Revision as of 04:24, 17 May 2008

your all fat }}

• WP:ERRORS
• WP:MP/E

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

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

• Main Page queue

In the news

candidates

discussion

admin instructions

Did you know

nominations

discussion

queue

BotErrors

Protected pages

Commons media protection

Associated

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

• It is currently 17:40 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 17:40 on 9 January 2025) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

Monday's FL

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Experimenting

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

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

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

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

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

I'll screenshot it in a few minutes, thanks for the intel on my talk page btw Mistman123. ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 16:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears my work PC is being as useful as ever, so I'm going to have to extend that "in a few minutes" to in a few hours :( ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 17:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a screenshot for those who have Firefox 2. I'll be trying to fix this later. Maybe after taxes. ~RayLast 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. ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 19:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a significant number of people who use the older versions- see the lower table here. J Milburn (talk) 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. ~RayLast 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? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 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. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look correct in Konqueror 3.5.8 either -62.172.143.205 (talk) 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. -Tarthen Blazerken (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it looks a bit Windows 95-ish, if you get me. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well anyone interested in helping me fix it for other browsers, you can get/copy the code from {{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 . ~RayLast 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. Bobo. 02:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. The template's page has the Safari caveat too. You can help fix it though. ~RayLast 03:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Firefox 3.0 doesn't run on Linux using wine, I would say ":("--Jahilia (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it shall once Firefox 3.0 will be released. Right now, it's not Firefox 3.0 it's Firefox 3 Beta 5. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In Netscape I find gray boxes at the corners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.148.109 (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The boxes are shifted in Opera (9.27) down and to the right. Regardless, I took a look at FF3b5. While I do find it kind of distracting, if I had to have some form of it instituted, I'd go without the shadows on the images. The images are unbordered right now and should stay that way. Having borders/shadows is distracting.The freddinator (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

May i suggest a colour scheme change? the other language wikis look so much brighter, because the colours are more bold! I liked the example in Mistman123's sandbox, so here is my attempt: User:Kennedygr/sandbox - i like to brighter colours, (at least the left.) havent thought of the right side, and the images on the title bars help too? ← κεηηε∂γ 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I get the tiny boxes to the lower right.(firefox 1.5.1.12, Adblock+, flashblock, imagezoom, low memory requirements...) The Sreenshot looks very good. Perhaps you can find a site that it works at or poke around at browser watch. 71.193.2.115 (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys! I think I fixed it!! Please check it out and let me know if it works for all your browsers. If you like it we can put it on the Main Page! Regards. ~RayLast 01:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me in FF2. Personally I reckon the shading is a little too heavy though. I mean sure it looks good now, but shadows can be the sort of look that gets old quickly. Incidentally, I did something sort of similar with round shadows with a header I made for the top of my talk page a while back (only round in Firefox I think). • Anakin 19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ick, it's ugly. Sorry. I don't think I could stand looking at that everytime I visited Misplaced Pages; doesn't really suit the Vista age. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WBOSITG...sorry. --Pianista! 00:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not bad. I suggest making the shadows a gradient fill rather than 3 superposed rectangles and making them a bit smaller, then you might be on to a winner Modest Genius 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it works on my version of firefox. (Anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.21.159 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good in Safari. Lunakeet 21:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I now added the "simple=true" parameter that only displays one shadow shade for my experiment on the Main Page sandbox. Visit the Shadowing Template for details on the template parameters. ~RayLast 15:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I preferred the previous version tbh, looked more like an actual shadow and less like a box behind it. The corners really need to have diagonals or it just looks wrong. So you know what I mean:

currently

|______
  |____

my suggestion

|______
 `------

Modest Genius 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Four white men and a bird...

...are featured on the Misplaced Pages Main Page. Sigh. Our systemic bias really shines through sometimes. Kaldari (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention it's all written in English. Our Anglo-centrism is pretty glaring.-Wafulz (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked there were English-speaking women as well. And how come we never have turtles? Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, one of the men is a bit on the grey side. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, the next featured pic on DYK is a black woman.--Bedford 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yay for racial equality at DYK! =P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh... so based on one afternoon's collection of pictures you're saying what? That the internet is biased against women of color and non-avian species of animals? I'm sure there are appropriate political message boards where you can listen to yourself vent. (Pardon me for the use of English, I don't mean to be biased against the Dutch/Cantonese/Pulaar/Hindi speaking communities.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.72.30.67 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait ... isn't bird an English slang term for woman? Does that help erase some of the male bias? --Spiff666 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There are more ant species than humans, why isnt this reflected in news and DYK sections? This is an outrage. -Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.17.34 (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} ;) 68.101.123.219 (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

News lack updating... Again

In the past few days, I've observed that the news are (again) lacking updates, because (again) the picture wasn't changed, the news stayed stuck In the same lines, and Sichuan doesn't disappear. I think that we should really start making a new news section criteria. The need for a change In the In The News section policy is not something we could need In two moths, but it'S something that we need now, and I'm not kidding. Or otherwise, we could just remove the section, because after all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. For the purpose of reading the news, we should reccomend visiting Wikinews. How about a banner with the Wikinews link and logo and a short description of Wikinews? Or At least giving some ideas? I don't really think it'S absolutely neccesary to have a news section In an encyclopedia, because Encarta and Brittanica have never had news sections, and they are (supposedly) prestigious encyclopedias. Hope we can reach a sort of agreement. --J.C. (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are complaining about. The picture represents an event that happened less than forty-eight hours ago and is very much still a developing story. How is that not good enough? There have been a series of significant events over the past week and so this week, of all weeks, has seen an especially high number of ITN updates with the most up-to-date, accurate information. This doesn't seem like the week to suggest that ITN isn't covering what's in the news because, this week, what's in the news is in sync with what's encyclopedic, and so ITN is spot-on. -- tariqabjotu 04:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind ITN not updating. But I agree that it shouldn't be on the Main Page. I think it doesn't do the best job it could with showcasing Misplaced Pages's best content. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither does did you know?, but both offer articles that the readers may find very interesting. ITN is updating at a fairly good pace at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but in the pasty forty-eight hours a lot of things have happened. In the past week, the news were updating at a rate of 1 picture (and story) per day. Now that we have the same line for forty-eight hours, I've started to think it really is in need of help. Maybe you should take the information from the newspapers, because (unless you live in Anctartica) news headlines are updated every day, not in two days. What I think is that it needs to be (fully) updated every day, changing everything. At least say "earthquake in Sichuan causes more deaths. Reports indicate X people have died as a consequence of the earthquake" At least change a few words (and the picture, fundamentally), but do not become lazy in the editing of a very actual section like the In The News section.--J.C. (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Update daily? No, we should update as things happen, as we do. As you have already pointed out, we are not a newspaper, and fewer stories warrant inclusion in Misplaced Pages than in a newspaper; only stories with a lasting significance will be included here, and so only stories with a lasting significance should be included on ITN. If so much has happened, then it should have been discussed on WP:ITN/C, and ITN should be updated appropriately. It's quite simple- if you want more to appear, suggest more. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to stick to what you said, but, doesn't lasting significance mean it has to be old? I supposed it did...--J.C. (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No? Alarming as you may find it, things of lasting significance do still happen. Why would things of 'lasting significance' have to be old? J Milburn (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the unfortunate circumstances, not getting ITN updated so often may be a good sign for everyone. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Note the ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages:In the news 2.0, where a proposal for a major structural change to ITN has gained some traction. However, more input is required. BanyanTree 01:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no way of predicting lasting significance. If it's old, we know it has proven to be of lasting significance. With recent events, we can only guess. These guesses, if made correctly, can be accurate. But sometimes they're totally off and nobody will remember the event in a few years. With older things, we know, with recent ones, we can only guess. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, how about we switch ITN for DYK or OTD? Most user's screens are not that huge, meaning they have to scroll down to see the DYK and OTD. I think that DYK is interesting to more readers because it's updated more frequently. Since it's interesting to more readers, I think it should be at a more prevalent place. And the perfect place for that is right next to the FA, instead of ITN. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is there so much death in the world?

Why does ITN have to be filled with death and dying? Why is the world like this? 70.16.29.26 (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ITN should've covered Jenna Bush's wedding to counter the death and suffering of mankind's follies. 119.95.17.214 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

By showing more suffering? Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest a different blurb at WP:ITN/C. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the unfortunate circumstances, not getting ITN updated so often may be a good sign for everyone. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Which spelling?

Should we use British or American for epicenter/epicentre?

Lunakeet 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with the form first used establishing the choice for the blurbs's stay on the Main Page. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for further information. --Jester 13:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Yes"? In any case, the article trumps, not the main page. ffm 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the 'Yes' thing was intended as humour, along the lines of "Are you male or female?" "Yes." Dreaded Walrus 04:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there really any agreement on this? As far as I'm aware there isn't. If the article is a certain variety of English because that is the variety applicable to it then yes. But if the only reason an article is a certain variety of English is because of first contributors choice, as would be the case I presume in many (mainland) Chinese articles, then I don't see why the main page has to follow. Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Table alignment

Would it be possible to align the 'Did you know?' and the 'On this day' tables? -- Ishikawa Minoru (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's easily possible: the green and blue boxes are both separate table cells, with no easy means of alignment. I don't think this would be a good idea anyway. The idea of fitting everything snugly together is to eliminate whitespace (or in this case, bluespace). Featured Article blurbs tend to be longer than In the News, so Did You Know is made to be shorter than On This Day. Gracenotes § 02:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unassessed?!?

I breifly switched templates for a while and realized that the main page is not fall under any category and is unnassessed. Should there be an official Main Page category that can be created so the main page is no longer unassessed? - - | 02:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a Category:Main Page, but the Main Page itself doesn't seem to be in it; is there a reason for this? --Herald Alberich (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Main Page is a maintenance category, for users interested in finding pages related to the main page, not a category that would be of interest to readers. As for the main page being 'unnassessed', I assume you are talking about WikiProject templates. The main page isn't exactly an article in the same way others are, and it it isn't even really a portal. As such, I don't think it falls under WikiProjects. Plus, assessing it would be a waste of time- it changes so frequently, and there are already enough people keeping it up to a high standard without someone from a WikiProject dropping in occasionally. J Milburn (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

then should there be a Wikiproject Main page? i don't know, but it really bugs me when it says "Misplaced Pages, the FREE ENCYLOPedia and then right below it. An unnassessed. Maybe the creation of a new category just for the main page? - - | 20:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A WikiProject for just the main page is really not necessary. First, the structure of the main page itself rarely changes. And each of the five rotating sections, Today's featured article, In The News, Did you know, On this day, and Picture of the day already have maintenance and discussion pages that act as de facto WikiProjects anyway. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)