Revision as of 09:57, 2 May 2007

YOU MIGHT BE ON THE WRONG PAGE.This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles. This page is only for discussions about the Misplaced Pages page Main Page. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Misplaced Pages, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ.

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

Template:Main Page discussion footer

Main page error reports

To report an error you have noticed on the current main page or tomorrow's main page please add it to the appropriate section below. You can do this by pressing the button to the right of the appropriate below section's heading. Also, please sign your post using four tildes (~~~~)

• WP:ERRORS
• WP:MP/E

National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously: Misplaced Pages does not prefer any national variety of English. While Misplaced Pages strives to use language common to all English varieties, some spelling, grammar, or terminology may differ or be absent in a reader's preferred variety. Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see a comparison of American and British English.

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Main Page queue

In the news

candidates

discussion

admin instructions

Did you know

nominations

discussion

queue

BotErrors

Protected pages

Commons media protection

Associated

• Error reports
• General discussion
• FAQ
• Help
• CSS
• Sandbox
  • CSS
• History
• Alternatives
• April Fools'

• It is currently 20:25 UTC.
• Purge the Main Page
• Purge this page

• 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 20:25 on 9 January 2025) 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.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• Please wikilink Limia tridens, the little fish in the photo. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 12:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  It already links Limia, although hidden behind different text. Secretlondon (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Limia tridens and Limia are not the same thing. Also, per WP:SURPRISE, not having a wikilink for an obvious (or at least potential) article indicates (incorrectly, in this case) to readers that no such article exists. Abductive (reasoning) 13:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  The photo is being used as an example of limia Secretlondon (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  The idea is to boost the article that an editor made for a DYK. I understand that. But the Main Page is for readers, not editors seeking points in the WP:CUP. Abductive (reasoning) 13:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Abductive - the caption should link to the species. It already uses the full species name, so just adding some square brackets is sufficient. Modest Genius 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Link added. RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or is the DYK about treatment of Jewish POW's a misrepresentation of the article to which it links, and potentially down-playing antisemitic activities of the Nazi regime? The text is: "... that while Germans murdered millions of prisoners of war during WWII, the survival ratio of Jewish POWs was generally tied to the army or nation they served with, and not to their ethnicity?" This can easily be read as Jewishness was irrelevant to their treatment. Reading the actual article, the article says there were very large differences in treatment of POW's depending on the country with which they fought, but in all cases referred to in the article, Jewish POW's were treated worse than non-Jewish from the same military background. It seems to me that this is a very contentious topic, a topic where right-wing extremists are happy to misinterpret any text they can find. We are doubly, triply obligated to be super-careful in our wording, and today's DYK falls woefully short of the necessary care. Could we take it out, and run it again after better wording has been agreed? Elemimele (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I read the target article the other day and have now looked at the DYK nomination. It had not occurred to me at the time of reading the article, but Elemimele's concern is justified. ALT3 is the other hook that one of the reviewers liked, and it certainly intrigued me when I read the article (maybe I should have known that, but I didn't – hence I was surprised). Not sure whether that works for others (it didn't for the final reviewer), but I'd prefer ALT3 over something that raises concerns. Hence, I've swapped it. Schwede66 17:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

Monday's FL

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

Main page general discussion

Featured Lists on the Main Page

Hello. I believe this has been brought up sometime before, but I'm not sure where. I'll make this a poll. No IP voting please. --Birdman1 21:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: Should featured lists appear on the Main Page? If so, how (List of the day/week/month...)?

(For an example of how Featured Lists could be displayed on the Main Page, see Misplaced Pages:Featured content Tompw (talk) (review) 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Support

• Support. because giving the main portal more info should encourage users to actually use this feature. although i am worried about the lay out, the main page aready is a bit crowded, i think over time this will be resolved with some careful tweaking--Greg.loutsenko 22:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think a little extra box on the Main Page would hurt anybody. Users work hard to get lists featured. Lists are an important organizational tool for Misplaced Pages. I think a "List of the week" would be nice, starting with newer lists. If the supply of new lists is exhausted, old lists can be used until new lists are created. --Birdman1 21:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support — perhaps "featured list of the week" and "featured topic of the month"? — Deckiller 23:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• But if a person doesn't read the list/topic in the first couple of days, I doubt tacking even more time will get them to look at it. ShadowHalo 00:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• The main reason I recommend week or month is so we don't run out of lists. — Deckiller 01:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• But leaving it for a week or month renders the section useless for readers, most of the time that is. ShadowHalo 01:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Mainly because I'm working on a list ;) Majorly (hot!) 23:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support A Featured list of the day would work fine. There are 243 FLs currently and if they were featured, that number would surely increase at a rate higher than now. This is due to an incentive now possible to list editors.--Hamedog_Talk| 00:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support for an FL once a week; to prevent staleness, on Monday would be the topmost part of the list, then on Tuesday the next part, up to Sunday when we reach the last part; if the list is very long it's OK if we don't reach the end of it. This is currently done on WP:FC with only the first part of the list displayed; if it can be displayed there I see absolutely no reason why we can't do it here. --Howard the Duck 03:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - lists are just a type of article. Make the 'article of the day' a 'featured list' from time to time. Solves any problems of 'insufficient space' and 'not enough lists'. The fact that we have featured lists on the featured content page shows that they can be put into summary form. --CBD 11:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support I agree that would be a good idea, and it would help wikipedians contribute what they feel to wikipedia. --Katherine Kaiquser 00:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support But are there enough lists to rotate? Well, I guess people would be motivated to start working on them, so they would increase quickly. · AO 17:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support The idea of a Featured List of the week is a good one, especially combined with the idea of breaking it into sections for each day to add variety. Having that will encourage the proliferation of high-quality lists. I think letting readers see some of our best lists is a service to them. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support: It we a going to put them on for a week how about put diffrent parts of the list on each day. Buc 09:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support "List of the Day". Given the current number of FLs (246) and the rate they are bein added (~10-15/month), it will be at least year before any have to repeat. (See detailed workings under "some real discussion") Tompw (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support I like ONUnicorn's idea above. i believe that an extra box wouldn't be horrible. however, it would have to be done correctly. themcman1 (help me with my sig) 13:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Could be a good feature but it should be a list of the week since there are not enough features lists to support a daily feature.
• Support Good idea. --Umedard Talk 15:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support I believe that every now and then it should be included in the space where the current 'article of the day' is. Todd661 08:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nothing wrong with the idea. Sr13 (T|C) 08:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose From what I can tell, there aren't nearly enough featured lists for this to work. ShadowHalo 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

But would it work if we did a featured list of the week/month? --Birdman1 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want to? If a person wants to ready the list/topic, they'll read it within the first couple of days. Leaving it up for an entire week or month isn't going to get people to read it. ShadowHalo 00:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not everyone views Misplaced Pages everyday. Buc 09:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. There aren't nearly enough lists promoted each month to keep this up, unfortunately. —Cuiviénen 23:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

See above. --Birdman1 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely not. —Cuiviénen 14:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not sure why this is being done as a poll, but I see one major problem with this idea. Articles can be summarized, pictures can be resized. How does one summarize a list? By putting it in list form, its about as summarized as it gets. Even if we use tiny font, lists like List of California birds and most other FLs will be extremely long. Mr.Z-mantalk¢
  • Sinces it already done on the Featured content page I don't think this would be a problem. Buc 09:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    Also, in response to "reusing lists" there are currently 243 FLs, with one being nominated about every 2 days. If everyone of them passes, we would run out in less than 2 years (486 days). If only half pass, we would run out in less than a year (324 days). Doing it weekly would work, but that may start to seem stale after a while. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We could just adapt the introduction from the featured lists, similar to what we do with featured articles. --Tntnnbltn 16:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I really don't think that a featured list of the day/week would be all that interesting to the non-Wikipedians who frequent the Main Page. We already seem to do this at Misplaced Pages:Featured content, which is linked on the sidebar. Also, wouldn't adding something to the Main Page require a more substantial ordeal than a poll on this page? --Maxamegalon2000 02:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. They all come in a different size and shape. Some are rather long. Some are tabulated and hard to squeeze onto MainPage. Where on MainPage do we put these FLs, anyway? I worry about layout problems on MainPage. --PFHLai 03:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC), 14:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I appreciate the work that often goes into lists, but I still think that lists aren't content the same was images and prose are. They're just tools to make the user's life easier. No one would suggest a "featured template of the day", or some such. It seems like that putting things on the main page simply as a "reward" to the editors is something to be avoided. Also, why is this a poll, and why is it here? 69.95.50.15 14:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, no IP voting. Someone could vote twice. Please make an account. (If anyone opposes this comment, please reply.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Birdman1 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2007 April 17 (UTC).

The IP is entitled to his/her opinion. And we should be discussing instead of voting. --PFHLai 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not strikeout another use's comment. That should be used for self-retraction only. El_C 18:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I disgree. I think it's a great way to honor user(s) work. Buc 09:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per 69.95.50.15 ~ Giggy! _Talk 06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of opposing or voting in this poll, please do the discussion at #some real discussion, below. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 06:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose As much as a lot of hard work goes into lists, I don't think that the main page is the best place to feature it. Firstly I already think there are too many boxes on the main page and secondly I agree with 69.95.50.15 above, lists aren't quite the same as pictures and prose. LukeSurl 19:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It would make the main page far too cluttered, and lists have no real substance. --Oreo Priest 02:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You are welcome to remove the lists on the FIFA World Cup page since they have no real substance, LOL. --Howard the Duck 06:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Howard the Duck for the condescending LOL. The list on that page is in support of an article. A list on its own has no substance.--Oreo Priest 03:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You'll be surprised that FLs aren't just lists, LOL. --Howard the Duck 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Right, and you can often count the number of prosaic sentences on a hand or two. ShadowHalo 23:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Really? These FLs have leads the same length as FAs. Of course lists can have that much prose, try doing that on FPs, LOL. --Howard the Duck 08:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Just looking at two random FL's, List of Australian Twenty20 International cricketers and List of Governors of Delaware both have very short leads compared to FAs. They're only one paragraph, where a decent FA has two, three, sometimes four paragraph long leads. Luckily with featured pictures, not as much text is necessary since the picture is the object of attention. ShadowHalo 14:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Substance shouldn't be judged by the amount of prose but by the informational content. See the List of New Jersey birds - that's content. That's information. That's substance.
• I'm not saying that featured lists don't have substance. I'm saying many don't have enough prose to be suitable for the main page. ShadowHalo 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • They at least have enough prose to have a little tiny box on the MP. Does that count? lol--Ed 23:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It would be silly to apply FA standards to FL, since they're structurally different, it's like asking for a 40kb worth of text caption in an FP, or a reference section in an FPOR. --Howard the Duck 08:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I didn't say there needed to be 40kb of text. But there needs to be some amount of useful text, or there's no purpose in exhibiting the list. And List of Australian Twenty20 International cricketers has only a five-sentence lead, two of which are about how the list is organized. That's not nearly enough to produce a section on the Main Page. ShadowHalo 17:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
        • That's why we'd need a "Today's featured list" page to weed out questionable and controversial pages. However, most of the time, lists are subpages of an article, which means it would be written in a summary style, and not to mention Twenty20 cricket is a relatively new development which would explain why it is that short (which leads me to using text found at its parent article). BTW, I'm looking for that hurricane-related FA that's so short, it could be a featured stub. --Howard the Duck 12:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
          • If you mean Hurricane Irene (2005), that's hardly a featured stub. Even that has suitable prose for a Main Page box, unlike a large number of featured lists. ShadowHalo 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
            • You really don't get it, do you? Prose isn't what FLs supposed to be good at but the display of lists, like FPs featuring pics rather than captions, FSs lets you hear sounds, rather than read the explanation. If you'd want prose, go to FAs, if you'd want lists, go to FLs. Prose isn't the only thing that's important in this encyclopedia. Its like saying Kristen Dunst should act well to be nominated for an acting award for Spiderman 3 when the reason why people will watch the film is either due to the special effects or the kiss they'd perform. --Howard the Duck 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral - It's a really good idea. People work very hard on them, I why call them featured if you aren't going to recognize them for it. As of now, I don't think it'd work, because there isn't enough Featured list, however, maybe in the future, when more are featured class, we could have them on the main page.--theblueflamingo 00:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. I don't oppose them completely, but we have two serious issues in my opinion — lack of numbers of FLs and lack of space on the MainPage for a new section. I was thinking, though, maybe we could sneak in some "Bonus featured list"s when they're directly related to the FA of the day. This could just be one line: "Bonus featured list: List of Xes", at the bottom of the FA. These would only be featured on an occasional basis.--Pharos 03:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. As Pharos, I concur it's an excellent idea, but so far I see two issues; (1) lack of FL's. Long before there were as many features pictures, we used to show one picture per week, but I believe doing so today won't be a good idea due to traffic Misplaced Pages receives daily, and (2) inconstancy with the rest of the main page and others lists. We aren't able to show the entire list except only a fraction of it, which is neither encyclopedic nor attractive — not to mention some lists are built through tables. Perhaps someday. Michaelas 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

some real discussion

we shouldn't be voting, for goodness sakes, it's a matter of consensus

The oppose votes say that there are too few FLs and they are differently structured, but the remedy is to have an FL per week, and for every day, a new section displayed so that it'll not be that stale. Which brings me, lets cut the voting and do some real discussion so we can get over this. --Howard the Duck 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to begin a collaboration for FLs, such as starting a WikiProject. For now, I think that a weekly FL would be nice, and then we rotate a section everyday for seven days (as noted above). I'm going to propose the project to WP:COUNCIL (like WP:WPGA), but the "Today's featured list" should be discussed somewhere else.--Ed 02:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You can see the proposal here--Ed 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Several people have commented that there aren't enough lists for "list of the day" to work. There are currently 246 featured lists. Going by the Featured list log, new FLs are being added at rate of 10-15 month. Taking the lower figure (say 3 per day), plus the current total of 246 lists, it would take us 368 days to get through them all, before we had to repeat. (Over 368 days, 122 new FLs can be expected, plus the 246 exsisting: 122+246=368). So, it is not true to say we'd repeat ourselves in just 246 days - the actual figure is over a year.
Now, those are the facts. If you feel Main Page content should *never* be repeated, then that would be a reason to oppose. On the other hand, you may be happy with repeating less than once a year. Tompw (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If we get a steady stream of 31 FLs a month, we can probably manage a TFL. That's why I'm proposing a WikiProject to WP:COUNCIL/P, so that we can have constant contributions to all existing lists.--Ed 16:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I've just discovered (which I'm surprised I hadn't noticed before) that one day a week the FP is a repeat. Perhaps if we were to do one FL a week, it could just replace the one day when the FP would have been a repeat.--Pharos 05:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

All lists should be categories anyway... *runs from torch and pitchfork wielding mob* ;) --Monotonehell 07:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

*grabs torch and pitchfork* But how can we display them in a suitable format if there are more than two variables involved? (Which brings me, do you people have ever seen a featured list? hehehe) --Howard the Duck 07:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

On a seperate, but related note, WikiProject Lists was just created. The Placebo Effect 23:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The rate that featured lists are produced will go up, so, on top of the "over a year" already mentioned, we will have further lists, so much so that we would very rarely need to repeat, if ever. Having one a week gives more 'glory' to a featured list than a featured article, which isn't fair at all. Personally, my only objection to the whole thing is that then, what about featured topics, featured sounds and (when we get it, which we will) featured videos? J Milburn 19:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at WP:FC, how the different featured content appears there, roughly that's how they should look like at the Main page. A featured sounds box would show a little icon, with a short description to the sounds, etc. We might as well add a link to a Featured portal, at the upper right hand corner, too. --Howard the Duck 04:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(I am not a mathematician) Averaging the last six months, featured lists are being added at a rate of 15 per month. Assuming no change in this rate (though it seems logical that the rate will actually rise with time), the total number of featured lists increase at a rate of ${\displaystyle f(x)=15x+252}$ per month. The average number of days per month is (averaged up by about .083) 30.5, which would mean that the total number of featured lists increases at a rate of ${\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {15}{30.5}}x+252}$ Days increase at a rate of ${\displaystyle g(x)=x}$ of course, so with no change in the rate of increase, there would be no repeat in featured lists for almost 500 days. The logical increase in the number of lists featured per day means that the time would probably be greater, likely even infinite, as the increase in featured articles has become (I think). In any case, 500 days gives us an ample amount of time before we would have to deal with a repeat situation, even if that rate did not increase. In other words, there are indeed enough featured lists to exhibit a new one every day, though I personally wouldn't be against one per week either. Atropos 23:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

One per day, then one per week once we get low. Remember that the number of lists will proabably increase exponetially because there would be a purpose to improving them (getting them on the front page). A lot of the lists are extremely interesting and you would only find them through very obsurce linking.--Dacium 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As the author of two FLs myself, I would strongly support this. Concerns that there are too few FLs have been addressed above. Besides, what's the point of it being featured if it's tucked away into a dark corner at WP:FL with no strong link from the Main Page. Sure, it's exemplary work, but nobody's going to see it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If the above poll is to be of any use, it needs to be refactored. On April 24, an anon decided to rearrange some comments, turning opposes into supports, giving a false sense of the community opinion. A user reverted some of it, but missed some and the anon did even more afterward. If anyone wants to put the poll back together, that would be much appreciated. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The poll doesn't matter anyway now. All of the things should be discussed at this section. --Howard the Duck 03:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The poll was never binding, it matters as much as it ever did. Anyway, matter or not, isn't it misleading to have a tampered poll sitting around? It's natural for people to guage prevailing opinion by what they can take in at a glance before fully thinking about an issue. The majority of "oppose" comments were either removed outright, edited so that their supporting comments were stupid(!) or mysteriously changed to 'support' comments. Personally, I think that alone should say something about the consensus for this proposal. 24.2.176.64 05:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC) (P.S., I'm the IP that made an 'oppose' comment above. At least the editor who tampered with my comment had the decency to sign his name.)

Now that you've said it, I was going to restore it by reverting but it might remove newer discussions. --Howard the Duck 06:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured lists and portals (and sounds and topics) are most effectively promoted at Misplaced Pages:Featured content (3rd link in sidebar, and top-right of Main page). Lists get a large sample displayed, but using article-based <onlyinclude>s, so not adaptable for use here.

We used to have different Main page content in one of the sections on weekends. I'd endorse a proposal along those lines, for featured lists (displaying instead of DYK or FPic, on weekends or Sundays; so it would need to be a very condensed sample). But I feel that permanently adding something as large as the samples at Featured content would make the page too long, and make things like our sister projects even less likely to be seen (as attested by Ed in the bottom thread concerning wikinews). I object to anything that significantly enlarges the Main page design. --Quiddity 01:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have FLs replace the DYKs since the DYKs are encouraged to inflate the article count without really improving other articles. For example, all of those Eurovision-related DYKs won't have a chance of expansion since most of them are rather forgotten after a few months; FLs on the other hand are superior in many ways over DYKs.

Also, if there should be a place to feature Misplaced Pages's very best work, it's not WP:FC but the Main Page itself. --Howard the Duck 08:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hats off!

According to Alexa, Misplaced Pages is now (on a 3 months moving average) the 10th most visited site in the world. Camptown 08:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(If you're not wearing a hat, please put one on first, complications may occur otherwise). Yes, and that explains why we spend a lot of our time removing unencyclopedic marketing attempts. :( --Monotonehell 10:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Misplaced Pages's success may very well be its worst enemy... Camptown 12:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW: Alexa is actually a semi-official barometer at WP Statics Camptown 14:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What do I do if I don't have any hats readily available? *puts piece of paper on head, then takes it off* It's just not the same... --LuigiManiac 12:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What about those who have difficulty wearing hats? E.g. Sikhs with turbans? Nil Einne 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's always a solution. Stop being difficult! ;) --Monotonehell 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

*surgically affixes bowler hat, picks up briefcase and does Ministry of Silly Walks impression* Ah, that's better. Now, back to work, minions! *whipcrack* Write more articles, or be dunked in ACID. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No! Don't write more, make the ones we have better! J Milburn 09:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Quality, not quantity, is what we should be striving for. --LuigiManiac 23:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

<ACK> ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 18:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Portals on the mainpage

Portals seem to be highly underused in my experience. Of all the people I know that uses Misplaced Pages casually, I haven't found one that even know what a portal is. Their only advertisement really is a tiny box on articles with a related portal and some completely unexplained links at the top of the main page. This is a huge pity, because portals should be a highly useful tool for anyone who wants to know about any broad topic.

So I'm proposing that they be added to the main page. At the mo' there are not nearly enough for them to be added every day, so I would suggest This week's featured portal instead. I would also suggest that there be another page Misplaced Pages:What is a portal? or something similar which introduces the portal concept. Another idea I had was that portals featured for a week on the main page should change their content every day during that week, rather than once a month or week or however often they currently update.

Here is my proposed way to fit them into the main page. This would of course replace the current Welcome to Wikpedia box on the top of the page:

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit. 6,937,895 articles in English

This week's featured portal This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. Featured portals included here </noinclude> Music of Australia

Other portals: Arts Biography Geography History Mathematics Science Society Technology All portals What is a portal?

|} The biggest problem with this design is that the Welcome to Misplaced Pages box now has a lot of white space. I tried including the Overview...A–Z index inside that box, but it didn't end up looking very good. I am more than open (read: asking) for suggestions about how to remedy this problem. I expect my wikicode is also a bit messy.

So? Atropos 00:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a simple link like the one at the bottom would be sufficient:

--Howard the Duck 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, and the Howard the Duck's implementation of it. Gracenotes § 04:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What I like about the first is that the one that'll show up would be random while mine would be fixed. If anyone can do a random FPOR on the second option it'll be great. --Howard the Duck 05:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Eugh. That's exactly the opposite of what I'm looking for. Just another little line of text which attracts no attention. Further, mine is only random because I pulled from the Featured content page. Atropos 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this one?

If someone can only enclose the featured portal link within the portal box and use a scandalous color. --Howard the Duck 10:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You might be better off promoting Misplaced Pages:Featured portals, and making that page more visible. Have a look at "what links here", for that, and see how widely linked it is. Carcharoth 00:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone fix the indent here, please ? --PFHLai 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. howcheng {chat} 06:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this, Howcheng. --PFHLai 08:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

section edit break

That's not bad, but there's a rather annoying blank space underneath the header, occupied only by the featured portal's name, on the right. I think that we should have a specific portal featured. We don't merely have a link to WP:FA on the front page; we have a featured article. Why? For recognition, and to show off some of our best content people would not otherwise see. Gracenotes § 17:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone can come up with a good layout, I'd support this. I'd even be prepared to see one of the main portals dropped (are they all featured?). And can someone fix the annoying location of the edit link for this section? Carcharoth 00:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Only 3 of the 8 portals listed are featured. --Quiddity 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Misplaced Pages

Spanish Misplaced Pages has reached 200,000 article, would you please update your main page? Dazissimo 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The next tier is "more than 250,000 articles." The Spanish Misplaced Pages is up to 228,216 articles. —David Levy 17:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the second time this has happened. Moving goal posts! I wonder if any of the language Wikipedias will be unfortunate enough to have this prize moved away from them at just the speed they are growing at... (yes, I know, quality, not quantity). Carcharoth 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you will see the goal constantly moved. The whole idea is there are not more than there already are on the main page. To keep this many there is a constant increase in the goals.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dacium (talk • contribs) 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorporate 2007 Estonian unrest

Should be included in the Bronze Soldier part. Christopher Connor 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. A link to 2007 Estonian unrest is now on ITN as suggested. Please post future suggestions for ITN at WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's now off Mainpage due to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2007 Estonian unrest. --PFHLai 08:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

UK Bomb plotters sentenced to life

Today 5 of the 7 suspected bomb plotters were jailed for life on terrorism charges. The article currently covering this is Operation Crevice. What the consensus putting this in the 'in the news' list? Jamie 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The place to ask would be WP:ITN/C. ShadowHalo 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Admin interviewed on Swedish Radio

Misplaced Pages administrator Theresa Knotts is interviewed on Swedish National Broadcasting Service. She talks about protecting Misplaced Pages from vandals and sabotage. And she feels proud to be a part of Misplaced Pages. Interview: Listen and learn --Bondkaka 10:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bondkaka, you may want to move this to Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages on TV and radio. --PFHLai 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the day : Willet

I've noticed a small defect on the POTD. A dust spot IMO. I removed it as the POTD is locked I uploaded the edited picture at Media:Catoptrophorus semipalmatus edit-cleaned.jpg. Ericd 22:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any difference between that and Image:Catoptrophorus semipalmatus edit.jpg. Maybe it got uploaded over the old pic by now? Carcharoth 00:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No ! Compar both pictures at full res. You will notice a small spot on the neck. Ericd 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Yes! Well-spotted. This is not really the right place to get the correct image uploaded though. Maybe ask over at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured pictures? Carcharoth 00:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thread started here. Carcharoth 00:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the mass immigrant demonstration currently going on in the U.S?

I don't want people to think that wiki is just brushing this under the carpet... God forbid.

-G

Jeez, man. Before you accuse people of having political motives behind everything they do, stop and think for a moment. It could be an accident. It could be an oversight. Or it could just be that the world doesn't revolve around the USA, and that Misplaced Pages is trying to represent a more global, cosmopolitan, multi-cultural attitude. Seriously, it's an inappropriate way to express your political views, by setting yourself up on some pedestal and accusing others of evils without assuming good faith. Chill, dude. LordAmeth 23:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia which works by contributions from anyone. Your pet story hasn't appeared firstly because Misplaced Pages is an enyclopedia, not a news service. If you're interested in breaking news why not report it at wikinews which is our sister project for just that. Secondly, if this news turns into something that an encyclopedia should have an article on, as was the case last year volunteers will create an article. There's no centralised control at Misplaced Pages that is responsible for brushing anything under the carpet. If an article is written about a subject it's firstly because someone cares enough to contribute it and secondly because it's a topic worth documenting by an encyclopedia (not a news service). --Monotonehell 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is most people don't even know about Wikinews. I never knew about any of WP's sister projects until I actually became an established editor. Even then, I still don't edit a lot anywhere else except for here. Therefore, one should take this into consideration when dealing with inexperienced people. Please try not to bite the anons.--Ed 23:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if people are not aware of wikinews (which is linked to on the main page in ITN), they should be aware that this is an encyclopaedia not a news site. Besides that, I would suggest anyone who has visited the wikipedia main page more then say 5 times in several weeks and is aware of world events should know that we don't always mention undoutedly important events for a variety of reasons Nil Einne 07:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki. Go to Portal:Current events and start typing, G. --74.13.124.59 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Today, LAPD fired into pro immigration rally during the day of mass peaceful immigration reform marches.

-G

G, you are probably looking for Portal:Current events or Wikinews. Please go there to post news headlines. Not every news story gets mentioned on the main page. Please see Misplaced Pages:In the news section on the Main Page. --74.13.124.59 07:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

i think wikipedia is abused by awfully many youths! i'm here to make all those rats disappear!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suiramm (talk • contribs) 08:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a cat, man! --74.13.124.59 08:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good thing no specie messes up with ducks. --Howard the Duck 08:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Avoid dogs and humans. --74.13.124.59 08:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dogs have many enemies. --Howard the Duck 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Suiramm, it is interesting that you said that considering that your first edit (out of two so far) was inserting the word "penis" into an article, ie. vandalism. If you want to continue this discussion please don't post here but my user-talk because this is not relevant to the main page. Gizza 08:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Inactive project pages