Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:32, 16 April 2008 view sourceFox (talk \| contribs)Administrators33,224 edits Revert to revision 206047438 dated 2008-04-16 16:30:00 by 74.213.46.194 using popups ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:28, 9 January 2025 view source Modest Genius (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,313 edits →Proposal: delink "English": opposeTag: Disambiguation links added
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion}}
	<includeonly></includeonly><!-- ''Please start'' new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. This "section edit button" is important, so please use it -->
			{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|autoconfirmed\|{{pp-vandalism\|small=yes}}}}<!--
	]
			Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page using the "NEW SECTION" tab, or use the "EDIT" link beside the section heading to add to it. The section edit link and "New section" tab are important, so please use them.
	{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}
			-->{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}
			{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|autoconfirmed\|{{pp-vandalism}}}}
			{{Annual readership\|title=the Main Page}}
			{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|maxarchivesize = 200k
	\|counter = 122
			\|counter = 207
	\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|~~minthreadstoarchive~~ = 1		\|minthreadsleft = 1
	\|algo = old(3d)		\|algo = old(3d)
	\|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	{{~~skiptotoctalk~~}}		{{MPH alert}}
			{{Centralized discussion}}
	{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
			{{bots\|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 ] -->
	<div style="right:10px;" class="metadata topicon">'''{{Currentdate}}'''</div>
			]
			__TOC__
			{{clear}}

			= Main Page error reports =
	{{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}}
	=General discussion=
	__TOC__
	<!-- ---------------		<!-- ---------------
			Please do not write anything here.
	Please start new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. The edit button is important, so have the courtesy to use it.
			Please go to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors to place an error report.
	------------------ -->
			To discuss the contents of the Main Page, please start a new discussion using the "New section" button above, or use the "" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.
			--------------- -->

			= General discussion =
	== Punctuation @ In the News ==
			{{Shortcut\|T:MP\|WT:MP}}

			<!-- ---------------
	'''I LUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUV VENDUHLISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
			Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this talk page (e.g. using the "New section" button above), or use the "" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.
	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
			---------------- -->
	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'''--] (]) 16:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Featured images or featured media ==

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

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

	:Additionally, media other than pictures is much harder to evaluate. ~] <sup><b>«]»</b></sup> 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	: Perhaps you're looking for]. To avoid clutter, and to avoid detracting from articles, not all types of 'Featured' stuff makes the main page. (Though what should go on the main page and what shouldn't, has certainly been debated before.) ] (]) 02:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
	:(ec) We do, in fact, have ], although at present only 14, of which 10 were ] following FS's implementation. We don't, if we elect not to use sounds that are featured at Commons only (or at least those featured at Commons that did not originate here), seem to have enough FS to permit any useful sort of rotation, but I don't know that there'd be any grand objection to the inclusion of a "featured sounds" section had we enough material with which to work (the ] encountered some significant opposition, but that, AFAIK, was due mainly to the section's probable intrusiveness). We generally do permit video files or animations to be ], and a good many have appeared on the main page. To be sure, though, we might marry our featured videos/animations with our featured sounds to create "featured media", but the frequency of addition of "featured media" still might be insufficient to permit the daily changing of the item without repetition. In the absence of logistical issues, though, the idea would, IMHO, be a fine one, and one might do well to create a proposal if there is some support for the idea in the abstract. ] 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Doesn't featured sounds have similar issues to featured lists, in particular it's almost impossible to summarise a featured sound? Unlike with a feature picture or video where you can put a thumbnail. ] (]) 07:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. Personally I won't object to TFP being expanded to TFM covering all media. However in the absence of simple alternative I would suggest we keep the current system going largely by order of promotion without any special consideration given to sounds ] (]) 12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	::Links to these portals to other featured content can also be added to the purple section in the main page with a link, something like: '''Other featured media...''', or something. I'm pretty comfortable with having only featured pictures on the main page though. ~] <sup><b>«]»</b></sup> 13:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::we've had least one featured video there. Just don't have many featured videos so it doesn't happen very often.] 13:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

	There are currently 7 featured videos in the queue for POTD. I might as well point to ] (the FP and FS sections are the relevant bits). ] 12:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Experimenting ==

	I've been experimenting with a shadowing template I created and decided to test it in my ]. Please check it out and give me feedback. ~] <sup><b>«]»</b></sup> 23:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Nevermind. It doesn't work for Firefox. Darn I hate these differences. ~] <sup><b>«]»</b></sup> 23:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
	::It works fine in my Firefox, having said that I'm using Firefox 3b5. I took a look, its an interesting effect, might steal it for my userpage if you don't mind. Time to see if the masses like it now :). ]] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 12:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

	:It doesn't work for Firefox 2. So people won't like it. I'll try and fix it later some time and let you guys know. ~] <sup><b>«]»</b></sup> 14:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

	::What was supposed to happen anyway? I saw little gray boxes at the corners. FF 2.0 user. --'''] ] ]''' 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
	::: I'll screenshot it in a few minutes, thanks for the intel on my talk page btw Mistman123. ]] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 16:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Hmm, it appears my work PC is being as useful as ever, so I'm going to have to extend that "in a few minutes" to in a few hours :( ]] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 17:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::: I made a for those who have Firefox 2. I'll be trying to fix this later. Maybe after taxes. ~] <sup><b>«]»</b></sup> 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Well once they roll out FF3.0 there'll be no real need, FF like to make sure everyone is using the correct version. ]] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 19:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::There is actually a significant number of people who use the older versions- see the lower table ]. ] (]) 19:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
	I just wanted your opinions on how it looked. I don't think it should be implemented anytime soon anyway. I'm thinking of adding some image buttons and test some other stuff to make it look nice, although I really like the current, simple, nice colored main page. I don't envy any other Misplaced Pages main pages in other languages. Simple is nice. ~] <sup><b>«]»</b></sup> 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Wow... that's actually really nice. I don't think it's completely appropriate for the main page but it's an interesting bit of code, that you can actually get it to do that. Well done. I might nick it for my userpage too, when FF3.0 rolls out, and sod the people who deliberately click 'no' at the upgrade prompt. Just looking at the source... doesn't it add a hell of a lot of code to the page it's transcluded on though? Just for a few images/headers? Any way you could shrink that down a bit? —]∴ ''']]]''' 09:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

	:It looks great. I'd agree with this being on the Main Page once a stable version of Firefox 3 is released. The people using the older versions won't be hurt in any way, the only difference for them will be the little grey squares. ] (]-]) 16:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Doesn't look correct in Konqueror 3.5.8 either -] (]) 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Yuck... I don't think it looks too good from the screenshot. Makes everything look too deep and complicated. ] (]) 08:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	::Well anyone interested in helping me fix it for other browsers, you can get/copy the code from {{tlu\|User:Mistman123/Templates/Shadow}}. I don't have enough time to go through the code and test changes in all these different browsers, so any help is certainly welcome. When you get something working please let me know or post your code's link somewhere so I can check it out and possibly copy it back ]. ~] <sup><b>«]»</b></sup> 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::Safari 3.1 doesn't display this alternate page at all nicely, inserting a small two-tone grey square on the bottom right of the box but no further. ]] 02:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	::::Yep. The template's page has the Safari caveat too. You can help fix it though. ~] <sup><b>«]»</b></sup> 03:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Since Firefox 3.0 doesn't run on Linux using wine, I would say ":("--] (]) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Czech Disaster ==

	One of the worst tram disasters in europe.
	http://www.novinky.cz/clanek/137461-v-ostrave-se-celne-stretly-tramvaje-tri-lide-zemreli.html <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:Hi. The correct place to suggest news items would be ]. However, I don't think this is internationally significant (three dead people so far). ] (]-]) 18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

	::Significance does not depend on the amount of dead people. A building bombing can be really significant internationally even if no one is killed. Terrorist activities against trains, trams, buses, and buildings are relatively significant. Relative to many things. This specific event might not be significant but by other reasons. Just to make clear there shouldn't be a link between significance and the amount of dead people. ~] <sup><b>«]»</b></sup> 18:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::While an event can be significant with few deaths, the numbers of deaths is definitely a big component of significance in many cases. In any case, this discussion should take place in ITN/C as mentioned above and we need an article before it can even be considered ] (]) 18:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::So why did we have the Heathrow crash thing on ]? <font face="Times New Roman"> <font color="#800000">]</font> <sup><font color="#000080">] ] ]</font></sup></font> 20:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Moved to ] (since no one else would) ] (]) 20:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

	: ], the place to make suggestions for ITN is ]. So please stop posting news on this talkpage. Thanks. --] (]) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	I am sorry to put it here but i would like to ask someone to put the czech car pile up on main news. Thanks http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=czech+crash+pile+up&spell=1 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			]
	:You should discuss this at ] instead ] ] 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Mian Page}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 01:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
	::As you have been told on several occasions. If you had done so 5 days ago, as you knew you should have, on the 12th, if would more then likely be there by now. ]] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::More to the point, there is absolutely no use bringing something either here or on ITN/C if no article exists. (There is also no point bringing something that happened 26+ days ago either). Of course, ] does address both these points ] (]) 20:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

			==Add number of editors in the topmost banner==
	: If only a headline is to be posted, the place should be ], not ITN. --] (]) 23:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			I suggest this addition for the following reasons:
	: Perhaps ] is a better place for news like that. --] (]) 23:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			* It encourages people to become editors via argumentum ad populum.
			* It is a interesting fact about the scale of Misplaced Pages
			* It dispels reoccuring myth that only 100 or so admins edit Misplaced Pages
			* It demonstrates the motto "anyone can edit".
			I suggest formatting it like this:
			<br/><div id="articlecount">] active editors · ] articles in ]</div><br/>
			] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

			*I strongly support this addition. '']'' ‹ ] — ] › 00:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Abraham Lincoln shot ==
			*''"100 or so admins edit Misplaced Pages" factoid actualy just statistical error. average admin does not edit Misplaced Pages. ], who lives in cave & passes RfA 10 times each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.''{{pb}}But yes, this seems like a great idea! <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I shall lend my support as I like this idea. It ties in well with the post on social media by the Wikimedia Foundation (earlier today, yesterday?) about "Misplaced Pages in numbers". ''']]''' 09:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Support - and maybe also add a edit count? Something like this might work: <div id="articlecount">] total edits · ] active editors · ] articles in ]</div> <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 09:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I can't see any downside of adding the number of active editors, which is an impressive number given that the count is just for the last month. The number of edits seems a bit meaningless since it is a huge number that is hard to grasp and since what constitutes an edit is so variable. ] (]) 09:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Also support this. It's a minor but potentially quite impactful addition. ''']]''' ‡ <sup>]</sup> 09:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Good idea; I like the model that {{u\|CanonNi}} proposes above. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 17:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I like Ca's suggestion of just including the number of editors. I'm not super keen on adding the number of edits as it is fairly meaningless to most casual visitors. Also, it will always be off because of caching (and I don't want us to get useless reports of "I made an edit but the number didn't go up!"). —] (]) 17:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Very good point, Kusma, about useless reports. ''']]''' 18:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			* The interpunct might need to be replaced with a line break on mobile devices, for aesthetic reasons. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 10:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Maybe just a comma to separate them. ]] 11:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Personally, I think a comma would be out-of-place since this is not a list. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 11:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::It’s a list of two counts ]] 11:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Id support. Maybe something somewhere which explains what active means. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	Does it strike anyone as a bit odd that on the anniversary of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the assassin--not Abe Lincoln--is pictured? I realise that most visitors to the Main Page will be more familiar with Lincoln's image than Boothe's, but this makes it look like Misplaced Pages supports the assassination. ] (]) 01:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
			::The wikilink to ] already provides an explanation. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 13:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Support????? That's stretching quite a bit. --] (]) 02:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
			:::I dunno about other people, but because the link is the amount of people, I'd expect the link to be to the list of people. If it were "active editors" that was linked, I would click it to find out what "active meant". '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::So putting Abe's picture would mean Misplaced Pages supports his death then? Sounds like nonsense to me. ~] <sup><b>«]»</b></sup> 03:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::~~No, quite the opposite~~: ~~Putting~~ ~~Boothe's~~ ~~picture~~ ~~supports~~ ~~Lincoln's~~ ~~death, if you want~~ to ~~view it in simple~~ ~~terms. See below for more discussion~~. ] (]) 05:14, 14 ~~April~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		::::The number of articles link also goes to ], though. – ] <small>(])</small> 12:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Yeah, that's also a bit dumb. Maybe if we linked both the term and the amount to the same link. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Boothe was just as important to the event as Lincon, and Misplaced Pages isn't censored. ]] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 03:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
			::::::How about linking the number of active editors to ], where it is explained? ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 12:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Sounds like a good idea. I would but the editors after the number of articles, though – best to lead with the bigger number. – ] <small>(])</small> 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*This appears to be ] problem; I believe it would be best if we went ahead with the original formatting and discuss the minute details later. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I never said it was a problem, just a suggestion. – ] <small>(])</small> 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Sorry, I didn't mean to reply to you in particular. I've changed the indentation level. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Displaying the 'active editors' variable significantly discounts all of prior editors associated with those millions of articles being discussed in the same line. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I suppose you could say something like, "] articles in ] written by ] editors" to be maximally precise. – ] <small>(])</small> 16:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::What I'm saying is that the {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}</nowiki> is certainly way more than the {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}</nowiki>, and that the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}</nowiki> certainly would not have been possible with only the later. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Advertising how many "active" users we have isn't necessarily a problem, I'm saying we shouldn't in anyway suggest that such a low number of contributors has led to the number of articles we have to casual readers, reporters, etc that would read the line. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Perhaps something like "currently maintained by X active editors"? (Which also discounts all of the many unregistered editors). — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::"by over" maybe.... — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Why, though? "X active editors" isn't saying that that's all the editors who've ever been. It's doing the opposite, by qualifying "active". Getting a bot to keep a tally of total editors ever, per Joe, could be a cool idea, but there's nothing misleading or incorrect about just listing active users, and it's potentially of more interest to readers. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::I'm not opposed to somehow advertising the currently active editors, just saying we should ensure that such a figure isn't associated with the total count of all articles made by a much much larger group. (As the original problem is suggesting that readers are underestimating the number of volunteers that have built Misplaced Pages). — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			:I absolutely support this. Maybe also include the number of edits made in the current calendar day? ] \| ] \| ] 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Frankly I'm surprised that there is so much objection to my comment. In general, I have found that on anniversaries of assassinations, more space (including, but not limited to, images) is given to the person assassinated. For example, on the anniversaries of the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, their photos will be featured more prominently than those of Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, or James Earl Ray. This is not because of censorship, but because people prefer to remember the acts of the assassinated to those of the assassin, at least in general.
			::Better would be in the last 24 hours, especially as most readers will not know when Misplaced Pages's midnight is. Certainly better than a count of all edits since Misplaced Pages began, although not a priority in my opinion. ] (]) 09:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@] Well, Jimmy Wales lives in the Carolinas so it could reset at midnight Eastern. Although last 24 hours works as well ] \| ] \| ] 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thinking it about it a bit more, maybe the preceding calendar day ("yesterday") would be computationally easier. We certainly don't want a figure that increases from 0 each day, and it may be undesirable to have one that fluctuates minute to minute. Instead maybe consider over the last week up to and including yesterday, to iron out variation over the weekly cycle. ] (]) 14:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. I don't see the point in this, or the relevance of this number to readers. It might make sense on a page intended to be viewed only by editors, but the Main Page is for readers. None of the bullet points are convincing e.g. I've never heard anyone suggest that there are only 100 editors. It's a only minor bit of clutter but would serve no useful purpose. Besides, it's not clear what constitutes an 'active' editor - the very different numbers quoted above suggest this could be seriously misleading. ] ] 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:], where the number comes from, defines it as "any editor that has performed an action in last 30 days", which appears to include IP editors as well. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 23:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::It is labeled Active <em>registered</em> users - of which IP editors are not. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Thanks for the correction; when the language is set to Spanish, it just reads "active editors". I wonder if it is possible to get a count of all editors, including IP editors. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 02:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::A single editor could have many IP's and a single IP could have many editors. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Yes, that was a problem I imagined; though I do not want to discredit the work of IP editors, they are hard to keep track. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I suggested this idea back on December 8 at the VPR, so yes I would support it. ] (]) 03:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Next steps===
			I see a broad consensus for including the number of active editors, but there seem to be a lot of discussion on the finer details, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Should I make a RfC for this? ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 14:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Yes, most of us want the number of edits/active editors in the banner, but an RFC might help figure out the smaller details we keep arguing about ] \| ] 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:It's easy to imagine someone who, on the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination prefers to gaze upon the image of James Earl Ray, than that of Martin Luther King, Jr.; but most publications I encountered featured MLK's images far more prominently than JER's. Again, I don't think most people would construe this as censorship, but you do have me wondering if Misplaced Pages featured James Earl Ray's photo, and not Martin Luther King's on April Fourth. ] (]) 05:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

			===Informal RfC===
	::Why does it matter? We're not "supporting" anyone here, just providing encyclopedic information. Both figures are very relevant to the event in question (as would be a picture of Ford's Theater or something), so it's perfectly appropriate to show either, regardless of which is "more often featured." -] (]) 05:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
			{{Archive top\|status=Minimal participation\|result=Despite the RfC being open for 16 days and pinging previous participants, it attracted only two respondents, showing the lack of interest in this topic. I will assume most people did not see an issue with my original formatting suggestion when they !voted "support" and submit an edit request. This close does not preclude any future discussion about the formatting or new additions to the proposed text. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Five questions to decide on the formatting. Note that this doesn't preclude any further changes in the future.

			====Which figures should be added to the current text?====
	::This seems somewhat moot now that the picture has been removed. In any case, as Elmer Clark says, the picture is primarily intented for informational purposes, wikipedia is not a ] after all so who or what people prefer to gaze over or remember seems somewhat irrelevant. The most noteable days connected with rememberance of people who are assasinated tend to be their birthdays anyway ] (]) 07:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
			# Active editors (original proposal)
			# Active editors and total edit count
			# Active editors and edit count in last 24 hours(bot required)
			# Active editors and all-time editors(bot required)

			*'''Support 4''' if possible, '''support 1''' as a lower-effort but still effective alternative. '''Oppose 2 and 3''' per the concerns raised above that it would create confusion among new editors/readers who would not realise that the count cannot update immediately. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Kind of ironic that Booth actually wanted to be remember as a Hero for the South: maybe this was a belated compromise? --] (]) 08:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
			*'''Prefer 1, then 3'''; dislike total edit count and all-time editors as too large numbers, with no sense of what is happening now. ] (]) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			====Which symbol should be used as the separator? ====
	The sheer cluelessness of this comment is unbelievable. I can't believe we actually changed the Main Page because someone said that a picture of John Wilkes Booth means that we support the assassination of Lincoln, and are likely to favor James Earl Ray over Martin Luther King Jr. Since when did we start pandering to commentators who call us racists? Webbbbbbber, why aren't you expressing your outrage that the replacement picture of Edward IV relating to the ] is a gross example of Misplaced Pages's obvious hatred for the ]? Sheesh. - ]] 09:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
			# Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
	:Well Zz didn't give a reason for the change. Maybe it was to avoid further discussion on this (which unfortunately failed), maybe it was because the JWB image had been around for a while (at least 2 years) and was due for a change anyway. ] (]) 11:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
			# Use comma
	::You have to link to sarcasm when you do that, Nil Einne, I've found, or else people get confused. You could have done this: ]. <font face="Times New Roman"> <font color="#800000">]</font> <sup><font color="#000080">] ] ]</font></sup></font> 21:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::I was more thinking of "]". ] ] 03:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Sorry for jumping to conclusions, Zzyzx11. My outrage got the better of me. - ]] 01:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::I didn't link to sarcasm, and I wouldn't have, because no sarcasm had been intended. The image had indeed been on the OTD entry for two years. I didn't look further so maybe it had been longer. I don't spend much time on OTD so I'm not sure but I would presume it's reasonable to turn over images every one in a while but on the other hand, it isn't essential either (since they only appear every year). And I genuinely had no idea why Zzy removed the image (as the above discussion shows, I was wrong) so I was genuinely uncertain as to why this image was changed. So my comment was intended to convey the fact that there are multiple reasons why this may have been changed, and it was pointless to jump to conclusions as to the reason without asking zzy first. ] (]) 15:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

			* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Relay ==

			====Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins? ====
	It is obvious the torch relay is going to be disrupted everywhere it goes so maybe the locations should be dropped altogether in the line. ] (]) 15:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
			# Use line break
	:The item is soon going to disappear so it's somewhat moot. But you are mistaken, I suggest you check out the linked article. The torch was not disrupted much in (of course China), Kazakhstan, Turkey and Russia (some protests in both, most of who were arrested apparently but minimal disruption). There were protests, but minimal disruptions in Buenos Aeres and few protests or disruptions in Tanzania from what I can tell. That is why we don't mention any of these in the blurb. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest ] ] (]) 18:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
			# Use comma

			* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Silvio Berlusconi's election victory ==

			====How should it be ordered?====
	This just in: Silvio Berlusconi's won a third term in the Italian general elections. I'll be adding this snippet right now.--] 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
			# Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
	: Shouldn't this be discussed at ] instead of here? --] (]) 21:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
			# Bigger number(s) first

			* '''Support 1 or 2.''' '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	== misc. ==

			====Wikilinks?====
	Hey is it just my computer but sometimes, in the search box, the line has a small horizontal bar extending to the right of it. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			#Wikilink all of the numbers to ] (original proposal)
	:Moved to ]. ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 00:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			#Wikilink only the first number to ]
			#Wikilink "active editor" to ]
			] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 12:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

			* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2 and 3. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Misplaced Pages Languages and Firefox 3b5 ==
			*'''Support 1''', unless active editors is the only statistic shown, in which case 3. ] (]) 22:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			====Discussion====
	I'm currently using Firefox 3 Beta 5 and it is almost impossible to click the Persian language link on the bottom of the main page in the Misplaced Pages languages section (More than 20,000 articles). The text uncontrollably shifts left and right with the rapid switching of the positions of Norsk and Persian. This is likely a problem with the right to left reading of Persian and some weird problem that I believe only applies to Firefox 3 Beta 5 since Internet Explorer and Firefox 2 allow clicking of Persian. ] (]) 16:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			:If a bot is difficult or resource hungry, an edit count for yesterday (preceding calendar day) would serve the same purpose as a count in the last 24 h. ] (]) 08:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Works for me. I'm using 3.0pre from April 11th. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			::From a maintenance and server load perspective, a bot updating daily is no different than a bot updating every minute (i.e., just a line of code's difference and resource usage that rounds down to 0). <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Works fine here to, and I'm on 3b5 too. ]] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			:@] Do you expect people to respond here with their opinions on these 5 issues? Or is this just a draft for a forthcoming formal RfC?
	:::Never mind, it's a of Firefox 3 Beta 5. Don't know why you don't have the problem. ] (]) 19:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			:If you plan on having another, better-publicized RfC, I'd recommend relisting the original question {{green\|Should this be added at all?}}; the original consensus for this had less than 10 editors. <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::We're not experiencing the issue because it says the issue is fixed on that page, are you sure your on Beta 5? ]] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 19:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			::I should have been more clear, but yes, I was expecting people to give their opinions. However, I am waiting before pinging everyone to see if anyone have any more suggestions for the questions. I count 13 people who support the proposal and one who explicitly opposed it; I feel that a RfC is going to have the same consensus for inclusion. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 05:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Definitely on Firefox 3 Beta 5 with last update dated April 2. Clicking on update Firefox indicates that I have there is no update. Also should note that the line above it with the Hebrew language is also impossible to click for me. Also I am running Beta 5 that has this prolem. ] (]) 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			:::So perhaps you could split the five questions into separate subheadings, to allow for clearer discussion of each issue? <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::: and the bug discussion seem to suggest this bug wasn't fixed in the b5 release ] (]) 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			::::Good idea ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 07:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I'd add a 4. option with both active users and all-time editors, as {{u\|xaosflux}} suggested above. (Maybe after the total articles count, "{{green\|... created by {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} editors}}"). ] (]) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I've added it, but using <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}</nowiki> would be inaccurate since it includes user accounts with zero edits. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Since a week has passed for suggested additions, I'll be pinging previous participants tommorow to decide on the formatting. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Pinging participants: @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 12:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I've added my replies/thoughts under each individual item, which might help to keep/make consensus visible despite the many moving parts. There's a very large danger of ] here! '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Just to confirm, did you receive the ping? I'm afraid this RfC is going to flop. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I don't think this is the best format for reaching consensus on relatively minor details. Maybe try just proposing a version based on the feedback above and iterate accordingly. – ] <small>(])</small> 20:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I believe the lack of engagement here shows general apathy for the formatting. I don't want to try to wrangle in RfC after RfC, wasting community time. I plan to simply submit an edit request with the original proposed formatting if this RfC gets less than five responses. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 09:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I think that would be wise: ], after all, and it seems reasonable to suggest that many editors who have seen this and not commented have done so because they have no strong opinion on the points of "contention". '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Yes. I think for once Wikipedians' ability to bicker over a comma has disappointed you. '']'' (] — ]) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			===Edit request===
			{{edit request\|ans=y}}
			Per above consensus, please implement the original proposal of replacing the following

			<nowiki><div id="articlecount">] articles in ]</div></nowiki>
	== Misplaced Pages is never wrong?! ==

			with
	I found something wrong in "In the news" <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			<nowiki><div id="articlecount">] active editors · ] articles in ]</div></nowiki>
	: Report that mistake to ] asap and suggest changes there, please. --] (]) 03:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

			The interpunct (·) should be replaced with a line break on small screens via Templatestyle (
	::Quote Steve Colbert: "together we can define a world we can all agree on." That's his comment on wikipedia. Yes, there can be error, and then we correct them 10,000 times. ] (]) 08:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
			]
			), which I am not how it'd be implemented. ChatGPT gave me a potential solution of using a ID'd span tag on the interpunct and hiding it on smaller screens, but I have limited CSS knowledge and can't verify if it would work properly. I know this is a technical request so I will be grateful if a technically-oriented admin can help out. Thanks! ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			:I've created a mock-up of your proposed changes at] and ] (based on the code at {{tl\|hlist}}). I'll hold-off actually making the changes since I don't actually see a RfC (only two informal discussions) and I'm unsure a ] is sufficient to change the main page. ] (]) 06:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Virginia Tech. Why? ==
			::Thanks for the mock-up! It works perfectly on my end. The Localconsensus issue was also a concern of mine. However, this discussion has been open for almost a month and in a dedicated forum for proposing main page edits. The participants include a wide variety of experienced editors, with very solid consensus for its addition (13 to 1). A more widely attended discussion would be very unlikely to change the results. The consensus for the current wording was achieved back at 2006 redesign of the main page, and I didn't see any mention of the active editor count in the discussions. So I don't think this proposal overrides any previous consensuses. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Fair enough, I'll leave this thread open for comments (technical or otherwise) for a bit. If no concerns are raised I'll +2. ] (]) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Seems good to me.  — ] (]) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Thanks for the mock up. Looks splendid. From my perspective, this is ready for implementation. ''']]''' 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Looks good. '']'' (] — ]) 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Looks good to me too. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{done}}. Just a small additional comment. "English" is an everyday word and probably does not need linking to ]. But that's a separate discussion — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 22:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			:'''Comment:''' I just saw this editor count on the main page and wanted to come by and say I love it. Not just an interesting statistic but a reminder to all visitors that this is a volunteer project not just a faceless and hegemonic Establishment entity. Nicely done everyone!! Proud to be one of the 116,430! ] (]) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	Since when did Misplaced Pages become a memorial service? What a pathetic and transparent choice of FA.] (]) 00:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Transparent: 2 a: free from pretense or deceit : frank b: easily detected or seen through : obvious c: readily understood
	:Sounds like a good thing to me. ] (]) 01:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

			== Bye Bye Jimmy Carter, hello "the PDC World Darts Championship"? ==
	You know I kinda think its useless when people ask theses questions "Why is Bulbasaur on the main page".."why is Halo on the main page". Because their featured articles! -- ] (]) 01:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
			Sorry, the PDC World Darts Championship is just not important, period.
			Jimmy Carter doesn't even appear in recent deaths as of 2025-01-06...<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
			:{{u\|TheRealJohnea}} It's not a reflection of importance, just turnover. The usual complaint we get is that there isn't enough turnover, not too much. ] (]) 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Carter died 10 days ago, the world has moved on. ]] 22:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Looks like Jimmy Carter did appear in In The News. . It's been a week since it happened though so the news item has fallen off and been replaced by newer news items. –] <small>(])</small> 22:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Carter was there for a week (29/12 to 04/01). And even if the darts didn't exist, would have been removed by the Trudeau posting today. I suspect the OP simply doesn't understand how ITN works. ] 22:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Proposal: delink "English" ==
	: Just correcting your grammar there Coasttocoast, its "they are", so they're not their. ] (]) 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	: Bulbasaur was on the main page? Awesome! Go pokemon!] (]) 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

			Propose to remove the link from "English" to ]. This is an everyday word and per ], we should avoid linking everyday words. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	I'm a bit curious as to why the shooter's name isn't mentioned. We do have an article about him. --]]] 03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

	: I ~~could~~ be ~~wrong~~, but I ~~believe~~ ~~that~~ ~~was~~ ~~a conscious~~ ~~decision~~, so as ~~not~~ to ~~give~~ ~~more~~ ~~notability~~ to the ~~shooter~~. ] (]) 03:58, 16 ~~April~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		:I can't find the previous discussions on this, but the main page isn't an article, and it doesn't seem an overlink to link to the language the encyclopedia is linked to when introducing the encyclopedia. We ] "free" and "encyclopedia" too, it's a limitation of the format. ] (]) 08:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Oh ~~crud~~ - I ~~didn't~~ ~~realize~~ that ~~suggested~~ ~~writeup~~ ~~omitted~~ ~~his~~ ~~name~~. ~~That~~ ~~was~~ an ~~oversight~~ on my ~~part~~. ] (]) 04:00, 16 ~~April~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		::"Free" (in the sense we use it) and "encyclopaedia" at least plausibly something that a reader might need defining for them. There's nobody reading the English Misplaced Pages that doesn't know what English is. – ] <small>(])</small> 08:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Knowing what a topic is is not the bar for a link. I certainly don't think it's less defined than "encyclopaedia", and speaking of encyclopaedia, I've seen enough engvar "typo" fixes to know there's a lot about the English language many readers don't know. That's not to be demeaning, there's a lot I can learn from it too, it's the only Good Article out of the four articles linked. ] (]) 08:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I've adjusted the main page blurb accordingly. ] (]) 04:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
			*I would oppose removing it. The main page serves as a place for readers to see examples of the kind of work we do, and perhaps become engaged to write and edit themselves. As such, ], which is a GA and looks quite well structured and referenced, is a good link to have. It also shows how linking to other topics works, alongside ] and ]. As CMD says, it's also the language of our project.  — ] (]) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::To Ral - With respect, it's not Misplaced Pages's business to pretend that someone is more obscure than in fact he is. Our notability criteria are essentially populist, and I don't see how they could be otherwise. Let's leave normative judgments about what people want to know to the critical social theorists. — ] \| ] 04:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
			*:] might be a more appropriate target, but I can't see the benefit of linking for the sake of linking. Plenty of links to good and featured content lower down the page! — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 10:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			:In actual articles, I 100% agree with this - in practice this being used means that most articles have a nation or language as a link almost immediately. However, the main page isn't an article, and if we were to start using all the MOS on it, it would be a completely different look. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	As I said on ], it is not our job to worry about people who want ] or to practice ]. ] (]) 04:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
			*Oppose removal, per ]'s excellent points. It's a good link to have, and there are probably quite a few people who make their first edit as a result of clicking through it. ]] 22:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			:'''Oppose'''. 'English' can have multiple meanings; our ] article is itself a disambiguation page. This is not an encyclopaedia about England, or English people, or any of those other meanings. The link to ] is necessary to clarify how the Main Page is using that word. ] ] 12:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Also: ] is overlinked. ] (]) 07:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Fixed. ] (]) 07:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:28, 9 January 2025

Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion

↓↓Skip header

Welcome! This page is for discussing the contents of the English Misplaced Pages's Main Page.
For general questions unrelated to the Main Page, please visit the Teahouse or check the links below.
To add content to an article, edit that article's page.
Irrelevant posts on this page may be removed.
Click here to report errors on the Main Page.

If you have a question related to the Main Page, please search the talk page archives first to check if it has previously been addressed:

For questions about using and contributing to the English Misplaced Pages:

To submit an article or a redirect, please use the article wizard.
The Teahouse: to ask your first basic questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages
The help desk: to ask technical questions about using Misplaced Pages (e.g. how to edit, images, categories)
The village pump: to ask questions about Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines or operations
The reference desk: to ask questions about subjects other than Misplaced Pages (including topics covered in its articles)
The administrators' noticeboard: to report a problem (e.g. vandalism)
Question help: to find out more about where to ask questions or make comments on Misplaced Pages

To suggest content for a Main Page section:

Main Page errors: to report errors in current or upcoming Main Page content
Today's featured article requests: to suggest a featured article for "Today's featured article"
In the news candidates: to nominate an item for "In the news"
Did you know suggestions: to nominate an item for "Did you know"
Selected anniversaries: to add an anniversary to "On this day"
Today's featured list submissions: to suggest a featured list for "Today's featured list"
Featured picture candidates: images appearing as picture of the day are selected roughly according to the order in which they were promoted to featured status
Misplaced Pages languages: to propose a change to the list of Wikipedias in other languages
Main Page frequently asked questions: to learn more about the Main Page

v t e Main Page and featured content
Main Page topics	Errors Administrator instructions Main Page alternatives FAQ Editing Design Queue Yesterday Tomorrow History Misplaced Pages languages Sister projects Sandbox April Fools' Day Don't delete!
Today's featured article	Requests Pending requests Recent Oddities Most viewed Not yet used
Featured articles	Criteria Candidates Log Review Archive Statistics Former featured articles Unreviewed
Did you know...	Discussion Rules Guidelines Nominations Reviewer instructions Preps and queues Archive Stats
In the news	Error reports Nominations Discussion Admin guide General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Awards Sports Discussion Candidate archives Posted archives
Current events portal	Current events portal for sports Discussion How the Current events portal works How to archive the portal
Selected anniversaries	Discussion Holidays and observances All
Today's featured list	Submissions Statistics Previously run lists Get involved
Featured lists	Criteria Candidates Log Task force Removal candidates Review list Log Former featured lists
Picture of the day	Guidelines Unused Archive Tomorrow
Featured pictures	Criteria Candidates Nomination procedure
Featured topics	Featured topics on the main page Candidates Log Nomination procedure Criteria Removal candidates Good topics Former featured topics Featured topic questions

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled due to vandalism.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Main Page error reports

Wikimedia project page for Main Page error reporting Shortcuts

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 toolbox

Yesterday January 9	Today January 10, 2025	Tomorrow January 11
TFA	TFA	TFA
SA/OTD	SA/OTD	SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v.	POTD Main Page v.	POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.	POTD regular v.	POTD regular v.
	TFL (Friday)

Main Page queue

In the news: candidates; discussion; admin instructions

Did you know: nominations; discussion; queue; BotErrors

Protected pages: Commons media protection; Associated

It is currently 08:30 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 08:30 on 10 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.

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)

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Please change the final sentence to "They have been displayed in the Museo Egizio in Turin since their arrival, and an entire gallery is devoted to them." Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

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

(January 10, today)

Monday's FL

(January 13)

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.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Shortcuts

"Mian Page" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mian Page has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2 § Mian Page until a consensus is reached. Ca 01:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Add number of editors in the topmost banner

I suggest this addition for the following reasons:

It encourages people to become editors via argumentum ad populum.
It is a interesting fact about the scale of Misplaced Pages
It dispels reoccuring myth that only 100 or so admins edit Misplaced Pages
It demonstrates the motto "anyone can edit".

I suggest formatting it like this:

116,790 active editors · 6,938,061 articles in English

Ca 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I strongly support this addition. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
"100 or so admins edit Misplaced Pages" factoid actualy just statistical error. average admin does not edit Misplaced Pages. Sockpuppets Georg, who lives in cave & passes RfA 10 times each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.But yes, this seems like a great idea! -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I shall lend my support as I like this idea. It ties in well with the post on social media by the Wikimedia Foundation (earlier today, yesterday?) about "Misplaced Pages in numbers". Schwede 66 09:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Support - and maybe also add a edit count? Something like this might work: 1,263,791,352 total edits · 116,790 active editors · 6,938,061 articles in English ''']''' (talk • contribs) 09:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't see any downside of adding the number of active editors, which is an impressive number given that the count is just for the last month. The number of edits seems a bit meaningless since it is a huge number that is hard to grasp and since what constitutes an edit is so variable. JMCHutchinson (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Also support this. It's a minor but potentially quite impactful addition. J 947 ‡ 09:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Good idea; I like the model that CanonNi proposes above. UndercoverClassicist 17:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I like Ca's suggestion of just including the number of editors. I'm not super keen on adding the number of edits as it is fairly meaningless to most casual visitors. Also, it will always be off because of caching (and I don't want us to get useless reports of "I made an edit but the number didn't go up!"). —Kusma (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Very good point, Kusma, about useless reports. Schwede 66 18:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The interpunct might need to be replaced with a line break on mobile devices, for aesthetic reasons. Ca 10:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe just a comma to separate them. Step hen 11:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I think a comma would be out-of-place since this is not a list. Ca 11:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
It’s a list of two counts Step hen 11:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Id support. Maybe something somewhere which explains what active means. Lee Vilenski 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The wikilink to Special:Statistics already provides an explanation. Ca 13:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I dunno about other people, but because the link is the amount of people, I'd expect the link to be to the list of people. If it were "active editors" that was linked, I would click it to find out what "active meant". Lee Vilenski 13:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The number of articles link also goes to Special:Statistics, though. – Joe (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's also a bit dumb. Maybe if we linked both the term and the amount to the same link. Lee Vilenski 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

How about linking the number of active editors to Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians, where it is explained? Ca 12:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I would but the editors after the number of articles, though – best to lead with the bigger number. – Joe (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
This appears to be WP:BIKESHED problem; I believe it would be best if we went ahead with the original formatting and discuss the minute details later. Ca 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I never said it was a problem, just a suggestion. – Joe (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to reply to you in particular. I've changed the indentation level. Ca 15:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Displaying the 'active editors' variable significantly discounts all of prior editors associated with those millions of articles being discussed in the same line. — xaosflux 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I suppose you could say something like, "6,925,100 articles in English written by <number of users that have made >0 undeleted mainspace edits> editors" to be maximally precise. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the 48,529,167 {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} is certainly way more than the 116,790 {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}, and that the 6,938,061 {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} certainly would not have been possible with only the later. — xaosflux 16:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Advertising how many "active" users we have isn't necessarily a problem, I'm saying we shouldn't in anyway suggest that such a low number of contributors has led to the number of articles we have to casual readers, reporters, etc that would read the line. — xaosflux 16:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps something like "currently maintained by X active editors"? (Which also discounts all of the many unregistered editors). — xaosflux 16:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
"by over" maybe.... — xaosflux 16:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Why, though? "X active editors" isn't saying that that's all the editors who've ever been. It's doing the opposite, by qualifying "active". Getting a bot to keep a tally of total editors ever, per Joe, could be a cool idea, but there's nothing misleading or incorrect about just listing active users, and it's potentially of more interest to readers. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to somehow advertising the currently active editors, just saying we should ensure that such a figure isn't associated with the total count of all articles made by a much much larger group. (As the original problem is suggesting that readers are underestimating the number of volunteers that have built Misplaced Pages). — xaosflux 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely support this. Maybe also include the number of edits made in the current calendar day? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Better would be in the last 24 hours, especially as most readers will not know when Misplaced Pages's midnight is. Certainly better than a count of all edits since Misplaced Pages began, although not a priority in my opinion. JMCHutchinson (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jmchutchinson Well, Jimmy Wales lives in the Carolinas so it could reset at midnight Eastern. Although last 24 hours works as well ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thinking it about it a bit more, maybe the preceding calendar day ("yesterday") would be computationally easier. We certainly don't want a figure that increases from 0 each day, and it may be undesirable to have one that fluctuates minute to minute. Instead maybe consider over the last week up to and including yesterday, to iron out variation over the weekly cycle. JMCHutchinson (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see the point in this, or the relevance of this number to readers. It might make sense on a page intended to be viewed only by editors, but the Main Page is for readers. None of the bullet points are convincing e.g. I've never heard anyone suggest that there are only 100 editors. It's a only minor bit of clutter but would serve no useful purpose. Besides, it's not clear what constitutes an 'active' editor - the very different numbers quoted above suggest this could be seriously misleading. Modest Genius 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Special:Statistics, where the number comes from, defines it as "any editor that has performed an action in last 30 days", which appears to include IP editors as well. Ca 23:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
It is labeled Active registered users - of which IP editors are not. — xaosflux 23:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction; when the language is set to Spanish, it just reads "active editors". I wonder if it is possible to get a count of all editors, including IP editors. Ca 02:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
A single editor could have many IP's and a single IP could have many editors. — xaosflux 18:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that was a problem I imagined; though I do not want to discredit the work of IP editors, they are hard to keep track. Ca 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I suggested this idea back on December 8 at the VPR, so yes I would support it. Some1 (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Next steps

I see a broad consensus for including the number of active editors, but there seem to be a lot of discussion on the finer details, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Should I make a RfC for this? Ca 14:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, most of us want the number of edits/active editors in the banner, but an RFC might help figure out the smaller details we keep arguing about Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Informal RfC

MINIMAL PARTICIPATION Despite the RfC being open for 16 days and pinging previous participants, it attracted only two respondents, showing the lack of interest in this topic. I will assume most people did not see an issue with my original formatting suggestion when they !voted "support" and submit an edit request. This close does not preclude any future discussion about the formatting or new additions to the proposed text. Ca 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Five questions to decide on the formatting. Note that this doesn't preclude any further changes in the future.

Which figures should be added to the current text?

Active editors (original proposal)
Active editors and total edit count
Active editors and edit count in last 24 hours(bot required)
Active editors and all-time editors(bot required)

Support 4 if possible, support 1 as a lower-effort but still effective alternative. Oppose 2 and 3 per the concerns raised above that it would create confusion among new editors/readers who would not realise that the count cannot update immediately. UndercoverClassicist 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Prefer 1, then 3; dislike total edit count and all-time editors as too large numbers, with no sense of what is happening now. JMCHutchinson (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Which symbol should be used as the separator?

Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
Use comma

Support 1, neutral on 2. UndercoverClassicist 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins?

Use line break
Use comma

Support 1, neutral on 2. UndercoverClassicist 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

How should it be ordered?

Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
Bigger number(s) first

Support 1 or 2. UndercoverClassicist 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikilinks?

Wikilink all of the numbers to Special:Statistics (original proposal)
Wikilink only the first number to Special:Statistics
Wikilink "active editor" to Special:Statistics

Ca 12:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support 1, neutral on 2 and 3. UndercoverClassicist 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Support 1, unless active editors is the only statistic shown, in which case 3. JMCHutchinson (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

If a bot is difficult or resource hungry, an edit count for yesterday (preceding calendar day) would serve the same purpose as a count in the last 24 h. JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

From a maintenance and server load perspective, a bot updating daily is no different than a bot updating every minute (i.e., just a line of code's difference and resource usage that rounds down to 0). -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ca Do you expect people to respond here with their opinions on these 5 issues? Or is this just a draft for a forthcoming formal RfC?

If you plan on having another, better-publicized RfC, I'd recommend relisting the original question Should this be added at all?; the original consensus for this had less than 10 editors. ypn^2 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I should have been more clear, but yes, I was expecting people to give their opinions. However, I am waiting before pinging everyone to see if anyone have any more suggestions for the questions. I count 13 people who support the proposal and one who explicitly opposed it; I feel that a RfC is going to have the same consensus for inclusion. Ca 05:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

So perhaps you could split the five questions into separate subheadings, to allow for clearer discussion of each issue? ypn^2 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Good idea Ca 07:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd add a 4. option with both active users and all-time editors, as xaosflux suggested above. (Maybe after the total articles count, "... created by 48,529,167 editors"). Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added it, but using {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} would be inaccurate since it includes user accounts with zero edits. Ca 16:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Since a week has passed for suggested additions, I'll be pinging previous participants tommorow to decide on the formatting. Ca 16:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging participants: @Cremastra @Tamzin @Schwede66 @CanonNi @Jmchutchinson @J947 @Stephen @UndercoverClassicist @Kusma @Lee Vilenski @User:Joe Roe @User:Xaosflux @User:ApteryxRainWing @User:Modest Genius @User:Some1 @User:Ypn^2 Ca 12:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added my replies/thoughts under each individual item, which might help to keep/make consensus visible despite the many moving parts. There's a very large danger of WP:BIKESHED here! UndercoverClassicist 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Just to confirm, did you receive the ping? I'm afraid this RfC is going to flop. Ca 15:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think this is the best format for reaching consensus on relatively minor details. Maybe try just proposing a version based on the feedback above and iterate accordingly. – Joe (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe the lack of engagement here shows general apathy for the formatting. I don't want to try to wrangle in RfC after RfC, wasting community time. I plan to simply submit an edit request with the original proposed formatting if this RfC gets less than five responses. Ca 09:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that would be wise: consensus can be tacit, after all, and it seems reasonable to suggest that many editors who have seen this and not commented have done so because they have no strong opinion on the points of "contention". UndercoverClassicist 14:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I think for once Wikipedians' ability to bicker over a comma has disappointed you. Cremastra (u — c) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Per above consensus, please implement the original proposal of replacing the following

<div id="articlecount">] articles in ]</div>

with

<div id="articlecount">] active editors · ] articles in ]</div>

The interpunct (·) should be replaced with a line break on small screens via Templatestyle ( Misplaced Pages:Main Page/styles.css ), which I am not how it'd be implemented. ChatGPT gave me a potential solution of using a ID'd span tag on the interpunct and hiding it on smaller screens, but I have limited CSS knowledge and can't verify if it would work properly. I know this is a technical request so I will be grateful if a technically-oriented admin can help out. Thanks! Ca 15:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I've created a mock-up of your proposed changes atMisplaced Pages:Main Page alternatives/(editable) and Misplaced Pages:Main Page alternatives/styles.css (based on the code at {{hlist}}). I'll hold-off actually making the changes since I don't actually see a RfC (only two informal discussions) and I'm unsure a local consensus is sufficient to change the main page. Sohom (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the mock-up! It works perfectly on my end. The Localconsensus issue was also a concern of mine. However, this discussion has been open for almost a month and in a dedicated forum for proposing main page edits. The participants include a wide variety of experienced editors, with very solid consensus for its addition (13 to 1). A more widely attended discussion would be very unlikely to change the results. The consensus for the current wording was achieved back at 2006 redesign of the main page, and I didn't see any mention of the active editor count in the discussions. So I don't think this proposal overrides any previous consensuses. Ca 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll leave this thread open for comments (technical or otherwise) for a bit. If no concerns are raised I'll +2. Sohom (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems good to me. — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the mock up. Looks splendid. From my perspective, this is ready for implementation. Schwede 66 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. Cremastra (u — c) 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. UndercoverClassicist 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Just a small additional comment. "English" is an everyday word and probably does not need linking to English language. But that's a separate discussion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I just saw this editor count on the main page and wanted to come by and say I love it. Not just an interesting statistic but a reminder to all visitors that this is a volunteer project not just a faceless and hegemonic Establishment entity. Nicely done everyone!! Proud to be one of the 116,430! jengod (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Bye Bye Jimmy Carter, hello "the PDC World Darts Championship"?

Sorry, the PDC World Darts Championship is just not important, period. Jimmy Carter doesn't even appear in recent deaths as of 2025-01-06...— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJohnea (talk • contribs)

TheRealJohnea It's not a reflection of importance, just turnover. The usual complaint we get is that there isn't enough turnover, not too much. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Carter died 10 days ago, the world has moved on. Step hen 22:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like Jimmy Carter did appear in In The News. Here's a snapshot of In The News on January 1. It's been a week since it happened though so the news item has fallen off and been replaced by newer news items. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Carter was there for a week (29/12 to 04/01). And even if the darts didn't exist, would have been removed by the Trudeau posting today. I suspect the OP simply doesn't understand how ITN works. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: delink "English"

Propose to remove the link from "English" to English language. This is an everyday word and per WP:OVERLINK, we should avoid linking everyday words. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't find the previous discussions on this, but the main page isn't an article, and it doesn't seem an overlink to link to the language the encyclopedia is linked to when introducing the encyclopedia. We WP:SEAOFBLUE "free" and "encyclopedia" too, it's a limitation of the format. CMD (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"Free" (in the sense we use it) and "encyclopaedia" at least plausibly something that a reader might need defining for them. There's nobody reading the English Misplaced Pages that doesn't know what English is. – Joe (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Knowing what a topic is is not the bar for a link. I certainly don't think it's less defined than "encyclopaedia", and speaking of encyclopaedia, I've seen enough engvar "typo" fixes to know there's a lot about the English language many readers don't know. That's not to be demeaning, there's a lot I can learn from it too, it's the only Good Article out of the four articles linked. CMD (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I would oppose removing it. The main page serves as a place for readers to see examples of the kind of work we do, and perhaps become engaged to write and edit themselves. As such, English language, which is a GA and looks quite well structured and referenced, is a good link to have. It also shows how linking to other topics works, alongside encyclopedia and Misplaced Pages. As CMD says, it's also the language of our project. — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
English Misplaced Pages might be a more appropriate target, but I can't see the benefit of linking for the sake of linking. Plenty of links to good and featured content lower down the page! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

In actual articles, I 100% agree with this - in practice this being used means that most articles have a nation or language as a link almost immediately. However, the main page isn't an article, and if we were to start using all the MOS on it, it would be a completely different look. Lee Vilenski 13:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose removal, per Amakuru's excellent points. It's a good link to have, and there are probably quite a few people who make their first edit as a result of clicking through it. Step hen 22:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. 'English' can have multiple meanings; our English article is itself a disambiguation page. This is not an encyclopaedia about England, or English people, or any of those other meanings. The link to English language is necessary to clarify how the Main Page is using that word. Modest Genius 12:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:

Main Page discussions