This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qxz (talk | contribs) at 03:21, 25 March 2007 (→Recent Changes: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:21, 25 March 2007 by Qxz (talk | contribs) (→Recent Changes: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Template:Main Page discussion footer
20:45, Saturday, January 11, 2025 (UTC)Main page error reports
To report an error you have noticed on the current main page or tomorrow's main page please add it to the appropriate section below. You can do this by pressing the button to the right of the appropriate below section's heading. Also, please sign your post using four tildes (~~~~)
Wikimedia project page for Main Page error reporting Shortcuts | National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously:
|
To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.
Main Page toolbox- Protected pages
- Commons media protection
- Associated
- It is currently 20:45 UTC.
- Purge the Main Page
- Purge this page
- Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
- Offer a correction if possible.
- References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
- Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 20:45 on 11 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
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
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
- 1969 – British rock band Led Zeppelin released their first album, Led Zeppelin, in the United States. - Since last appearance at OTD, the release date was changed to 13 January on 8 March 2024 here with a ref, put back to 12th here on 23 July, then back to 13 here on 30 August. JennyOz (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Day-after-tomorrow's OTD
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Friday's FL
(January 17)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
- Per WP:OVERLINKING, please delink London in the description. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 14:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Tomorrow's POTD
Main page general discussion
Tabs for ITN?
Would it technically be possible to have tabs for the ITN section, to satisfy readers with seperate World / North America / South America / Africa and the Middle East / Asia / Europe feeds? See the new homepage for USA Today, which features "Headlines" and "News notes". -- Zanimum 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- There's separate pages for the regions in the ITN "back end" Portal:Current events, but they are for the most part woefully neglected. So you'd see some tabs stagnate for weeks while others moved past too quickly to be noticed. --Monotonehell 18:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that's a strong possibility, the neglect. But those pages are ultimately quite hidden, in my opinion at least, so there's little point in updating them for many people. I'm asking strictly about the technical aspects for now. Does the wiki software have the technical ability to do something like this? -- Zanimum 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- We could probably do it with CSS... ffm ✎talk 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tabs are ridiculously difficult to use on wikis, along with several other complex CSS functions. For instance, a two tab system (tabs A and B) would require that when a user clicks to see B, B's
displayproperty would switch fromnonetoblockand A'sdisplayproperty would switch fromblocktonone. (Actually the specific termblockis unnecessary, if you simply clear the property (style.display='';) it will act just the same). This requires coding likeonclick="document.getElementById('B').style.display='block';". From my experience, wikis deactivate coding like this, unless there is a provision somewhere for purposes like these. Zanimum, if you are seriously interested in creating some kind of tab system, I would suggest you do a trial somewhere deep within the encyclopedia instead of trying to get it here on the main page. There would be a lot of controversy getting it placed somewhere so highly visible because of browser compatibility and user confusion.. etc. One place where I've tried for quite a while to get a tabbed system working is {{Navigation tabs}}. If you look at the edit history, you'll see I've gotten quite frustrated trying out many approaches. -- drumguy8800 C T 05:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tabs are ridiculously difficult to use on wikis, along with several other complex CSS functions. For instance, a two tab system (tabs A and B) would require that when a user clicks to see B, B's
- Would you mind if I advertised this code on the Village pump? -- Zanimum 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are the tabs at Misplaced Pages:Introduction and Misplaced Pages:Tutorial. This is not an endorsement of their use, I do not like the idea of additional tabs in our already densely-compacted interface. --Quiddity 20:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do we have enough ITN candidates to fill up all those tabs? Maybe better for the Signpost? Or Misplaced Pages:Community Portal/Opentask, allowing the font size to be larger? --74.13.125.194 14:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not currently, no, but I know we could stir up more interest. I mean, we could do a trial time, and see how it goes. -- Zanimum 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- A tab for the Signpost and the Open tasks would be nice... Titoxd 20:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I guess we will just have to pray to the gods of CSS and wikisyntax (why isnt there an article about it!) to bless us with such great gifts. ffm ✎talk 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- A tab for the Signpost and the Open tasks would be nice... Titoxd 20:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not currently, no, but I know we could stir up more interest. I mean, we could do a trial time, and see how it goes. -- Zanimum 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Obligatory
Given today's featured article, I'll just go ahead and say it before someone else does - OMG WIKIPEDIA IS COMMUNISM!! (I can't help myself) Raul654 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am sure there are thousands of Wikipedians on here now in 2007 who may not be familiar with the significance of that statement. And I bet that there are a few on RC right now that hope that it stays that way... :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Raul654, I have to say this is grossly irresponsible of you. You need to 'fess up with trying to further the communist agenda by intentionally selecting this article over Democracy (who cares that it's not technically a featured article). It's a conspiracy, I say. ShadowHalo 01:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly I'm surprised the shit storm hasn't erupted yet. I don't have any feelings towards communism because I know nothing about it, but I know about the American paranoia towards it, and really I'm shocked we haven't gotten a real message about this yet. You'd think if people cared enough to complain about Torchic we'd have heard something about this by now. DoomsDay349 01:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't care less about politics either. But I agree, it seems many are simply paranoid about anything with the word communist in it. ShadowHalo makes a good point though that no-one would be saying anything if the FA of the day was Democracy related which would surely be just as political (that's if there was actually any evidence that this article of the day was politically motivated - which of course there isn't). It's an encyclopedia folks... Canderra 02:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly I'm surprised the shit storm hasn't erupted yet. I don't have any feelings towards communism because I know nothing about it, but I know about the American paranoia towards it, and really I'm shocked we haven't gotten a real message about this yet. You'd think if people cared enough to complain about Torchic we'd have heard something about this by now. DoomsDay349 01:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Raul654, I have to say this is grossly irresponsible of you. You need to 'fess up with trying to further the communist agenda by intentionally selecting this article over Democracy (who cares that it's not technically a featured article). It's a conspiracy, I say. ShadowHalo 01:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Having the day's featured article isn't enough to remind people that Misplaced Pages is communism. I suggest that we get a vandalbot through WP:BRFA immediately in order to remind people of this important, but well-hidden, fact. We must use every means possible to tell people that polling is evil, and that after a couple of years of our two year plan, everything will belong to whomever it's supposed to belong to. (I'm more a "Misplaced Pages is an oligarchic pro-choice anarcho-syndicalist laissez-faire legislative body" guy myself.) Gracenotes' left sock 02:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- It has begun: . 128.227.1.207 02:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- The libertarian capitalist position: Communism is certainly practically bad, but there's nothing wrong with an article thereon being featured, just as there would be nothing wrong with featuring an article about Charles Manson. Simply because an artcle is featured does not mean the subject it is on is being celebrated or promoted. Allixpeeke 02:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer to think that Misplaced Pages is much more republican than we think, with the exception we aren't elected representatives. But our functioning is very similar to it. And may help us all, now that the crap has begun. DoomsDay349 02:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't you mean Democratic? Republican implies Misplaced Pages has an elected president with executive powers over and above the council (unless your talking about the US political party). Canderra 02:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was under the impression Republicanism meant having a republic, with representatives who deliberate things. If I'm correct, they're very similar. I just prefer saying Republic. But I mean that essentially we're a legislative branch that doesn't get elected and doesn't represent special interests. But the actual functioning is pretty legislative, and I wouldn't call it communism (if it were communism, every visitor and IP on Misplaced Pages would have an equal say and equal power, and we also wouldn't have admins.) DoomsDay349 02:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually neither republicanism or demoractic are the correct words in this case in themselves IMHO. Republic (nowadays anyway) just means there is an elected head of state rather then a monarch. Democractic is harder to define but you could have a direct demoracy for example. Representative democracy might be closer to what your thinking about but as you say there are no elections. Actually I would argue we are closer to some forms of communism. Oh and communism is generally not thought to be mutual exclusive with republic. Indeed, I don't think there is much doubt that countries like China & Vietnam are republics. (Just as constitutional monarchy is not exclusive to demoractic.) I guess when it comes to something like North Korea, some would argue they really monarchies or perhaps oligarchies. Nil Einne 05:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was under the impression Republicanism meant having a republic, with representatives who deliberate things. If I'm correct, they're very similar. I just prefer saying Republic. But I mean that essentially we're a legislative branch that doesn't get elected and doesn't represent special interests. But the actual functioning is pretty legislative, and I wouldn't call it communism (if it were communism, every visitor and IP on Misplaced Pages would have an equal say and equal power, and we also wouldn't have admins.) DoomsDay349 02:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't you mean Democratic? Republican implies Misplaced Pages has an elected president with executive powers over and above the council (unless your talking about the US political party). Canderra 02:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer to think that Misplaced Pages is much more republican than we think, with the exception we aren't elected representatives. But our functioning is very similar to it. And may help us all, now that the crap has begun. DoomsDay349 02:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages isn't "communism" -- not unless it is run by a ruthless, self-appointed "vanguard party" seeking unlimited state power and willing to kill absolutely anyone in its way. In theory, Misplaced Pages is a non-profit foundation independent of state control, which means that it is illegal under communism. And neither China and Vietnam are republics. They are oligarchical collectivist states. Neither is governed by constitutional principles at the top.
As it is, this article is absurdly biased and should never have made it to the main page. (Actually, the capitalist countries pretty much didn't care what the Trots did, so long as they didn't hurt anyone. They had no power, anyway, and spent most of their time splitting into smaller and smaller factions.)Scott Adler 11:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- 1. That's not the definition of Communism, that's the definition of totalitarianism. There isn't a single communist run country on this planet. 2. We're way off the topic of this talk page now. ;) --Monotonehell 11:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Motion to make the next IP who vandalizes the FA of the day our Eternal President and close this discussion? ShadowHalo 11:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't want to continue this discussion other then to point out there is no requirement for a constitution (and therefore constitutional principles) to have a republic. A constutional republic obviously requires a constitution though. Also we we're talking about the way Misplaced Pages works in comparison to common forms of government, not whether it is controlled by any government or legal in any country Nil Einne 16:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, a few countries, like the UK (which in truth has been a republic, as the Greeks and the Romans understood it, for over 300 years), have unwritten constitutions, but their governing principles are well defined. An ad hoc system without a constitution or basic law isn't a republic, it's a mob. Actually, Misplaced Pages works very poorly "in comparison to" (try "when compared to") a government because it operates in semi-secrecy. Despite open comments, its intellectual climate is well known, and hundreds, if not thousands of controversial entries are controled by extremists. Otherwise how did this silly, badly written, entry get onto the Main Page?Scott Adler 21:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Uhh, the U.K. is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a republic and it does not have a constitution. It has a democratic system similar to the Roman and Greek systems you describe but that is because they also were similar types of (supposable representative, but that's all beside the point) democracies, not republics. A Republic refers specifically to the instance of a democratically elected sovereign, neither the U.K., ancient Rome or ancient Greece has/had such a system. The article got onto the main page through the open and well documented featured article selection process. See the Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article page for more information. Canderra 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, a few countries, like the UK (which in truth has been a republic, as the Greeks and the Romans understood it, for over 300 years), have unwritten constitutions, but their governing principles are well defined. An ad hoc system without a constitution or basic law isn't a republic, it's a mob. Actually, Misplaced Pages works very poorly "in comparison to" (try "when compared to") a government because it operates in semi-secrecy. Despite open comments, its intellectual climate is well known, and hundreds, if not thousands of controversial entries are controled by extremists. Otherwise how did this silly, badly written, entry get onto the Main Page?Scott Adler 21:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Based on my previous comment, I just took a peak at RC, and I am a little surprised that nobody has really remembered the significance of that statement. A couple have come a bit close, but not exactly. And not to the degree and frequency like Torchic was. Of course, there are still a couple of hours left... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Now that Fourth International is off the main page, I am quite surprised that it was not heavily vandalised as Torchic was when it was the TFA back on December 23 and had to be semi-protected multiple times. Therefore, I assume that a number of people either did not know or forgot that there use to be a long term vandal on here that used the statement "Misplaced Pages is Communism" as his signature trademark -- and thus, thankfully, there were no copycats to affect the article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because the article is not about or closely related to a specific country. For example, if Pakistan made it to the Main Page, plus the ITN headline, then the page would be branded as Pakistani-biased--Howard the Duck 06:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
"cite this article"
Why is "cite this article" in the sidebar toolbox on the main page? I know it is (for some reason) in the article namespace, but is there not a small fix available for this? It just seems embarrassing, especially after all the effort that has clearly gone into this page. — Jack · talk · 15:01, Thursday, 22 March 2007
{{editprotected}} A very good question, but it is not clear to me how to edit the source of this page to change the sidebar. So I will resolve the editprotected tag. You might want to raise this issue on WP:VP/T. CMummert · talk 05:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is controlled by the PHP code that implements the skin. It can't be edited through the site interface, even by administrators. It would only be possible to remove the link with a change to the MediaWiki code or with site-wide or user JavaScript. Mike Dillon 05:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually sitewide CSS should work fine; no JavaScript required. Adding this line:
.page-Main_Page #t-cite {display: none}
- to MediaWiki:Monobook.css should accomplish it. Make an {{editprotected}} request on MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css if you want it – Qxz 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I should have thought of that. Thanks for the reminder. Mike Dillon 06:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I'm still seeing the "cite this article" link, even after clearing my browser cache and purging the page. Is caching to blame, or does the CSS I supplied not work? :( – Qxz 10:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not there for me after clearing my cache. Not sure what problem you're having, but the CSS is fine. Mike Dillon 14:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's gone now. Must just have been a temporary thing – Qxz 00:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Languages
Now that German wikipedia has exceeded 500,000 articles and French is set to do so soon, does anyone agree that it's time to create an "over 500,000 articles" heading?--Humphrey20020 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- This has been suggested before here and here. The result was "It is a poor use of space to create a separate category for just one entry." The ascent of the French Misplaced Pages will change that, but still not enough to warrant the extra room. — Jack · talk · 17:58, Thursday, 22 March 2007
- Edit conflict- Sorry we've been there before and the answer is no... /Archive 94#Main_Page#Misplaced Pages languages, /Archive 86#Misplaced Pages languages, /Archive 84#Germen Wiki, /Archive 83#German Misplaced Pages 500,000th entry. Nil Einne 18:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I was thinking that as well, but I guess we will need to wait for a few more languages to get up to speed --Assassimon 06:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
IP Vandals
Is there anyway to stop anonymous IPs from at least editing the main pages? It seems like most of the good edits to these pages are performed by those who care to login. Just my $0.02. Thank you. --BlindEagle 18:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- It possibly seems that way because vandals stand out, but if you look more closely there's quite a number of very good contributions made by IPs and quite a number of vandals from newly created accounts. --Monotonehell 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
How are Featured Articles chosen?
I find it highly coincidental that an obscure page that I visited yesterday makes its way to the main page. Anyone have details on how the topics are chosen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.35.225.230 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
- For information on the requirements an article must have to be promoted to featured status, see Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria. Nominations and discussions are posted on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates. For information on how "Today's featured article" is selected (the featured article that appears on the main page, see Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article. Thanks for your interest. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- And chosen for the main page by Raul654. ffm ✎t 01:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Uranium is obscure? Or maybe you meant Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. -- Zanimum 20:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Have to say it...
1,700,000 articles! Yay! --WikiSlasher 11:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, 1,690,000 of them are rubbish! Get back to work! – Qxz 11:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- But what work? Creating more 'rubbish' or improving and/or deleting the existing rubbish? Nil Einne 14:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Be a garbage man, throw the rubbish into a dirty pit (the deletion log)! --168.99.182.254 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- But what work? Creating more 'rubbish' or improving and/or deleting the existing rubbish? Nil Einne 14:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Up to you. If you feel like creating more stuff, do something on Misplaced Pages:Articles requested for more than a year rather than just 'rubbish'; improving what's already there... pick a backlog, we've got dozens of them; deleting the existing rubbish... AfD or Special:Newpages – Qxz 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Homeworld
I looked at the Homeworld page. I played the game a while ago, i didn't know there were so many people who knew enough about the games and the back story to write such detailed articles, just for a game! There are also quite a few cross-references for it, there's a lot to cover and it's practically all covered. I don't know, i just think it's pretty nice. -- Schadenfreude red 03:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Schadenfreude red. I've copied your comments to Talk:Homeworld, where contributors to that article discuss how to enrich and improve it. People over there will appreciate it more than readers of this page. --74.14.16.225 17:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we add a todays date?
My only suggestion is to add the current date to the front page of wikipedia.
- We could add the time in UTC, as we have done to this page, but since most people's local timezone is different to this, it would probably just cause confusion for readers who would think it was wrong. We already get the odd complaint that "Today's Featured Article" doesn't change at the end of the day, but rather at some 'random' time during the day (in fact it always changes at 00:00 UTC). I think it's considered OK on this page as editors are generally assumed to be accustomed to different timezones, working as they are on an international project – and while timezone can be set in user preferences to get such things as page histories correctly adjusted, it's still necessary to convert the timestamps that appear at the end of comments, such as this one: – Qxz 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- If we have on the Main Page the date and time like on this page with the link to UTC all people need to do is click that link and then they'll know about UTC. --WikiSlasher 03:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- But what is the purpose of adding the date in the first place? Unless people only want to know that it is approximately March 24 for their time zone, the date displayed is just going to be "wrong" for most people. —Centrx→talk • 05:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Come to think of it I agree, it's not really useful because of differing timezones and people can tell the time with their computer anyway. --WikiSlasher 08:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Today's date can be found on the first line in the On this day... section. --74.14.16.225 17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Wesley Clark second time featured?
Not sure, but isn’t this the second time this article (Wesley Clark) is featured? At least I think I saw his image quite prominent before on the main page. --Van helsing 09:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was only promoted in March this year so it was definitely not featured before Talk:Wesley Clark. Actually I don't know if we've ever featured an article on the main page twice. I can't see anything in his bio to suggest he would have been ITN worthy, at least not since 2005. Are you sure your not getting confused by some other general or whatever? We tend to have Americans as ITN pictures a lot because they usually have free images. And the photos of most American generals, presidents and the like tend to look similar as they nearly always have the flag behind them. Having looked at a few, quite a few of them have some eagle on the right but there are some with just stars like Wesley Nil Einne 12:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I’m confused with one of the other sections on the main page. I read his bio before, and I think that was triggered by something on the main page. In any case, thanks for your response. --Van helsing 14:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I must say im positive i saw him as FA on the front page not so long ago as well. siarach 14:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome to look through the Today's Featured Article queue and try and find him, but I assure you he doesn't appear on any day other than March 24 – Qxz 15:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- You know, it's weird, I have the same feeling I've seen Wesley Clark here before.--Pharos 17:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually pretty sure that a picture of him came up in DYK, so that's probably why people recall seeing on the Main Page before. Kaushik twin 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or it could have been shown "In The News". -- Zanimum 20:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well as I mentioned, I don't see any reason from his bio why he would have been ITN, since 2005 at least, but I can't say for sure of course Nil Einne 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the featured article on the main page picked by a random generator or is it chosen by a moderator?
- Raul654, the featured article director, takes care of it. See also Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article. Picaroon 21:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Wesley Clark Pic
Couldn't someone vandalise the commons image, I don't think it's protected.--User:Rock2e 10:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- They could have done. However, a local copy has now been uploaded, which is automatically protected by cascading protection, so it is no longer a problem. (In future, contact an administrator the moment you spot something like this, just so nobody gets any ideas from reading this page). Thanks – Qxz 11:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
List of administrators
Sorry, where is a list of admins, i'm new?--User:Rock2e 18:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Go to Misplaced Pages:List of administrators. Or you can click on 'Special pages' in the toolbox under the logo, then click on Users and select 'Administrators'. This may be more up-to-date. Next time, please try Misplaced Pages:Help desk instead of here. Service is usually better there. Don't forget to tip. --74.14.16.225 18:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was actually replying to the above comment, will ψ5 be enough:)?--User:Rock2e 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
News
There should be something about the developing Iranian Marine hostage crisis on the Main Page. I don't think the elections in Finland could degenerate into World War. But that's just me. --Mb1000 21:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please join the discussion on WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 21:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Recent Changes
Why is the Recent Changes link gone from the navigation? Hiddenhearts Sign Here! My Talk 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh never mind, its in the interaction box. Hiddenhearts Sign Here! My Talk 01:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- People have been doing all kinds of fiddling with the sidebar recently. They'll make up their minds soon enough – Qxz 03:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)