Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 09:51 on 26 November 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Today's FA

• No image? @Mattximus: It's quite unfortunate that no image exists on the worm. I see this was mentioned at the FAC by @Nikkimaria, and that it appears there may be none freely licensed available. Still, is it really possible to say that this is one of our best articles when it has no visual depiction of the animal it's about? This is made worse by the TFA, since the image is of an entirely different creature, which leads any reader to assume that the article will be about that other creature. Sdkb ^talk 04:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I went through the same thought process. It is a wonderful world (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I do agree that if there's no image of the organism concerned we shouldn't have an image. The current situation is very confusing IMHO. @TFA coordinators can we remove it and just have no image, as we sometimes do in other cases?  — Amakuru (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• "is it really possible to say that this is one of our best articles when it has no visual depiction of the animal it's about": Yes, of course it is. We're constricted by our ridiculously constrictive rules on images which lack any common sense on the point, but that doesn't stop it being a top quality article.
  "can we remove it and just have no image: yes. I suspect it was added because we sometimes get complaints when there's no image at all, even if there are some of secondary importance in the article. If someone can remove it, please do so. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   Done thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• It seems to me entirely appropriate to illustrate both article and blurb with the host species of this parasite. It has no other known host and one of the interesting aspects of the parasite is that it has this unusual host. The host will be unfamiliar to most readers and of interest to them. JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Then you will have to get the policies and guidelines surrounding the use of non-free images changed, because at the moment it is not possible. Policy says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". The fact that the worm still exists and it is, therefore, technically possible to obtain an image, which means we cannot use a non free one. And no, JMCHutchinson, we could not include an image with the blurb with a non-free image; that falls under a different part of the policy, but it's still policy. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors with "In the news"

• As Toadspike has pointed out, the current layout of ITN causes confusion. The positioning of the image of Yoav Gallant makes it seem like the portrait depicts the newly elected Lithuanian Prime Minister. It would be better if we had File:Gintautas Paluckas VRK.jpg or as a second alternative to that, a portrait of Netanyahu (who is more recognizable and less likely to be mistaken for the new Lithuanian PM by a casual observer). Flip^andFlopped ツ 01:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• That file lacks evidence of permission. Knowing which blurb the picture is linked to is what (pictured) is for, and there’s no evidence that anyone is confused. Stephen 01:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have occasionally thought the image pertains to the subject of the top hook at first glance, until I looked closer. And that's as someone who actually knows how ITN works.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose that's why WP:ITNPICT says the picture should be for the uppermost blurb, when possible, but I suspect that stems from a time when images did not have captions. FWIW, "On this day" often has a picture not associated with its top-most item. —Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Tomorrow's OTD

• Guru Nanak Gurpurab (Sikhism, 2023) - was celebrated on 15 November this year JennyOz (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   Removed Schwede66 08:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 29)

Monday's FL

(December 2)

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.

General discussion

In The News Picture

Do we really have to have a picture of a diseased animal for people to unexpectedly come upon when they go to the main page? Zazaban (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is no more objectionable than the picture of a fly eating something solid and brown is (featured on Main Page on Nov 16, 2009). --BorgQueen (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was a particularly shitty FP. ;) --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 16:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Strabismus surgery got far more complaints, but I still think that was worthy for the Main Page. howcheng {chat} 17:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Tasmanian devil picture should be removed from the main page. Shocking and disturbing pictures such as this one may be appropriate for specific articles, but are not appropriate for the main page. The fact that other inappropriate pictures have been on the main page before does not make it right. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we must absolutely do everything we can to remove this reference to reality.../sarcasm. Go outside and take a look at the world will you? It isn't always NICE. But it is IMPORTANT, and, as others have already stated, INTERESTING. Are you really trying to censor real life? Next you'll tell me we can't have pictures of cuckoos pushing eggs out of nests because of the poor unhatched chicks. --SeldooN (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How about using File:Elektrownia Ignalina.jpg to illustrate the power station story instead? -- The Anome (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty ugly image that would look like a couple of rectangles in thumbnail. APL (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I sort of expected to see complaints about the bullet-point, not the image. It seems like a research detail that's only of interest to specialists. I mean, as far as I can tell the story is "Researchers learn another thing about the much-studied face cancer among Tasmanian Devils." I assume I'm missing something here, but perhaps the blurb could be modified to point out whatever it is that I'm missing? APL (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why was it removed? The surgery and fly pictures were by far more disturbing and disgusting than this. I don't remember those being removed. --candle•wicke 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I actually found this worse. It was close up. The fly wasn't bad at all. Zazaban (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It was removed by User:MZMcBride, apparently without discussion. I think it was perfectly fine. Could we at least use File:Tasdevil large.jpg? It would look an awful lot better than the power station. Modest Genius ^talk 00:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Moot now, as another image is up there (the power station), and now the chess player image. Maybe a note to the regulars at WP:ITN to consider what picture to consider using? WT:ITN would seem the place to go from here. See Wikipedia_talk:ITN#Images_of_diseased_animals. Carcharoth (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • At least it's not as bad as this. –Howard the Duck 12:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • You made me hungry. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If we can have Gropecunt Lane on the main page, then I don't see what's wrong with the image. We should have some sort of guideline. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get any result for File:Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease cropped.png, and because of the inaccessibility of the subject it seems less likely that a PD version was really available - maybe this was a copyright issue? Certainly such an image is educational and appropriate for Wikipedia if it doesn't lead to lawyerly pummeling. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no copyright issue. The image was cropped specifically for the main page and deleted because it's no longer in use (our standard procedure) after being deemed "too disturbing." The uncropped version is File:Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease.png. —David Levy 18:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In the News Topics

Devil's facial tumor disease? Really? How is that possibly newsworthy enough to make the main page? Are there really that many unemployed nerds specialists-on-obscure-and-irrelevant-topics running Wikipedia's day-to-day operations that we're subjected to that kind of headlining breakthrough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.24.248 (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, I found it interesting. Additionally, it was a major headline at Google News and other outlets. It even made my local papers. And the cancer has brought (is bringing) a well known species to its knees as far as population figures go. So, yeah, I can see why it would be In The News. Dismas|^(talk) 00:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, where'd it go? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 01:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO a piece about chess, of all things is a lot less newsworthy then the facial tumor disease. - 203.161.86.127 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it not possible that both are interesting and newsworthy in their own way? I was the editor who wrote the ITN nomination for the chess entry, so I'm obviously biased there, but I found the devil's facial tumour entry interesting as well. Carcharoth (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Chess is a popular international competition game, with a large following, so I say major news pertaining to it is newsworthy, just as we mention the winners of various major sporting events. This coming from someone who does not follow chess in the slightest, though I do enjoy the occasional game. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I for one love it when ITN features stuff I have no idea about and would otherwise never have heard of. God forbid one would learn something from an encyclopaedia. --AdamSommerton (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the cancer has the potential to wipe out the species in question it is fairly significant yes.©Geni 18:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So any time any disease has the potential to wipe out any species it's significant enough to make the ITN section of the front page? Is that what you're saying? 24.163.24.248 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it has to go through nomination procedure first. Check WP:ITN/C for details. --Tone 20:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously...the fact that this disease made it through the nomination process is what I'm griping about.24.163.24.248 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So did H1N1. And that did not threat to wipe out the entire species... --Tone 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but it did threaten human beings all over the English-speaking world (at least some of whom are themselves Wikipedia users), and it was a headlining news story as covered by numerous 24/7 news services. So I don't see the comparison. 24.163.24.248 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And when I posted the ITN for Michael Jackson half a year ago, Wikipedia's view count skyrocketed and the site crashed. Now I'm trying to get a news story related to global warming posted, something that currently threatens a large part of humanity, but doing so would mean digging for reliable sources and nobody wants to add it because it's still a sensitive political subject (and there is an ArbCom case on it). It would also require extensive NPOV checks and an article to be written. Apparently Michael Jackson is more important than the entire planet. I'll have to work on it tomorrow, but we might only have a week. Sigh. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Tasmanian Devils have a contagious form of cancer. There's no question it's interesting. Wnt (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that they have it is not news. The news is about scientists finding out some esoteric bit of information about it. The article doesn't even say why this discovery might be important, only that it "may eventually help identify a genetic pathway" (my emphasis). I'd say that when they do identify a genetic pathway, and they do use it to treat the disease, that would be ITN-worthy. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a news site and "ITN" is not a news feed (despite its misleading name). The section's intended purpose is not to report the biggest news stories, but to highlight encyclopedia articles that have been substantially updated to reflect current/recent events (as this one has been).

In such a scenario, Wikipedia's greatest strength is our ability to provide background information that puts the news in context. In this instance, we document a contagious form of cancer, which I regard as quite a fascinating topic.

That the article's most interesting content is pre-existing background information doesn't negate its up-to-date nature (which qualifies it for inclusion in "ITN") or make it any less useful to readers. In other words, the idea is to convey "here's our up-to-date article," not "here's our monumental update."

This is not to say that we should cite relatively minor news as an excuse to list interesting articles in "ITN," but we certainly can use our discretion when we feel that a development is significant from an academic standpoint and meaningfully contributes to the scope of article from whose exposure our readers will benefit. —David Levy 21:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people like to split hairs here, but the fact is that ITN is intended to feature "up-to-date encyclopedic content reflecting important international current events". In other words: News. The intent of WP:NOTNEWS is not that we can't have extremely current coverage of events; the intent is only that we don't publish first-hand accounts of stories. It is okay to print what would be considered "news" by our average reader, and I just prefer to call a spade a spade.

That said, a minor discovery related to an extremely obscure animal disease afflicting one specific species on an island in the South Pacific would hardly be classified as an international current event. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You might have misunderstood my point, as I'm certainly not suggesting that Wikipedia should not include extremely current coverage of events. (As I noted, in such a scenario, Wikipedia's greatest strength is our ability to provide background information that puts the news in context.) My point is that the emergence of Earth-shattering news is not the only route to "ITN."

Recent discussions have made it clear that there is consensus to place greater emphasis on the background information that we, as an encyclopedia, provide. That's why we now list some deaths that would have been omitted under our previous criteria; it's important that our article be sufficiently updated, but most of its value comes from pre-existing content. (People learning of a famous person's death often want to read about his/her life.)

Likewise, it's likely that a large segment of our readers is interested in reading about this disease, the nature of which is highly unusual. We have an article on the subject (updated to reflect a significant recent development), so we're directing readers to it via the main page. The disease's obscurity is all the more reason to do so, as it advertises our encyclopedia's comprehensive nature and generates attention for content otherwise likely to go unnoticed (as opposed to the major news to which you wish to restrict the section, whose corresponding articles readers are far more likely to find on their own).

The description that you quoted is in need of revision, as it no longer reflects consensus or our actual practices. —David Levy 00:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the ITN section seems to be changing even as we discuss it. All of a sudden ITN is supposed to advertise the expansiveness of Wikipedia's catalog? 24.163.24.248 (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That consideration is applicable to our dynamic main page content in general. We always seek variety. —David Levy 06:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, okay... 24.163.24.248 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A rare and unusual form of cancer with the potential to wipe out a unique species is infinitely more interesting than the constant American football-related-drivel we are bombarded with on the front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.6.78 (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To you perhaps. If your opinion had much currency, though, then that would likely be reflected in the front pages of other committed news services whose sole function is to publish information on the stories that are of interest to the most people. You may dislike it, but insofar as "American football-related-drivel" is of import to a large portion of the English-speaking world, then the stories you're alluding to are well-placed in ITN. 24.163.24.248 (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What's with this American football hate? At least it appears only once a year. Unlike other sports... –Howard the Duck 07:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

But, devil facial cancer has been known for some time. I'm no biologist, but I'd already heard of it. The "news" here is that researchers researching devil facial cancer have discovered the kind of cell the originated the cancer way back when. It's a detail only interesting to specialists. If the cancer was newly discovered, or if a cure was newly discovered, that'd be of more general interest. APL (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The overall subject is of general interest, and it likely is unfamiliar to a vast majority of our readers. —David Levy 23:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what's in dispute at this point; whether or not it is of general interest. It's obvious that it isn't of general interest, as this "story" has gotten practically no attention whatsoever from reputable news sources. 24.163.24.248 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote. Note the presence of the phrase "overall subject" (not "story"). —David Levy 01:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But ... Wikipedia is full of topics that are interesting and unfamiliar to most people. It's not standard procedure to place them on the main page every time some minor update is made to the topic. Many hundreds of scientific papers are written pertaining "overall subjects" that are fascinating, but the research itself is not automatically front-page worthy. In fact, that's probably normal for scientific research. It seems like a strange exception has been made for this one piece of research. APL (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if more scientific advances were promptly documented in Wikipedia articles and proposed for inclusion in the "ITN" section, more would appear there. —David Levy 05:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What are your (or ITN's) criteria for something being "of general interest"? 24.163.24.248 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Consensus. —David Levy 01:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you base consensus on the fact that nobody complained about it before it hit the main page, then yes - consensus supports its inclusion. But if you accept that silence is the weakest form of consensus, and that it is subject to change when dissension eventually does arise, then consensus at this point seems to be that this doesn't belong in ITN (or, at the very least, consensus does not exist that it should be included). But, like everything else that ends up at Talk:Main Page, the detractors will be debated ad nauseam by the same dozen or so editors until the story shuffles off in due time and the issue becomes moot. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not numerical. The argument that the item is inappropriate because it doesn't pertain to news of international importance is based upon an inaccurate perception of the section's current format (itself consensus-derived).

However, as partial participants in the above debate, neither of us is in a position to objectively evaluate consensus (or the lack thereof). —David Levy 01:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As always. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on the consensus policy if it is not numerical? After reading that link, I'm somewhat confused. Even if it is not numerical, the fact that we have a dispute over something right now seems to be a good indication that whatever WP "consensus" is, we don't have one at the moment.24.163.24.248 (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I can only suggest that you try re-reading Wikipedia:Consensus. Please also note that the page isn't located at Wikipedia:Majority rule or Wikipedia:Unanimity. —David Levy 05:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Give it up, Anon. For your purposes, consensus is whatever the Main Page regulars say it is. If the majority is on your side, they'll say consensus isn't a vote. If the majority is on their side, they'll say consensus is clearly with them. If what they say goes against the guidelines, they'll just tell you the guidelines are not prescriptive. Meanwhile, if any guidelines support them, they'll be sure to point them out to you. If you keep arguing, they'll say you're just being a dick. In fact, most of them wrote you off as one as soon as you posted from an IP address.

Whatever they decide to put on the Main Page, your only recourse is to wait a day or three until it rotates out. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it extraordinarily troubling to see an administrator encouraging the assumption of bad faith. —David Levy 08:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to be troubled, because I'm not assuming anything. Everything I said there is demonstrably true. I can see how it might be troubling to see an admin speak so plainly and honestly with an anonymous editor, but there's certainly no assumption going on. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're instructing an editor to assume that "the Main Page regulars" routinely engage in egregious misconduct. Please cite evidence to corroborate this far-reaching allegation. —David Levy 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

American football is of import to a large part of the USA, not the entire English speaking world. The whole English speaking world is not American. Try a global world view, would you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.6.78 (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Did someone claim that American football is followed by the entire English-speaking world? —David Levy 03:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I at some point say that American football is important to the entire English speaking world? Because I'm pretty sure that I only said it is likely interesting to a large portion of said population. If you'd like to dispute whether or not Americans comprise a large portion of the English-speaking population, I'd be more than happy to enlighten you. I'm not entirely sure why you've chosen to make this a debate about whether or not American football is interesting news when the issue is whether the discovery of Schwann cells' relationship to a form of cancer that afflicts a population of animals in a small antipodean island is interesting enough to English-speakers to warrant inclusion in ITN. 24.163.24.248 (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK dispute

I strongly dispute the claim that "Kashi" means "happy" in Chinese, when it clearly does not. Refer to Talk:Kashi Company. It should either be reworded to "claimed by the company to mean "happy" in Chinese", or removed, as it is a blatant factual error. Cheers, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is United States mentioned in headline

Frr the embassies closing it mention that france and the uk closed but not America, This is english wikipedia so i do not see how france is mention before the us. Also, sense the Us is at the front lines of the war on terror it seems that they are more effected by it. PLease correct this Euro bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. Thank you for raising your concern; however, please note that the English Wikipedia, while written in English, is only English in the respect that it uses the lingua franca of the world to display its information. Just because we use the English language does not mean we are American or put American events ahead of others. Again, we appreciate the feedback, and we try to keep a politically-unbiased and level outlook on world events.

Anyway, a lot of thought is generally put into these headlines, so I assume that the articles can explain why this wording was chosen (for example, perhaps the French embassy closed first, was the largest, or was somehow otherwise notable. Cheers, m.o.p 05:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The US Re-opened its embassy. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 06:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You should checkout the discussion Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#US, UK and France close embassies or the history [1] [2] or the article(sorry wasn't supposed to add this) before you scream Euro bias. It is of course unfortunate that the info on the US reopening their embassy was not added to the article before the US was removed [3] however this may demonstrate the reverse (i.e. US bias) since in fact it appears all 3 countries have now reopened their embassies but the US was the only one to be removed from the entry even without info on them being added to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think someone pointed out that the United States embassy had reopened. Maybe this was not done for France and the United Kingdom so therefore the United States is a victim of its own ability to communicate this information? --candle•wicke 18:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

'All other things being equal' listing countries in alphabetical order (in the language of the article/Main Page) is the most neutral option. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Main Page title

Can anyone tell me how to change the Main Page title, i.e. the line that says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"? Thanks. ... (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean for you personally? Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You could go here if you want to do it personally. That may take a while though, and you only have a very slim chance in that working. The other 2 options are to request that the Main Page is unprotected or request and edit. —  Cargoking  talk  19:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

When I said personally, I meant for the OP (while logged in) only. This may be possible by modifying the user's css or js file (as suggested by Geni) but I'm not sure. Nil Einne (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Technicaly you can do it through changes to User:Tripledot/monobook.js.©Geni 19:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Explain...... —  Cargoking  talk  20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean for my wiki, not for this Wikipedia. Here it says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", at Simple English it simply says "Wikipedia". ... (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Pagetitle. For the future, this isn't the place to ask for MediaWiki support, you'll have more luck doing that on http://mediawiki.org/. Ose (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Misleading category membership

The Main Page is a member of two categories, Category:Articles containing Chinese language text and Category:Articles containing Japanese language text. These assignments are both false; it is actually the template {{wikipedialang}} which contains text in these languages. Is there a particular reason for this category membership? If not, it needs to be removed by <noinclude>-ing the categories on the template page, or moving them to a doc subpage. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day

'Usual Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells/think of the wasplets comment. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Aargh, not more insect porn! I'm surprised it took so long for someone to comment. Halmyre (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

When they say that porn is one of the biggest industries, I think they're talking about insects. 205.200.18.71 (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just add some brown stuff underneath them and we've got one of my favorite wikipedia TFP themes...ooh yeah...Antimatter--talk-- 18:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)