Talk:Main Page

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 06:32 on 9 September 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)

Errors in "On this day"

Tomorrow's OTD

• 1845 – "John Doubleday... six months prior." - pls tweak to 'seven' months. (From article, "Broke Feby 7th 1845 Restored Sept 10th 1845 By John Doubleday".) JennyOz (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(September 13)

Monday's FL

(September 9, today)

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

Really notable?

A plane just crashed at my local airport. It missed the runway, and nearly crashed into a car that was coming out of the aiport restaurant. Luckily, there were no fatalities, but the plane is totally done for and there were an additional $100,000 (2 pounds sterling) worth of damage. Can this be featured in the ITN section? Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the story about British Airways Flight 38 in ITN is more interesting than your story ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.135.116 (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about a worldwide perspective, but in terms of Britain and Europe, this is recieving A LOT of attention. Not honestly sure why, I kind of agree with Benjamin, but there is attention. J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the first hull loss for a 777 ever. That is the significance. Oh yeah, and there was a world leader at the airport. And there might have been a instrumentation failure in flight. Lots of little things that add up to big ones. spryde | talk 17:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Our crash was pretty notable. Governor Jim Douglas was in the state at the time which is a pretty big thing (considering Vermont is about, give or take a few acres, as big as Heathrow). It's been getting A LOT of attention around here: The Times-Argus ran a front page story on it! And it was on the front page of the Burlington Free Press...very good articles, mind you. And check this out: It was a Piper Saratoga II HP, the SAME kind of airplane that John F. Kennedy, Jr. crashed in! Now tell me that doesn't deserve to be put on the front page! Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 18:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't deserve to be on the front page. London Heathrow is one of the biggest international airline hubs and the loss of a 777 in the circumstances reported must be of considerable international significance. The story merits its place in ITN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.108.167 (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a major international event, I think it should be included. Noobeditor (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The media love stories of plane crashes nowadays, so yes it's receiving a lot of attention. So it should. Exciting it was. Boeing 777 nearly knocked a taxi driver's head off then dropped clean out of the air from 100 feet. BOOOM!! :D Sky News are lovin' it. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who's been confused by my sarcastic wit, or lack thereof, there was no plane crash at the airport I'm talking about. I was merely highlighting what seems to me to be the sheer foolishness of putting a plane crash on the main page. I mean, check out this page: The only known fatality resulting from a 777 doesn't even have it's own article, let alone it's own spot on ITN! Unless I'm missing something, which is very probably, there are not any articles on any other 777 incidents, and I'm pretty damn sure that nothing about any of them made it to ITN. This crash, which had no fatalities, doesn't deserve the coverage it's getting. It hasn't even been deemed a hull-loss accident yet! For the sake of any [[deity which you choose, be it God, the invisible pink unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, could someone tell me why this deserves front page coverage? What makes it so much more notable than other of the other 4 incidents which Wikipedia (although as everyone knows, Wikipedia isn't very reliable) lists? Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Items selected for inclusion in ITN, as far as I know, have some kind of international significance. About 50 to 60 million people pass through Heathrow annually, most of whom are international travellers (and many of whom are USAmericans no doubt). The 777 is one of the leading types of aircraft that carries these people internationally and very many other people between other airports. The loss of a 777, in the circumstances that have been reported, may well have implications for all other 777s in operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.118.125 (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My fellow IP editor is correct. Additionally, the fact that nobody died is not a reason for this crash to not be notable, but one of the many reasons why it is notable. 152 on board, and not one killed. 65.4.50.162 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Plane crashes without fatalities are the most common kind of plane crash. (However, I'm not disputing that this plane crash is notable.) 24.2.176.64 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Resistance is futile, Wikipedia is Britocentric. You can't do anything about it. --Howard the Duck 07:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

But the Boeing 777 is a USAmerican aircraft. Flight 38 had flown from Beijing and many of its passengers would be travelling on to other countries. If Wikipedia really is Britcentric, the story about Flight 38 most certainly is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.223.71 (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The main bone of contention on why this article was saved from deletion was that it happened on Heathrow, not to mention it's BA and it occurred "meters" (about 4 football pitches) away from the British PM. If an airplane had a similar accident in another airport I doubt it'll be posted at the ITN, let alone have an article (That's following the "all airplane accidents are notable by default" rule). --Howard the Duck 08:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You implied that the story is Britcentric. It isn't for the foregoing reasons. I don't know what would happen in the hypothetical case you mention and neither does anybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.223.71 (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is Brit-O-Centric. As I've said, if the reason why it is saved from deletion is that 1) It's BA, 2) It's Heathrow, 3) Gordon Brown was meters (4 football pitches) away. If the accident happened on another airline and on an airport no one goes to it won't be posted on the ITN and even have an article. If this happened at JFK and it got posted, Jooler and a dozen other non-Americans will be up in arms crying "US-centrism! Remove all* US-related items in the Main Page! Heck, even Super Bowl I. (*excluding TFA and TFL) --Howard the Duck 09:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to find out what people said about what actually happened immediately before the plane crash-landed. The story is really Boeing 777centric - and that is of major international significance. If you continue to think the story isn't ITNewsworthy and is Britcentric, then so be it. I happen to disagree with you. 'Nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.217.72 (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the AfD you're linking to? Because if you had, you would have noticed the nominator withdrew it not because of Gordon Brown (which he/she said was laughable in affecting its notability) nor because of Heathrow, nor because of BA but because it was the first hull lost of a 777. And in fact reading it further, only 2, yep do you hear me?, two people even mentioned Gordon Brown in a reason to keep and neither of them used it as their sole reason. Besides that your claims are laugable in themselves because if George W. Bush had been within metres of a plane crash we wouldn't even be having this conversation because few people would bother disputing keeping the article Nil Einne (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't resolve the fact that it was saved due to it's "Britishness". I mean, come on, if this happened in a anywhere else, even in the U.S., and no casualties were reported it would've been deleted. The fact that it happened in Britain, is a British aircraft, and missed the British PM by four football pitches (LOL) was enough reason for it to be saved, er, withdrawn. --Howard the Duck 05:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Again read the AfD which clearly contradicts what you're saying. If you're going to ignore what the AfD says and come up with your own conspiracy theories, then I suggest you do it somewhere else since the main page isn't the place for people to publish conspiracy theories which don't agree with the evidence. And actually I completely disagree with you, if this had been an American airliner or had happened in JFK or any other large American airport and had missed Bush by four American football pitches as I said above we wouldn't even be having this discussion because people wouldn't be asking to delete it. This of course doesn't change the fact that there are much more important reasons to keep this article but anyway... Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article, however, says, or at least did, that it isn't even a complete hull lose, or whatever the term is, yet. That's my beef. It's like saying "Hilary Clinton is notable because she is the first woman president of the United States", which is untrue and only speculation. And if George Bush had been with feet of a plane crash, people would most likely yelling at the pilot for bad aim. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to debate whether we should keep the article or the facts contained or even to defend the AfD per se. This clearly isn't the place. What I am saying is the reason why the AfD failed had nothing to do with the claims Howard the Duck made. If you wish another AfD or want to dispute what the article says, I suggest you take that to the appropriate forum not here. You may be right that the opinion of the person who withdrew was slightly inaccurate but an analysis of the accident suggests to me the right decision was made whatever the reasons (although as I keep saying, the reason had nothing to do with what HtD claimed). Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to try and AFD JetBlue Airways Flight 292? This was an American budget airliner, in an American airport with no prominent politicans involved and without even coming close to a hull loss. The AfD should be a piece of cake according to the theories above Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Flight 292 was an Airbus aircraft, Airbus was partially owned (until a couple of years ago) by BAE systems, formerly known as BRITISH Aerospace, so that article's retention is clearly due to Britocentrism. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not gunning for an AFD on the crash, I just don't think that it deserves to be on the front page. It's notability is based on something that has yet to be determined, so I'm just saying that it does not deserve front page coverage: It's not that big of a deal (yet, perhaps). We should have an article on it, that's cool and encyclopedic. However, It's just not notable enough to be put on the front page. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wanna see this AFD? --Howard the Duck 06:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(Comment) Howard the Duck voted keep in this AFD Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually my vote was "Keep for the mean time until notability guidelines are agreed upon, with no prejudice for re-nomination." I'm waiting for the appropriate WikiProject to finally iron out notability guidelines so this and BA38 can both go to Wikipedia heaven. --Howard the Duck 03:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

both engines appeared to have failed at the same time. thats fairly notable. the chances are something like 1 in a million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.5.191.140 (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul654

How did he get the job of scheduling TFAs? When is the next election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Raul first became the defacto featured articles director when the whole FA system essentially started four years ago in 2004. Of course, Wikipedia did not have as much activity, publicity, and users back then – and the only one who was willing to work on it regularly was Raul. Several months later, a discussion now archived here, led to him being ratified as the official director. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need any more information, I suggest carrying this discussion on at WT:TFA, which would be the correct talk page for the topic at hand. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to "carry this discussion on." I want his job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Request denied.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

...especially when you are editing as an anonymous IP address without the benefits you get when you create an account. ::::::Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My IP address isn't anonymous. You know exactly what it is. And it's your sort of snide comments that get this farce of a website a bad name. Powerless in the real world, so you get your kicks from being churlish to anybody with less than 6 million edits. And please excuse the expression , but WTF does it matter where this discussion is held? NOBODY'S GONNA DIE IF I ASK THE QUESTION HERE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple, this page is here to discuss the main page as a whole, the page I recommended is to discuss the topic you want to discuss, I'm sorry if that seems complicated to you, but I don't see how you can expect to become TFA Director without understanding one of the more basic concepts of Wikipedia... well, that and the other very obvious reasons why you wouldn't qualify for the job. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 09:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But the post will rotate to someone else at some stage? right? --Fredrick day (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Raul has had the job for a long time, I'd say the only way someone else will take the post is if he gives it up, which will require either (god forbid) Raul leaving us, or community support for the idea of a weekly/monthly/yearly/whatever rotation of the job, which hasn't really come up because he's doing such a good job. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 12:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is going to dies if you ask the question here, but it has the following disadvantages:

1. Threads here get archived rather quickly, it's not a good place to do a long term discussion.
2. The people who frequently visit this page might not be interested in things unrelated to it.
3. People interested in TFA aren't notified of this.
   I think Raul is doing an excellent job, and should stay the director. There are few people who have time, energy, and skills to do this job. Further discussion should be held at WT:TFA. A non-administrator can't get the post, because the templates are fully protected. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But the post will rotate to someone else at some stage? right? --Fredrick day

Alas, the position will never rotate as long as this cabal remains in control of things.

There are few people who have time, energy, and skills to do this job.

What sort of nonsense is that? You should lay off the hyperbole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.44 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - thousands of people work on this project. Claiming that only a few have the time and/or are qualified to do something as simple as choose the FA for the main page is a load of bollocks. John Smith 06:54, 30 January 2008 (GMT+9) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.95.144.10 (talk)

Some of the qualifications include being extremely trustworthy, impartial (and seen to be impartial) and very familiar with the way wikipedia works. For whatever reason, as people approach these qualifications they tend to also spend less time and energy on Wikipedia. Finding someone with a long, respectable history on here who can be trusted with the job, and who spends enough time and energy, is not that easy. Most of the thousand of people who work on this project are not sufficiently known to be trustworthy. I'm certainly not. 130.88.140.13 (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Extremely trustworthy as opposed to just trustworthy? Again, you're talking up something that really amounts to very little.
2. Nobody on the sodding planet is impartial about everything.
3. Very familiar with the way wikipedia works? What does that even mean? You sound so unconvinced by your own statements that you have to add superfluous words like extremely, very, etc. I suppose he has to be a super guy, too?
4. People who are nice don't spend much time on wikipedia? Well, finally something I agree with. The regulars here are nothing more than a bunch of infants who love to jump on things in the collective. There is rarely any real debate. You all relish the opportunity of jumping down the throat of any newbie who turns up with ideas for improvement. Rather reminds one of Plato's cave.
5. Your final point about most people not being known to be trustworthy is, I have to say, shit. I do apologise, but there simply isn't a better word to describe that comment. It is shit. And repetitive shit at that. So,

a.) How much damage can the TFA director actually do? Very little. Abuse his power once and he'd be voted away anyway. (Yes, yes, I know wikipedia is not a democracy. But, let's face it, IT IS!)

b.) Nobody can be seen to be trustworthy until they are put in a position of responsibility and fail to abuse it.

130.88.140.13 said nothing about being impartial about everything, they were clearly implying that TFA Director would have to not be biased towards certain category's appearing on the main page on a regular basis, which Raul654 has proved he is not. Considering the systemic bias that exists in Wikipedia, Raul654 has really done an outstanding job in that regard.

Considering the span of Wikipedia's operations, there is a very clear difference between being familiar with them, and being very familiar with them, don't be so naive.

So we're infants? This from a user who can't seem to make a single post without the use of profanity.

We don't want a TFA D who abuses his power once and then gets caught, we want one who doesn't abuse his power full stop. Your apparent lack of understanding about the value of trustworthiness proves your lack of knowledge of Wikipedia.

I'm going to put this here, second to last, because I don't want to diminish the importance of my final point; you know you can sign your posts by adding ~~~~ to the end of your posts? If you want to acquire an important post such as TFA D sometime in the future, I suggest you make yourself familiar with the more basic aspects of Wikipedia, such as making yourself identifiable without the need for users to look back over a pages history.

Now, to my final point, and please, if you can only make one cogent response to my points, please let it be this. Something I've been hoping you might like to explain, but haven't paid enough attention to this discussion to ask until now, is why you seem to think that an unregistered, inexperianced, brash, and quite frankly rude anonymous user who hasn't made a single provable edit outside of this conversation would make a better Today's Featured Article Director then a knowledgeable, experienced, trustworthy, friendly, long-standing user such as Raul654? ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

picture of penis

Can this be taken off the front page?--72.209.9.246 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)thanks, --72.209.9.246 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, what? What picture are you referring to? Is this some kind of crude joke? Dreamy ^§ 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the humor so I'll assume its not a joke, can I suggest you refresh your browser cache (could be vandalism that was reverted by now), if it remains, I'd suggest that you may have malware on your PC, and will need to take the appropriate action. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard this one before, and there was nothing from the history of the page. Tourskin (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

AGF, Tourskin, Wiki knows its not easy but we gotta try to AGF :). ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 00:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be in the main page history- in the past when something like this has cropped up, it has been because a template or image on the main page has not been protected. I've seen it before- sadly, it does happen. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

However this doesn't happen much nowadays (as far as I'm aware), due to cascading protection. The only way it can, as far as I'm aware assuming that cascading protection wasn't turned off (and it looks like it wasn't) is that someone forgot to upload the image from the commons to wikipedia. Either that or an admin did it or it lasted the whole day on tomorrow's main page without anyone noticing. The fact that no one else has mentioned this suggests didn't happen and there was no picture of a penis on the main page on the 29th although I'm lazy to go through the history to confirm either way. I'm not saying 72 is lying simply that he or she might be mistaken. Perhaps it's a caching issue, there is definitely odd stuff that has happened that can probably be put down to some weird caching issue. Or perhaps he or she simply doesn't understand the difference between the main page and articles linked to from the main page. In any case, none of this really matters, if there really was a penis for a short time, it is unfortunate but seemingly didn't last long Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually after going through the logs and getting confused why we didn't see any vandalism even though some images weren't uploaded I now think it's even more unlikely. It appears cascading protection now prevents the creation of an article etc i.e. stops people from uploading an image which doesn't already exist on wikipedia. This was I believe on of the problems before, even with cascading protection someone could still upload an image which didn't already exist (or perhaps I remember wrong, not sure). Also Commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page is being used to provide cascading protection on the commons to images that are or will soon appear on the main page (since cascading protection doesn't transfer from wikipedia to the commons). Therefore it's rather difficult for this stuff to happen it would usually only be in DYK or ITN where a new image is added which is not Template:C-uploaded or protected on the commons. But going through the logs for the time of day I don't see any evidence it did happen to any of the images although I've always been a bit crap at looking through wikipedia logs Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Coming into this late, but even without cascading protection, only admins can upload a file locally that has the same name as Commons file. howcheng {chat} 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Zomg! Having kittens on the main page would be would be Felino-centric. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, no more cocks on the main page... remember the kittens. --Howard the Duck 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(indent) I saw it too, a couple of days ago. It was in DYK I think, but before I could trace it, it got fixed so I assume someone found the problem. Tivedshambo (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Goddamnit, I was so sure I'd checked all logs including [1] but I'm obviously wrong :-P Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It was there, thanks for thinking that I made it up for kicks, next time I won't bother commenting. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)yes, it was in the DYK section and it wasn't a cache problem. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well we've already found the image you referred to Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We need more "picture of penis" discussions on Talk:Main Page. Zeality (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we should create Talk:Main Page/Penis Picture Related Discussion to contain the obvious demand for it. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 18:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a guy. Can't we just have pictures of... kittens? --Howard the Duck 12:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, no more talk of cocks and such on the main page. You know what that kind of thing does to kitttens ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.192.131 (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG, think of teh kittens!!!1111  ;-) --Iamunknown 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon X

I'm new to wiki, but just glancing at the Pokemon X webcomic article tells me 2 things: Firstly, it needs a complete overhaul as it is seemingly written by a six year old, and secondly, it needs to be moved to bulbapedia, it is too specific for main wiki. I know this is not really the place to discuss this but i really think we need to move it, and then it can be improved. [i am unable to create/edit on bulbapedia due to something about bots and i would probably make a real hash of it anyway. Assisstance [yes, im sure i spelt that wrong. (King Garchomp VII (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

Suggestions to improve the Pokemon X article may be better posted at Talk:Pokemon X, rather than here. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Pokemon X. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 18:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Through the Looking Glass (Lost)

Whoever included the spoiler regarding the flashforwards in the summary on the main page is inconsiderate at least! The specific piece of information need not have been included in the main page entry. There is also viewers in countries other than the USA you know... You are forcing this spoiler down their throat. They don't even have the option to resist clicking.

Message to those who can edit the main page: It is still not too late to rectify this! Please do so. 85.240.90.204 (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Lost "Through the Looking Glass" spoilers

""Through the Looking Glass" is the twenty-second episode and season finale of the third season – sixty-ninth episode overall – of the American Broadcasting Company television series Lost. It was written by co-creator/executive producer Damon Lindelof and executive producer Carlton Cuse, and directed by executive producer Jack Bender. Like the previous two season finales, it was two hours long with advertisements, which is twice the length of a normal episode. It was split when released on DVD. The season finale was critically acclaimed and the episode has garnered a number of awards and nominations, including three Emmy nominations. Despite heavy security measures, a synopsis of the episode was leaked online before the episode aired. The episode begins on December 22, 2004, ninety-two days after the crash of Oceanic Airlines Flight 815. The battle between the crash survivors and the dangerous and mysterious island inhabitants referred to as "The Others" comes to a head as ten of the Others ambush the survivors' camp and are subsequently killed. This is the first Lost episode to feature flashforwards, as opposed to the customary flashbacks. Actor Dominic Monaghan makes his final appearance with main cast credit as Charlie Pace in this episode."

I don't really see any spoilers in there =P 76.84.12.144 (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've hidden the original contents in a box to stop people seeing any spoilers -Halo (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

when/why did wikipedia start advertising returning abc tv shows?

Lost "Through the Looking Glass" spoilers
:The spoiler is that is is flashforwards instead of flashbacks. The reason is that it is the first time that this mechanism is employed in the show. It is a major spoiler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.90.204 |(talk) 01:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've hidden the original contents in a box to stop people seeing any spoilers -Halo (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That's the big revelation at the end of the episode, and is with perhaps one exception the biggest possible spoiler that the blurb could mention. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the claim that they are spoilers. I have removed them from the summary. Raul654 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh...I was going to go ahead and spoiler tag this discussion, but it would appear the spoiler template has been deleted, in order to enforce the new "consensus" at WP:Spoiler. Apparently, no one considered situations such as this, where potentially unanticipated spoilers might be present outside of the article namespace... -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article or Feature Advertising??

Somoebody has to take a good long hard look at themself. Choosing an article on en apisode of a TV series as the Feature Article is stretching the boundaries, surely? Wikipedia is not a fansite, right? Of all the possible articles on all the possible topics in all possible fields, somebody chose an article on an American TV episode as the FA. No wonder Wikipedia is criticised so much. Darcyj (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The subject of an article has no bearing (beyond being notable) on whether the article becomes featured (and can therefore appear on the Main Page) or not. As long as the article follows the criteria, it can be featured. Of all the featured articles (not all articles, but featured ones) on all the possible topics, notable American TV episodes are just as likely to appear as any others. --Herald Alberich (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what would be the reaction if the FA was an episode of a non-American TV program... --Howard the Duck 06:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably the same thing or worse. Remember what happened when we had The Bus Uncle? Not quite the same thing but people will always find something to complain about Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow's featured article: Dookie. Should be fun... - auburnpilot talk 17:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha... can't wait for the comments :p --Howard the Duck 10:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think putting a featured article on an episode of a TV show is acceptable, but its a little too much like an advertisement in light of the fact that the 4th season of Lost just started airing in Canada and the USA. On the plus side I almost forgot to watch it, but the article reminded me to. Basser g (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It worked out that way because someone requested that be the article on the day, not because of advertising purposes. So long as the article has Featured Status, and that its not been used already, you can request it on any day you like. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 22:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The main TV series article became a TFA on the season premiere a year(?) ago, again requested. --Howard the Duck 10:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Lost spoiler

What's with such a major end-of-series-three Lost spoiler right up there on the main page? Sure, it's already been aired in the US, but don't be so US-centric - we don't all live there, you know, and some of us want to wait until this hits our screens before finding out how many of which group die!!! Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Lost is very, very popular in Poland, yet still some of us don't care for it one bit. It was chosen as WP:TFA for today specifically, so there it is. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just read another FA today, there's plenty to choose from. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely. There are of course plenty of other FAs to read, but this is the one that you see immediately when coming to the Main Page, and it contains spoilers that will be particularly irritating - and disappointing - for people outside the US. Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. But, in all honesty, I have resisted the temptation to read today's blurb, just the first two lines were enough. I believe that when you don't want to read, you just don't read. Still, well, happens. Somebody wrote a FA on this episode and there it is. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And it's great that someone did write a FA on this episode. However, is the front page FA generated randomly, or is a selection process involved? And if there's any human element to the selection process, shouldn't some consideration be given to creating a front-page edit which doesn't include spoilers? Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The daily FA is selected by User:Raul654 a few days prior, however one can request a specific date here. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ouro! Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Have a nice day, after all. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just my point of view but i think it was a very low and shoddy thing to do. It seems clear this would upset people. That paragraph contains many many plot details that would spoil the show for people. Its sad that you can have a great article about arch in the same week as a plot spoiler for lost.--Curuxz (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we had another spoiler this week on Hamlet which I'm sure someone complained about. And the article on Archimedes also had a spoiler. For those who didn't yet know about his life, they found out how he died. Oh and..... Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers

Fanbloodytastic. I came to this talk page to complain about Wikipedia's front-page Lost spoilers, and by looking to see if anyone had already mentioned this I'm bombarded with even more spoilers above. Way to go, Wikipedia - there are other countries than the good old US of A, and we haven't all seen series 3 of Lost yet. Cheers for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.18.71 (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.136.190 (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well there are other countries besides the good old US of A we series 3 has been shown completely Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree.. i understand that wikipedia isn't censored and all, but saying how LOST season 3 ends on the main page is looking for trouble. That would be like saying in the lead paragraph to Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father. Why doesn't it just say "the Others ambush the survivors' camp and many characters are killed." rather than giving it away. 131.111.8.99 (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPOILER for more information. The purpose of Wikipedia is to make information more accessible, not to conceal it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

MoS issue

Change this to em dash. The current punctuation is just a minus sign. third season – sixty-ninth episode overall – of. Thanks. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, but next time go to WP:ERRORS for faster service. howcheng {chat} 17:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Chinese railways

Shouldn't there be something on the Main Page about the Chinese railway mess? It's affecting millions of people (see Chunyun).

--Atchom 23:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please check the information box at the top of the page for the correct place to post this. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Byron Reed

"...Byron Reed was one of the greatest collectors of the 19th century"... The reader, thinking of Rothschilds, Robert Hoe, Phillips, et al. is astonished, but soon learns that Mr Reed of Omaha was collecting US coins. --Wetman (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This has already been addressed in Main Page Errors above. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 00:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Images for Featured Articles

If an image can be in an article, then why can't it be on the main page? -- 70.134.89.91 (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Because WP:JIMBO said only free images can be used and editors acquiesced submissively, effectively punishing editors who make Featured Articles on copyrighted topics. Zeality (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted topics? What on Earth is a 'copyrighted topic'? The debate about fair use on the main page has played out many times before, and it is not simply because Jimbo said so. I don't think there is any need to hash out the whole discussion again, though. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Jimbo says; Wikipedia isn't a dictatorship. It's what the community says.--Coco999 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

and the community by and large agreed with him. This has been discussed for a long time- one of Wikipedia's main goals is to promote the use and production of free content, so we keep use of nonfree, copyrighted material to an absolute minimum. Borisblue (talk)` —Preceding comment was added at 16:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if using "by and large" is appropriate. From the discussions I have seen, both opinions are subscribed to by a large number of editors, there is no consensus. Personally, I believe that our main goal is to be an encyclopaedia, to provide information. I believe it is perfectly acceptable to use copyrighted content when there's no other choice. As far as the main page is concerned, we should always pick a generic image over a non-free one. In this case, we can use the image of the artist, so there's no need for a non-free image. However, if the choice was TfA without an image versus TfA with a non-free image, I'd definitely choose the latter.
Also, this is a minor and irrelevant comment, but we don't keep non-free content to an absolute minimum. Take a look at the picture in the left upper corner of every page. It's copyrighted. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the real issue here was that policy was changed on an issue where there was clearly no consensus. I've only ever heard the "Jimbo says" rationale for this, but he's said himself not to take his words as gospel truth unless he's making it clear that he's speaking in that capacity. Very strange... -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure there's a policy that says so, I could be wrong though. I suppose there's the "no un-free images outside of articles" policy. However, the Main Page is in article space, yet it's not an article, so I can't tell whether that policy applies here. I don't think that there's a policy that says "no non-free images on the Main Page", I think it's more like an unwritten rule. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you know about this very interesting boat?

Has anyone else noticed a certain fishy smell around the DYK section recently? It seems that every day for the last month at least one of the entries has been relating to a ship, a class of ships or some other form of nautical-related info. I counted no less than 5 entries on the page one day last week that could fall under that definition. While I applaud Wikiproject Ships for their obviously tireless work in improving this section of wikipedia, it is getting a little wearing to read about little else. I'm not for one minute suggesting that all natical content be banished from the main page forever just because I don't like it, because that would be like fascism, but is a little variety too much to ask for? Tx17777 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the clichéd generic answer, but the best way to get a little variety would be to write about some other things, or nominate some other new articles you may have come across. I'm all for more interesting tit-bits from history. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed at the complete omission of Pirates of the Caribbean in the DYK section, if you're running nautical and nice these days...you'd best stop it now before I really get hurt. --Kaizer13 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So write a new article about the pirates of the Caribbean. WP:Be bold!. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody gets a joke these days. --Kaizer13 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

President of Chad's Picture used

Under latest news to represent the "Chad Crisis" the picture of the president has been used, while yes, it could be considered that he could be in the center of the crisis wouldn't it be more approperate to just have the flag of Chad be the picture to repersent this news bullition? Tazz (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)