proved he is not. Considering the systemic bias that exists in Wikipedia, Raul654 has really done an outstanding job in that regard.

Considering the span of Wikipedia's operations, there is a very clear difference between being familiar with them, and being very familiar with them, don't be so naive.

So we're infants? This from a user who can't seem to make a single post without the use of profanity.

We don't want a TFA D who abuses his power once and then gets caught, we want one who doesn't abuse his power full stop. Your apparent lack of understanding about the value of trustworthiness proves your lack of knowledge of Wikipedia.

I'm going to put this here, second to last, because I don't want to diminish the importance of my final point; you know you can sign your posts by adding ~~~~ to the end of your posts? If you want to acquire an important post such as TFA D sometime in the future, I suggest you make yourself familiar with the more basic aspects of Wikipedia, such as making yourself identifiable without the need for users to look back over a pages history.

Now, to my final point, and please, if you can only make one cogent response to my points, please let it be this. Something I've been hoping you might like to explain, but haven't paid enough attention to this discussion to ask until now, is why you seem to think that an unregistered, inexperianced, brash, and quite frankly rude anonymous user who hasn't made a single provable edit outside of this conversation would make a better Today's Featured Article Director then a knowledgeable, experienced, trustworthy, friendly, long-standing user such as Raul654? ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So we're infants? This from a user who can't seem to make a single post without the use of profanity. In my experience, it's adults who use profanity more than infants. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I never called you an infant for the use of profanity; I was basically saying that you shouldn't insult when there is a very easy rebuttal available. Care to respond to my other points? ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 03:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really, but as you're gagging for it: in your second to last point, you use the indefinite article before a plural noun. You really shouldn't. (Did you miss out an apostrophe, or something? You really shouldn't do that either.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Before scheduling TFAs, you should try copyediting other articles first, you're quite good at it. Then after doing that then perhaps you will be considered for the position. --Howard the Duck 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, well as you have no answer to 3 fairly important questions, particularly point number 4, then I think we'll consider this interview over. Job application denied. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I cannot say I'm overly impressed with the discussion here - it seems to boil down to "he's the boss so there!" - If he abuses the position or not is not actually relevant (and to my knowledge he hasn't), it a question of should the position exist in it's current form - I'd say no - it either needs to be rotated, subjects to terms of office or some other oversight process. The concept that everything gets filtered through a single person's worldview seems to me to an anomaly in the project. Again, let me repeat, I am not saying that Raul has performed a bad job or anything of those sort - I arguing against the position not the person. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The position works absolutely fine. If Raul was showing even the slightest provable bias the vultures who look out for that on a daily basis would have his head. Considering the severely unbalanced category's in FA the system is working out perfectly. His world view doesn't come into it. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

His world view doesn't come into it. - what? I don't understand how anyone can make a statement like that? of course his weltanschauung 'comes into it', it's impossible for it not to, since he is human not a robot. You miss my point, it's not that he had a world view that is an issue (and if it was the project would have to close), it's that by not rotating the post or making it the responsiblity of a number of trusted editors that I do not think we are fulfiling our duty to combat systematic bias. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand where your coming from Fredrick, and if the system that we currently use was showing cracks then I'd be completely on your side of the line, but I just don't see anything other then a well balanced spread of FA's from day to day, so I can't be part of uprooting it, and turning it into a daily bickering match, which is what it would become, and of that you can be absolutely assured, the archives of this very page are proof of that. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that there'd actually be more of a problem if you had the post rotating. With just Raul doing it, he can get a good long view of the TFA's. Constantly switching may prevent one sort of bias from forming, but I think that you'd get a lot more little biases all over the place; each editor trying to balance perceived imbalances of the one before. 99.248.214.86 (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Conspicuous silence from the boy himself on this matter. Does he fear for his position of power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, its quite the opposite I guarantee it. If he feared for what you refer to as a position of power, he'd be here arguing his case. Raul has many responsibility's here at Wikipedia, and he doesn't want to get in the way of the community deciding if its working or not. I could ask him here to comment if you'd like, but he frequents this page regularly and I guarantee he's aware of this conversation. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 04:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the conspicuous silence comes from the fact that lately I've been busy (changed jobs this week), tired, and not editing as much lately. Raul654 (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So, it is conspicuous, then?

Images for Featured Articles

If an image can be in an article, then why can't it be on the main page? -- 70.134.89.91 (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Because WP:JIMBO said only free images can be used and editors acquiesced submissively, effectively punishing editors who make Featured Articles on copyrighted topics. Zeality (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted topics? What on Earth is a 'copyrighted topic'? The debate about fair use on the main page has played out many times before, and it is not simply because Jimbo said so. I don't think there is any need to hash out the whole discussion again, though. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Jimbo says; Wikipedia isn't a dictatorship. It's what the community says.--Coco999 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

and the community by and large agreed with him. This has been discussed for a long time- one of Wikipedia's main goals is to promote the use and production of free content, so we keep use of nonfree, copyrighted material to an absolute minimum. Borisblue (talk)` —Preceding comment was added at 16:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if using "by and large" is appropriate. From the discussions I have seen, both opinions are subscribed to by a large number of editors, there is no consensus. Personally, I believe that our main goal is to be an encyclopaedia, to provide information. I believe it is perfectly acceptable to use copyrighted content when there's no other choice. As far as the main page is concerned, we should always pick a generic image over a non-free one. In this case, we can use the image of the artist, so there's no need for a non-free image. However, if the choice was TfA without an image versus TfA with a non-free image, I'd definitely choose the latter.
Also, this is a minor and irrelevant comment, but we don't keep non-free content to an absolute minimum. Take a look at the picture in the left upper corner of every page. It's copyrighted. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the real issue here was that policy was changed on an issue where there was clearly no consensus. I've only ever heard the "Jimbo says" rationale for this, but he's said himself not to take his words as gospel truth unless he's making it clear that he's speaking in that capacity. Very strange... -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure there's a policy that says so, I could be wrong though. I suppose there's the "no un-free images outside of articles" policy. However, the Main Page is in article space, yet it's not an article, so I can't tell whether that policy applies here. I don't think that there's a policy that says "no non-free images on the Main Page", I think it's more like an unwritten rule. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The FU criteria used to mention the main page as an exception to the policy we don't allow images in places other then article space. This was removed when it underwent a major change to NFCC so there is both a written policy (since we explicitly say no NFCC images in anywhere other then article space and main page is not article space) and an unwritten policy (remember wikipedia is not a bureaucracy) in this regards. The wikipedia logo is an interesting issue but somewhat of a different issue. Your personal beliefs aside as I'm sure you've read whenever this discussion has come up, it has ALWAYS been our policy that we are a free encyclopaedia, not simply an encyclopaedia, and there has never been any suggestion that either of these are less or more important then each other. The only relevant issue IMHO is whether we are making either more important then each other by excluding all non free images from the main page and the answer to this (IMHO again) is no. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To above: Chrono Trigger is a copyrighted game; Chrono Trigger is a "copyrighted" topic in that meaning. I cannot use any art or representation of the game when submitting a Featured Article because of this arbitrary rule, making my TFA blurb inferior to those of free topics. Zeality (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger is not a copyrighted topic. And you are free to use any free image. It's not our fault if the people who made the game don't release any free image to represent the game so if the TFA blurb is inferior (which is a big if) you should be complaining to Square Soft not us... Nil Einne (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I think I'd rather complain about a violation of Wikipedia's own rules and a totally arbitrary restriction of fair use. Having a tiny thumbnail of a copyrighted work is not magically going to incur lawsuits. And it is obvious that TFA blurbs without images are uglier and less eye-catching than those with. Zeality (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In the early days of featured articles, when many didn't have any images whatsoever, articles with no suitable image simply weren't featured on the main page. I can't believe we've started doing that, which wasn't even done in Wikipedia's infancy, for such a silly reason. Perhaps we should at least re-implement that restriction? No main page featuring without a usable image? It does look quite bad. -Elmer Clark (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's going to discourage people from working on certain topics (films, video games, people recently deceased) which will lead to systematic bias. We should instead try to use more generic images (if it's an album use the artist, if it's a film use the actor, if it's a biologist use an image of a plant he studied).
I also don't think we should complain to the company. They knew that they don't have to release a free image, because if someone wants to write an article or something they can claim fair use. They expect their copyrighted images to be used, but they don't want to give away their work for free, which is reasonable. And in general, I think giving up your intellectual property rights should be voluntary. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• while I dont really care about this debate, I can see both sides. I think it is dishonest to claim that lack of free images on video games, films etc is going to lead to sytemic bias, are you kidding me? Wikipedia articles on pop culture outweigh the articles on actual encyclopedia topics. There is no shortage of film/video game articles on WP, in fact its one of the few things Wikipedia does well. I do agree with Puchiko though, Wikipedia's expectation that people give up their intellectual property rights (especially when it's there livlihood) is absurd. Editors acting like it's ridculous that someone won't do this, well, that's beyond absurd. 24.14.119.135 (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There will still be plenty of film/pop-culture/video games/pop music articles, but their editors might not strive to bring them to featured status. Then we will be left with lots of poor quality articles about this topic. It won't lead to systematic bias in the number of articles about these subjects, but in the number of featured articles about these subjects. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, sorry for the confusion. This may be true but just because an article isn't featured doesn't mean it isn't any good. I come across many well-written, well-referenced articles on this site that aren't featured, a process that, from what I can see isn't actually what vets the articles for their accuracy and quality as much as it does their agreement with Wikipedia's own Manual of Style. It's the dedicated editors that make these unfeatured gems I see the good pieces they are, not the featured article review process, which is mostly, again, from what I have seen, made up of a core group of ivory tower editors who impose their own personal preferences throughout the process. (This is obviously a generalization). While the Main Page is a good reward, there are tons of featured articles that haven't seen the Main Page and have free images, so I guess it's never guaranteed just because an article has the star. As mostly a reader, I don't think it matters that much because I think when many come to Wikipedia it is for a specific reason and specific topic, so that the best articles are rarely navigated to through Wikipedia's Main Page. Just my thoughts. 24.14.119.135 (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit more, when I am looking for a topic I don't even do it at Wikipedia, let alone the Main Page. I just type my topic into Google and add the word wiki to the search. I always get what I am looking for, I can then navigate to related topics from there. My own personal way but surely many others use Google as their primary search, even when searching Wikipedia, hardly ever visiting the Main Page at all. Of course, you can look at my contributions from today and see I commented on a talk page for a Main Paged article. This is an anomaly, feel free to say I told you so. :) 24.14.119.135 (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I am getting at is that editors here should consider that very few users actually arrive at pages through the Main Page. If getting an article on the Main Page is the only motivation for contributing it ought be rethought for that reason. Something seemingly highly visible may in fact be less visible than, say, an article about Britney Spears on a day she is taken to the hospital because of how people surf the web. I hope I got my meaning here across. Sorry to be so wordy, I just felt like talking from behind the reader's curtain I guess.

24.14.119.135 (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very right. And, just to state my opinion- a free and very related image is best, a generic image is fine, no image is boring but a non-free image is baaaaaaad. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting an article on the main page is a very appealing prospect; Raul acknowledges this outright in his personal comments. It's the chance to get something you like and enjoy out to a wide audience of thousands. Wikipedia isn't ranked in the top ten of Alexa for nothing. Zeality (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that- all I've had on the main page are two DYK items, but I felt great on both occasions. I'd love to have a FA up, and I have one waiting. J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles on pop culture are "actual encylopedia topics". 86.44.6.14 (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Should have been phrased, "core encyclopedia articles" probably, as far as encyclopedia's go there are certain topics that have more value than others, to deny that is just silly. 69.137.246.61 (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What's silly is establishing a false dichotomy between pop culture articles on the one hand, and core encyclopedia articles on the other. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you know about this very interesting boat?

Has anyone else noticed a certain fishy smell around the DYK section recently? It seems that every day for the last month at least one of the entries has been relating to a ship, a class of ships or some other form of nautical-related info. I counted no less than 5 entries on the page one day last week that could fall under that definition. While I applaud Wikiproject Ships for their obviously tireless work in improving this section of wikipedia, it is getting a little wearing to read about little else. I'm not for one minute suggesting that all natical content be banished from the main page forever just because I don't like it, because that would be like fascism, but is a little variety too much to ask for? Tx17777 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the clichéd generic answer, but the best way to get a little variety would be to write about some other things, or nominate some other new articles you may have come across. I'm all for more interesting tit-bits from history. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed at the complete omission of Pirates of the Caribbean in the DYK section, if you're running nautical and nice these days...you'd best stop it now before I really get hurt. --Kaizer13 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So write a new article about the pirates of the Caribbean. WP:Be bold!. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody gets a joke these days. --Kaizer13 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Um there are like 8 items + every update with about 3 updates a day. If one out of 8 items is nautical related you still have a lot of other items Nil Einne (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be encouraged to nominate ship-unrelated DYK candidates at Template talk:Did you know. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK seems to go in waves (no pun intended) according to whichever project is very active at the moment. I've noticed large numbers of baseball player articles before, and seen an older complaint about huge numbers of Eurovision articles. Over the longer term, it varies. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please take note: this is address at everyone. If you go out right now, source about 12 really great facts about duckbill platypuses, add them to there appropriate articles, and submit them to DKY, then we will have a duckbill platypuses bias on DYK for a few days. Please, for the love of Wiki try to understand this fact and stop complaining when someone writes about something that interests them, and wants something to show for it by submitting it to DYK... now rant over, I'm gonna take my usual position and not get involved again. Good day gents. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 15:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you don't even have to nominate an article for DYK. I've had 3 articles in that section so far, and haven't personally nominated a single one of them. Bots pick them up, and then the people who are interested in such things chose them and write the hooks. Simple. So, all you really have to do is write the article, with the required references and minimum size.

Now I'm gonna go find out about duckbill platymoggies. Carre (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Systemic bias or a type 1 error, anyone? THOSE are the problems. It hardly matters that there are a few too many nautical jokes here. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 16:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's that time of the year...

To complain about US-centrism. :) --Howard the Duck 16:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it Howard, you just love a good argument. So here goes... the USA assumes that the whole of creation spins around it. Why, only today it started beaming "Across the Universe" out into the cosmos (ok ok the track is a Beatles song, but let's not get stuck on detail) ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.115.57 (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Howard, as you can see by the information box at the top of the page, the best place to discuss this would be the Village Pump. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate, couldn't resist. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew someone would to do that >:p --Howard the Duck 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Main Page turned out to be very not US-centric today. The FA is History of American football, which is derived from rugby (a UK sport). There isn't a single US item in ITN. DYK only has two US hooks (US Navy ship and George Schlatter). OTD has one US item (The Day the Music Died). The FP is of concentration camp victims, though they were liberated by US troops this is more of a German/Austrian topic. It's quite a non-US main page today, except for the FA. We still might get some complaints though. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The real fun will revolve around ITN after the game, I'm sure.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh God, it's not going to be on there, is it? J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if the Patriots win :) Antimatter--talk-- 20:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be, because the Super Bowl is the most important American football event of the year. Then again, I first heard of it last week in English class. Still, it probably deserves a place. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see internation significance. It isn't going to change the world, nobody cares. There is no way this should be on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

International importance? No. International interest? Maybe. --Howard the Duck 13:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Very few things change the world, if we restricted the ITN to that, we'd have a "news" item every century or so. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, maybe it was a bad phrase to use, but it isn't in the same class as the other news items. (With the possible exception of the item about Internet connections, but we do, as an encyclopedia, lean towards Internet related items.) Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't belong there? J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling the Super Bowl an American only interest is really quite naive. The game was broadcast in 223 countries and territories around the world, in 30 different languages. - auburnpilot talk 16:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I realise it is broadcast widely- I even watched about a minute before dying of boredom. I didn't actually use the "OMG US-CENTRICISMZ" argument, I just think it's pathetic in terms of newsworthyness. People may care, and people may know about it, but, in the grand scheme of things, it matters not, unlike the others (again, with the possible exception of the Internet thing). J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• News, by definition doesn't have to be important to be "new" information, news is simply a chronicle of recent events. The Super Bowl is a recent event, whether or not you personally think it is important is irrelevant. The gate keepers in the media have determined that it is "important" enough to be chronicled, thus making it news. 69.137.246.61 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not the way Wikipedia works- there is a shitstorm of press about pathetic pop-culture events, but they don't find themselves on the main page, and rightly so. This page outlines our guidelines on the matter, and I just don't think that this is of international importance. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've said above, international importance, no. International interest, maybe. Also, all sporting events don't affect the grand scheme of things, either. --Howard the Duck 02:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, which is why I support their removal, almost entirely. I can see the need to mention the world championship results in top sports (tennis, basketball, soccer, golf) as well as the start/end of huge competitions (Olympics, Commonwealth Games) but the internal result of one country, in a comparatively small sport? What about the results of the Eritrea 200m butterfly championships? Obviously, this is a purely scholarly argument, as I can't see it getting changed, which is a shame. J Milburn (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, as long as you can prove that the Eritrea 200m butterfly championships "was broadcast in 223 countries and territories around the world, in 30 different languages" live, perhaps the admins can be convinced.

(See, ultimately the "one country argument" would come into fore, I was waiting for it). --Howard the Duck 11:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the world championship in Tennis and Golf aren't really that notable enough for ITN standards. And you may want to talk about changes in the ITN criteria (especially on sports stories) to avoid the Super Bowl vs. Eritrea 200m butterfly championships debate. --Howard the Duck 11:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, as I say, I don't see it changing in a hurry. If I moan a little every time it comes up, maybe people's opinions will start to change... J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A complaint like this comes up every February, June and October every year I've started here on Wiki, so no sense of complaining every year. --Howard the Duck 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Super Bowl was front page news across Canada ("MIEUX QUE PARFAIT" read Le Soleil) and Mexico ("SORPRESA GIGANTE" said El Universal), as shown on the "Today's Front Pages" of the Newseum website. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it was you who started it off this time around Howard so there's no way to prove it was definatly going to happen this time around :), infact, I'm pretty sure I've read the words US-Centralism in your posts more then any other person, or perhaps more then all others put together. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 00:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey at least I kept off some US-related topics from the ITN and supported UK-related items some months ago... --Howard the Duck 03:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone in a thread above this was complaining about DYK's apparent bias towards nautical topics... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 16:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

pr0n

there is pr0n on the main page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11--Terminalerr1 (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're turned on by dromedaries? Eeeugh.. --Kaizer13 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't be hatin'. Albus Dumbledore's brother was into goats... Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, good one. But to clarify this matter to onlookers...
TITS
Use of mammary glands on main page
It is a bit odd, but the image has some artistic merit and is unfortunately no worse than today's shampoo commercials. This is erotica, not porn. (To mangle Pratchett, the difference is like the one between using a feather and using a chicken.) --Kizor 23:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Aw man, I was hoping the ubiquitous penis had reared its ugly head again. Zeality (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You would say that...jk, jk. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 00:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we must be vigilant. Having that elongated travesty poking in people's eyes as they come to Wikipedia wouldn't be a good thing. Zeality (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So wrong, in so many ways. Moyopic (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan as FA on Super Tuesday

This is just my personal opinion (which I know has no place on wikipedia...) but I find it both ironic and extremely POV that the FA is Ronald Reagan, the god-send of the American conservative movement, on one of the biggest election days in the United States... Hmmm.... FluxFuser (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reagan's birthday was February 6, 1911, just FYI. I wouldn't assume evil intent here. 69.137.246.61 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, hadn't realized that. Seems reasonable and innocent enough. Still ironic none-the-less, but thanks for the quick response. FluxFuser (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that innocent, ironic, or whatever, it really should be changed. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, because some poor soul is going to read it and suddenly find himself a red-blooded conservative by the grace of God. Quick, censor Wikipedia! Think of the politically-neutral children! Zeality (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way: the polls are by and large closed by now. Zeality (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The polls being closed is a reasonable point. Meh. I guess I really don't care much then. It was still a questionable judgment call though. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly? Wikipedia endorsing someone? Wikipedia influencing voters? I'm sorry but anyone whose vote depends on Wikipedia is probably not voting anyway. 128.227.7.73 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget Ronald Reagan is actually featured on February 6, his birthday, and not February 5, Super Tuesday. It just so happens that February 6, 2008 starts 5 hours earlier UTC than it does EST (ie New York City). - auburnpilot talk 01:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The polls were still open when the FA went up. They still are in some states. Screw UTC. Screw his birthday. This is highly inappropriate. Given Wikipedia's visibility, I wouldn't be surprised if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) investigates. —Nricardo (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha yes because it is illegal for private websites to (very subtly, if at all) advocate candidates. I guess ronpaul2008.com better watch out too! -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's commemerating Ronald Reagan's Birthday. If someone is infuencled by Ronald Regan being on the front of wikipedia, then that is not our fault. The Placebo Effect (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, ya know what? Never mind. It's just the primaries. I'll save my my ire for when John McCain is featured on election day. —Nricardo (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Won't happen. John McCain isn't featured. And even if it becomes an FA this year it won't make it through the waiting period. --Howard the Duck 06:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As usual Raul with his subtle Neo-con propoganda --Pensil (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

:Forgive me my ignorance, as I know nothing about the US election system, but the US presidential election is to take place on 4 November 2008. I think it would be unreasonable to restrict all political FAs until then. It's just the primaries, and I don't think they're that important. The first round of the Czech presidential election is to take place on Friday, now that's exciting.
Pensil, I don't think Raul intended to influence anyone with this FA. It's a common habit feature people on their birthdays or death anniversaries.
However, this raises the issue-Raul's been getting a lot of criticism lately. While I personally trust him, perhaps this implies that not everybody agrees with him having the current position, and a discussion should take place. Combined with a section above-I think this implies it's time for a community discussion. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (struck per Raul's explanation-I'm not good at interpreting humour Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

Puchiko - Pensil's comment was intended as a joke. I'm most certainly not a neo-con. Raul654 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm as liberal as they get, but I've got no problem with Reagan being on the main page on Super Tuesday. I would have no problem with Grover Cleveland, Franklin D. Roosevelt, or any other U.S. President either. It might be inappropriate to include any current candidates on the main page, though, at least until after the election. Lovelac7 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, people, today, Reagon's B-day, is Wednesday. Super Tuesday was yesterday! --74.13.129.31 (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. There's no grand Wikipedia conspiracy to make people vote for conservative candidates. Indeed, we are more often accused of the exact opposite. I can see more plausibly how having an FA of a current candidate during election time might look problematic but even then I'm not convinced there's any real issue. If the article meets FA then we should be good. I may be cynical but I have trouble believing we could have an article about any politician reach FA status and not have a lot of criticism in the article. If the article reads like it is a campaign piece then we have other issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Really tacky

Featuring a blatantly commercial piece in Did You Know (Pandora's Jewelry) is not appropriate, is it? C'mon, that really reads like an ad. I hope they at least made a nice donation to Wikipedia.Amity150 (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So nothing commercial is ever allowed on the Main page ever? 128.227.7.73 (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is! Articles about commercial products are still articles (I remember when Maraba Coffee was TFA - someone asked how much they paid to be featured), blatant advertisement however is not allowed. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article's not too bad- could use work, but worthy of being kept. Not certain it is quite main page material though. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While the article has problems I don't know if they necessary disqualify it from DYK. I think the bigger issue is the hook choosen sounds too much like an advert even if the words are empty. This is I think one of the problems with DYK items when it comes to commercial items, by trying to make the hook sound interesting we risk making them sound too much like an advertisement. The Maruba coffee et al TFA aren't anywhere nearly as much as a problem since we don't need a catchy single phrase Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

When I uploaded it to the Main Page diff, there was no advert tag (that was added 4 hours later) and it had been "fact checked" on the Suggestions page (for length and the ref for the hook). The Main Page was a few hours overdue at the time, so I was in a hurry and, while I also scanned the article, I did not catch this. It is my fault (I put it on the Main Page). I agree that clearer guidelines on what is allowed and what is not would be helpful. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I know this is off the beaten track to some degree, but I too am having a problem with the advertisment issue when it comes to some of the articles I edit for male porno stars. It seems strange to me that these people are even notable, but then when they have web sites that are posted to the page and are able to put within the page that they offer escort services, I think sommething is wrong with that! I also think it's wrong to use sources that promote their escort services as well as pages that display explicit photos of them engaging in sexual acts. I understand that these things are sources, but I do not feel they should be displayed as we have children who come to this encyclopedia for references. I think the advertisments need to be addressed within the rules! I am done ranting now! LOL Canyouhearmenow 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, but remember that we do not count primary sources as awfully reliable- they certainly do nothing to assert notability. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

However is a porn star is noteable (and we have specific mention in Wikipedia:Notability (people) to help people establish that) then there would definitely be nothing wrong with linking to their official website in the external links section anymore then there's something wrong with linking to Microsoft's website in Microsoft Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Whaaaaat?

A featured article about not only a British book, but a feminist one!?!? I feel this is positive discrimination against both men and the US! I demand the FA be changed to something manly and American, I don't know, possibly a football match ... or something homosexually erotic at least! --LookingYourBest (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How blatantly biased! Don't worry, she wasn't really a feminist, she believed that women should be wives and teachers, she didn't support women working outside the pedagogic sphere. And tomorrow's FA is Golden plates, an American male topic. That's followed by Boeing 747, so you shouldn't worry. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No News on Super Tuesday?

Why is there a headline for the Superbowl results but no mention of the results of the Democratic and Republican primaries? No world news organization (e.g., BBC World) is including the Superbowl results in its headlines, but every single one has a headline on the presidential primaries. -- WGee (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ITN/C if you wish to suggest an item, but trust me, it won't get in. We'll report the result of the election, and possibly the result of the party nominations (though I doubt it), but nothing yet. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that the Superbowl results getting posted is a matter of great debate, so using that as a comparison doesn't lend much weight to an argument. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 02:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think me kicking up a light hearted 'fuss' constitutes "great debate". ;-) Or is someone else with me on some page I don't visit enough? Down with sports! J Milburn (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, the results were rather boring (POV). Hopefully when someone wins a nomination, ITN will cover it. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about Chinese new year?

Today is Chinese New Year, but I don't see anything about it on the main page. — Loadmaster (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You just missed it. Wikipedia, an international web site, uses UTC (aka Greenwich Mean Time, aka London time). Today is tomorrow. —Nricardo (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate craziness

Ah! A Mormon article and John Edwards on the same page! Think of the impressionable voters. With further primaries in two days, I personally can see no other situation than every voter choosing to waste their votes and vote for two candidates who are no longer running. Wikipedia, how easily you corrupt voters with your unofficial endorsements. 128.227.78.233 (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know when the last time was that we went, say, three days without either an accusation of bias or a joke accusation of bias? ;) -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There you go again, demonstrating your anti-joke accusation of bias bias. Joe 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Domo-kun.jpg We're coming!

Every time you talk about bias on the main page, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens. Raul654 (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Domo-kun.jpg What the other domo-kun said... --Howard the Duck 06:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And that just shows Wikipedia's abhorrent pro-kitten bias. Think of the puppies! Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a pro-cuteness bias! Think of the slugs and naked mole rats! JoshuaZ (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How about the Domo-kuns? Remember the domo-kuns... --Howard the Duck 06:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Think of the readers

"The golden plates were a set of engraved plates, bound into a book, that Joseph Smith, Jr. said was his source material for the Book of Mormon, a scripture of the Latter Day Saint movement. Smith, the founder of that movement, said he obtained the plates on September 22, 1827 on Cumorah hill in Manchester, New York, where they were hidden in a buried box and protected by an angel named Moroni. After dictating a translation and obtaining signed statements by eleven other witnesses, he said he returned the plates to the angel in 1829."

This paragraph, quite frankly, is crap. It's disjointed, incoherent, overly defensive, basically if I was an English teacher I'd give it an F without bothering with the words. If commas cost money Wikipedia would be bankrupt. Please, Wikipedia, either pay someone to write your front page content, or don't have a front page at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.65.77 (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically the passage was incorporating as much appositives as possible since without those appositives, it'll be even harder to understand the context. --Howard the Duck 04:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking the TFA blurb is a refined version of the FA lead. You are welcome to improve the FA lead if you can. However we will definetely not be paying you or anyone else to do it. BTW a teacher who doesn't even try to understand what he or she is reading is a bad teacher and I think we should be glad you aren't one... Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, no personal attacks and don't bite newcomers please. He or she commented on content, and it would behove you to restrict yourself in a like manner. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply giving my opinion that a teacher who doesn't bother to try and read what they are grading is a bad teacher (and that was as an aside/secondary point to my main point). And I stick by that opinion. If someone says something stupid, then I will reply in kind. This isn't biting a newcomer or a personal attack. It is simply pointing out that the comment was a dumb comment in the first place. If and when I make dumb comments (and yes I do sometimes) you are welcome to likewise point out my comment was dumb. BTW my comment on the teacher issue was more then about simply pointing out the comment was dumb. If you read and understand the sentence, it's fairly easy to see that it isn't that easy to improve. I'm sure it can be done, but it's not a simple matter. And it definitely isn't a terribly constructed sentence worthy of an F. It is perfectly understandable. That in essence was my point. If you actually read the sentence, you may realise it isn't as bad as it seems by counting commans. And if you are going to comment and say something is bad you need to actually understand what you are commenting on before coming up with a random comment... We are humans, not computers and we should evalute stuff based on understanding what we are evaluating, not by applying a set of rules (too many commas, must be bad) which a computer could do. Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I made no comment on the merits of the sentence. I just suggest that you not respond to Talk:Main Page criticism of content with a personal insult and use of the royal "we" (which I'm sure you'll maintain did not seek to put the commentator outside a clique and you inside it, but does have that effect, nonetheless). I'm disappointed that you think such things are negotiable in proportion with your perception of the worth of any given criticism. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was decently written. The only comma I could see removing is the first one; maybe if you rewrote the second sentence you could also get rid of the first two commas in that sentence. Either way, it's not a big deal. You would give it an F? Can you suggest a better wording? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-08 15:50Z

proxy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.87.153 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Gram/punct. error:

September 22, 1827 on Cumorah hill in

September 22, 1827, on Cumorah Hill in... miranda 08:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Copied up to errors. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)