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 16:56 on 9 May 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, determined not to be an error, or the item has 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 "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that in 1911 the Butterfly Theater featured a pipe organ worth $10,000 (equivalent to $327,000 in 2023)? currency not clear, perhaps add "in Wisconsin" or the currency. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(May 10, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(May 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.

General discussion

The sad thing is

The April Fools wiki page is indistinguishable from regular wiki pages.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.141.8 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK

... that Sandomierz Voivodeship (1939), a proposed administrative unit of the Second Polish Republic, was projected to be 24.5 km² and to incorporate 20 or 21 powiats?

— And all along I thought it was 22. Sca (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Meant for WP:ERRORS? --74.13.126.63 (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is; he's saying that the hook taught him something. That's the wonderful fun of DYK. 79.71.44.8 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no — I was saying that no one in the English-speaking world would have any idea how many powiats the Sandomierz Voivodeship (proposed 70 years ago) would have had, and very few would have any idea what a powiat is or even a voivodeship. A few history buffs might have heard of Sandomierz.

Sca (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Or Sandomierzians themselves perhaps? --candle•wicke 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Today's entry on Henryk Rzewuski is, to my mind, in a similar class. None of Rzewuski's works is available in English on Amazon, and I suspect he is virtually unknown among English speakers. It seems to me that DYK entries ought to start off with some person, place or topic of which English speakers will have some idea, however vague, and add some truly surprising or interesting fact about that person, place or topic. Otherwise, the "Did you know" question seems silly.

I don't know if Polish Wikipedia has a DYK feature, but if it does, it wouldn't make sense to ask "Did you know" questions there in relation to something in the English-speaking world that Poles will have no knowledge or inkling of.

Of course, that's not to say that Rzewuski doesn't merit a thorough treatment in an eponymous article on English Wiki, if he is indeed a writer of repute in Poland.

Sca (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Learning things you don't know about is what encyclopedias are for. If you're looking for light entertainment, I suggest a change of venue. Zocky | picture popups 01:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the whole point of the DYK section is to tell people interesting things that they probably don't know but are covered in a recent article in an attempt to attract them to read the article. There's clearly no point just featuring stuff people already widely know. Now you may argue that the hook wasn't very interesting but that's a quite different argument from the one that started this. Also by the nature of DYK, most things covered would be fairly obscure as these are the most likely to lack any article or to be stubs and therefore have a chance of being DYK. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If DYK is to be a random compendium of intellectual trivia, it shouldn't be called "Did You Know?" The did-you-know question presupposes and implies some basis for further inquiry. In the case of the first example cited above, asking the general English reader if he or she knows how many "powiats" the proposed Sandomierz "Voivodeship" would have had (had it been created 70 years ago) strikes me as absurd.

Of course encyclopedias are about expanding knowledge, but I don't think informing the reader that the Sandomierz Voivodeship would have had 20 or 21 powiats constitutes a contribution to the pool of knowledge, since the topic is from the English-speaker's point of view so obscure as to be meaningless. (I suspect it's largely meaningless from the Polish point of view as well, but at least Poles will know what a powiat is.)

I would much rather hear from our Polish friends about what was in Copernicus's library or how many horses Casimir the Great kept in his stables. In other words, give me something I can understand and on some level relate to.

I will now return to my light reading. Current selection: The Discoverers, by Daniel Boorstin.

Sca (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that hook appeals to me either, but I am sure there are plenty of English speakers who are either Polish or have an interest in Polish history, Polish geography or whatever. As I see it, did you know is not there to provide a fact, it is there to interest you, leading you to the article. For instance (perfectly timed for me...) the top hook is currently "that the hallucinogenic mushroom Psilocybe naematoliformis (pictured) was first discovered in a tropical rain forest in the Uxpanapa Region of Veracruz, in southeastern Mexico?" Very, very few people are going to know anything about that mushroom specifically. More have heard of Psilocybe. More may be interested in hallucinogenic mushrooms, or just mushrooms/fungi in general- any of these people may be drawn to the article, whether or not they had ever heard of the mushroom. I certainly would be, had I not already read it. DYK is not meant as a list of freestanding facts, but as a list of interesting tidbits that make you want to know more. J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. I don't think DYK is a list of facts, not at all. Indeed it's meant to interest the reader in some topic. My point was, the topic should not be so obscure as to be virtually meaningless. In your example, everyone knows what a mushroom is.

I wasn't taking an anti-Polish stance. Polish history and other aspects of the Polish nation and culture can be fascinating — but contributors should find truly interesting and comprehensible topics to write about. I perhaps gave the wrong impression when I cited only a couple of famous Poles as appropriate examples. I'm ready to be interested and intrigued by any topic, so long as it means something to me (or to a significant proprotion of readers).

As an aside: Many of the more technical scientific entries go right past me, a beknighted liberal arts major, but I imagine there are plenty of readers who find them interesting.

Sca (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

risquee

the "risque menage" a trois should be a risky menage a trois? it's not proper french either so i would think that.24.132.170.97 (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Risque" in the sense of "wink wink, nudge nudge" innuendo... it's effectively an English word borrowed from French, as is "menage a trois," since they don't necessarily carry the literal definitions of the original French words (or maybe they do... my French is very, very poor). 168.9.120.8 (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't forget the accents! Without them, the words have a different meaning ( risque = risk ; risqué (with an acute accent) = hazardous). So, le risque ménage à trois would be used rather by an insurance broker trying to ward you against working disability induced by fights, nervous breakdowns etc...( id. in assurance tous risques) - while a preacher could vigourouly blame that immoral and risqué ménage à trois...Sorry about those accents é, è, ê (...& ë, though this one is very seldom used...) Heartily, a french passing by Arapaima (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Accent marks are only for preposterous, suspender-banging, smelly-cheesy-eating, freedom-hating pinko yoo-raw-pean communist bastards. Decent people are advised to steer well clear of them. 194.100.223.164 (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I knew some people felt threatened by different accents, but this is a whole new level of fear! Don't fear the written word, my friend, knowledge is good (as is cheese). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fool's a day early?

"Did you know . . . that the cap of the thimble fungus, Verpa conica (pictured), resembles a thimble?" Genius! --AdamSommerton (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of funny fungus around. I've just written coprophilous fungi ("dung-loving" fungi) and we actually have a featured picture of a member of the Phallus genus... We really are fun-guys over at WP:FUNGI... J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See, is it just me who doesn't see a thimble, but something else... ;)  GARDEN  20:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, you wanna take a look at some of our examples of Phallus... A featured picture, and a not so featured picture... J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This should have been kept on DYK for today. Sigh. Kimchi.sg (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish Guy Hanged?

You might want to reword the passage on the Taoiseach in "In the News". The way it is phrased right now implies that the man himself was hanged, not the portraits.  Marlith (Talk)  00:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that's the point. --Bencherlite^Talk 00:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's horribly horribly unfunny. Please can it be taken out? The others are funny, but that one needs re-evaluating urgently. qp10qp (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything that deals with a living person should be done extremely sensitively. It's been wording really badly, and I agree it needs fixing asap. Majorly talk 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly. This is just inappropriate no matter what day of the year it is and people are already thinking it is serious. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"unexpected public hanging of Ireland's Taoiseach." Yeah. Vile. Reword. Please. 201.124.80.93 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs to be reworded. Just becasue it is April 1st does not mean that WP:BLP goes out the window. Having fun at another persons expense is just not on. Tiptoety ^talk 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked for now. Feel free to come up with something better. PeterSymonds :  Chat  01:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but your wording stank - so I went back to it being about the fact that the portraits are nude. DS (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware. ;) However, it needed to be changed. PeterSymonds :  Chat  01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's hilarious, because it's true. Re-read the sentence; the "pictured" part doesn't refer to the image on the right— it refers to the fact that what was hanged was the pictured person. It's an intentionally dangling modifier. That's the entire joke. It's not BLP, because it's clearly not libel nor even remotely intended to be libelous, moreover, it's true. April 1 is supposed to be our official day to boost PR by making fun of ourselves. It's our self-roast: everyone's seen our vandalism, and everyone assumes it's vandalism— but it's shockingly true in this case. We do it with style.

I have to admit, for once I was invigorated with the idea that the community truly had achieved a milestone advancement in progressive thinking by agreeing to create something so genius and put aside the incessant 100% seriousness for just 0.2% (1/365th) of the year. The other 99.726% of the time we're serious, but for that 0.2%—that one day—I thought we had finally been able to truly appreciate the humanity, work, and extraordinary talent that goes into making the encyclopedia—all at once. It was an entire mainpage of stuff that looks like vandalism but is not only factually true but well-crafted to look false? Genius. It outclasses Google's april fools jokes, in my opinion.

That said, words cannot describe how much my enthusiasm for the project subsequently dropped when I saw what just happened directly above this reply. We can't even spend 0.2% of our existence making fun of ourselves? It actually depressed me. That's saying a lot, too; for, through the drama, nonsense, and occasional pain in the ass, it's extraordinarily rare for me to be anything but enthusiastic with love for this project. I can easily say that this was the first time I felt that warm feeling yanked away while on Wikipedia. In the real world, I've found that business, person, and country alike are doomed to failure when they take themselves too seriously. I just... n/m.

--slakr^\ talk / 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

From the list of wikipedia policies: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes." I'd assume that "other purposes" includes giving yourself and your buddies a chuckle. By filling the main page with jokes, especially ones in poor taste, we stray from our goal of making a high-quality encyclopedia. People come to wikipedia for information not for laughs. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your policy and raise you meta:The Wikipedia Community, WP:COMMUNITY, Category:Wikipedia humor, and naturally WP:IAR. 99.726% of the time it's for the world. 99.726% of the time it's for our readers. 99.726% it's for the future and things we can't even imagine it being for. 0.2% it's for fun. Isn't that worth an WP:IAR? Isn't that worth a day? Will it prevent burnout? I'm not sure, but I do know that if our Gentle Readers and Gentle Community expects me to deal with the mean, uncivil, war-like, unfunny, completely-serious people, all the while reading death threats, legal threats, suicide notes, and people being hurtful, mean, pathological douchebags to each other on a daily basis— then on top of that be completely serious, myself, 100% of the time, then so help me I will leave the project. Demanding the impossible of the humans that edit the encyclopedia is, simply put, wrong.

Then again, maybe if we were all forced, maybe once a year, to remember that we're all humans with a sense of humor, maybe we wouldn't be making such a demand in the first place. We'd know better. Without seriousness, we forget what's truly funny; without laughter, we forget what's truly serious.

--slakr^\ talk / 02:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Makeemlighter. While I feel there is some wiggle room for jokes, the front page should not be altered in this manner. What do you think we are? Google? We don't just go changing the front page around for silly holidays. If you want to play a joke, change your signature around or alter your own user page in some way- Or just flag yourself as a bot. GLaDOS (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

someone asked at least for some discussion on the AFD fornt page.But it was discussed for days if not weeks prior. There was even a link to the discussion on this Main Page discussion page! IMHO, the Irish politico story was funnier earlier in the day; but otherwise a great job, all! Can't wait for next year! 121.55.196.124 (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very unhappy with the misleading wording as it is at the moment: "Brian Cowen is seen publicly naked in Dublin". As a bare fact, that's simply not true, and surely violates the spirit of WP:BLP? almost-instinct 11:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know what the date is. As a joke its pretty lame, and in any case its after noon almost-instinct 11:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on UTC (British winter time) and it was therefore 15 minutes before noon when you posted that comment. It is now after noon, but since the prank has already been pulled, it stays up till midnight when tomorrow's normal Main Page will automatically roll around. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Taoiseach seen naked publicly? and then it happens it was about some paintings (sigh!)...did this change from wikipedia to wikitabloid-beta overnight by chance? If the April's Fool thing is on, then you should consider that there is a huge non-native English speaker looking in here who doesnt necessarily knows about that. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 13:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

About the Front Page on the 1st of April

Who took the decision to put jokes and jokingly false information on the Front Page of Wikipaedia on the 1st of April? Why was this decision taken? Would anyone please point me towards an official policy page that states that this should be done or at least that it is allowed? IF there is no such policy than I BELIEVE that this at least should be discussed, if not mediated somehow. I understand that most people who write in the English Wikipaedia are from places where people celebrate Apil Fool's Day. HOWEVER, isn't this a systematic bias of the Wikipedia communitiy? As far as I know Wikipedia is an Encycloapedia that aims at providing accurate information at all times and across all cultures. Why exactly is Wikipaedia supposed to CELEBRATE any cultural event, as opposed to just MENTION it? Isn't this violating WP:NOT#JOURNALISM? I hope that this won't be taken as an attack on anyone, it's certainly not meant to be one. But isn't Wikipedia meant NOT to be a parody on any day of the year? Why should there be a day when the Front Page of Wikipedia becomes Uncyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of spoiling an amusing joke - every single thing on the main page is 100% true. Raul654 (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, April Fool's Day front page pranks have been a tradition for a number of years, and a good one at that. This front page is not even as radical as some have been in years past. I respect our strive for accuracy and reliability as any other, but our community's sense of humor is also a hallmark of the Wikipedian experience. If you lack any funny bone in your body, then I'm afraid you'll just have to tolerate this for one day out of 366. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 01:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Classic - and yes April Fool's Day front pages are becoming a tradition here. Well done - I hope others will remember that humour is a part of our encyclopedia too!--VS ^talk 01:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not about anyone's sense of humour. As far as I know Wikipedia is written in an academic manner. I've never read anything about an exception to that rule of style. I'm merely asking on the basis of which policy the Front Page of Wikipedia is presenting unreliable information (not necessarily false) the 1st of April without even a disclaimer. I am asking whether is is violating the spirit of Wikipedia's policies or not. And I'm asking whether this has been discussed as a matter of policy or it has just been accepted as such by most people due to the fact that most writers of the English Wikipedia live in a culture where the people celebrate April Fool's Day (and therefore, this might be a systematic bias that needs correcting). If there is an answer to these questions, wonderful. If there is no answer to these questions I believe that these questions should at least be discussed, because Wikipedia has very real real-life consequences everywhere where there are people that know English, not only in the Western World. I hope somebody hears me: HAS this been discussed as a matter of policy? Is there a policy that allows this? Please point me to something, or at least provide me some answers to the reasons behind his. I assume that people will have the good will of pointing me to even a resemblance of discussion about policy about this. And as a matter of fact, I do have a sense of humour, I just come from a culture where April Fool's Day is not celebrated. Please stop the AD PERSONAM and answer me on policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that none of the information on the front page is false. It is unusual, or phrased in a deliberately misleading fashion... but it's all true. DS (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Now can please anyone point me to a page that states that this is POLICY or where at least this has been discussed as a matter of policy? By the way has it been discussed or it' just accepted as default? Because if it was accepted by anyone without discussion it MAY be a systematic bias due to the fact that most people who write on the English wikipedia come from a culture where April Fool's Day is celebrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you new to Wikipedia? Because the April Fool's Day tradition is nothing to be surprised about if you have been here for some time. I don't know whether it has been discussed formally as a matter of policy, but I'm sure that, since this tradition had survived-- thrived-- for six or seven plus years, being planned months in advance, and being approved by those Wikipedians in the upper eschelon who set up the heavily-guarded, most visible main page, this tradition is not viewed as an egregious violation of our policies. And if you worry that it will mislead people, you should understand that, as soon as curious visitors click on the links, they will realize that they have been fooled. There is simply not enough material to mislead visitors for any more than twenty seconds. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 01:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. When I saw "Turkish missiles" and "oil" my first impulse was to phone my brother who is stationed with the Turkish Army on the border with Irak. My first thought was "Oh, no, it's war!" It's hard to think rationally when the misleading wording arise emotions such as fear. And I think that the son or wife od the Irish prime minister might have gone through something even worse when she saw "hanged" there, even if she is from the Western Culture. Anyway, thanks for the information. I live now in an European country and I will get used to it. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well thank you for your understanding. Thankfully the Irish prime minister headline has been changed so it's not as potentially shocking. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, I presume. — Dan | talk 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to throw another two cents in, the april fools day main page smacks of a lack of professionalism, and a licence to put every cultural "Whatever day" on the main page. I see no reason why april fools is special, or interesting in this context. Wikipedia is somewhere that people visit to learn things. User A1 (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the front page lacks of professionalism. I would love to be able to someday site this as a source in a paper, or be able to tell someone that I learned about something in the wikipedia and not have them look at me like it wasn't factual. This blatant waste of a wonderful resource isn't going to get the wikipedia any closer to those ends. I'll remember when I go to give money that my local NPR station doesn't give me fake news reports to try and be funny.Bobbit bob (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, only the main page is affected, all other articles are strictly off-limits to April Fools shenanigans. Secondly, this was discussed months in advanced, at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page, and it was a collaboration between many users. It's a tradition on Wikipedia, and indeed on the internet (many sites including Google and YouTube traditionally pull an April Fool) with the full blessing of the Wikipedia administration. Thirdly, if you phone your brother to tell him there's a war on, or cite an academic paper based on a single hook on the main page, you deserve everything you get. For that matter, writing any academic paper completely based on facts from Wikipedia is stupid as everyone knows we have issues of reliability even on our best articles. Clicking any one of the links on the main page would reveal the joke and present you with the unmodified truth. Fourthly, lighten up. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

NPR -- for example All Things Considered -- always does an April Fool's prank. One year the US sold Arizona to Canada; another year's show featured a dog-bark translator. Unlike those pieces, our Front Page stories are actually accurate. I see no lack of professionalism here, and encourage the tradition to continue. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Main Page is not an encyclopedic article. It outlines some of the best content we have on wikipedia and any relevant info for the day (today is april 1 so i think main page looks extremely relevant). So ppl need to stop complaining and live with the fact they got fooled thinking wikipedia got hacked after looking at main page. And if u truly believe that it is not ok to put jokes on april 1st then go home and grow some sense of humor. Ashishg55 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

...atleast half of the items on the April Fool's are about England

Says something.--PsyopsGuy1982 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• England is awesome. Even I know that. 66.68.86.77 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think featuring England on April Fools day would mean something different? Matty (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I blame it on the Kenyan-centric bias we see daily on the main page. :d –  LATICS  talk  07:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's simple. We never left the colonial period. It's all a complex illusion... Pacific Coast Highway ^{{spring • ahead}} 13:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I count (using the broadest possible interpretation) 9 England-related items out of 24. That's not half, and doesn't even beat the US contingent (also 9). Algebraist 13:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an optical illusion. If you cover your right eye, it's an India-centric main page with a decidedly British Raj flavor. If you cover your left, it's a page full of recipes involving mock chicken. Graymornings_(talk) 15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

CHEESY FAJITAS! It works. –  LATICS  talk  17:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Permalink?

Is there a permalink available for today's main page? I realize the content is transcluded from elsewhere, but as all the content today is fresh, such as ITN, I wouldn't think the usual technical restrictions would apply. Newsboy85 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it myself. Newsboy85 (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the future!

Any reference source that deliberately permits false information one day of the year, will permit it every day of the year.

Chrmlssmn (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the truth, therefore delete it. The Wikipedia way. Long live Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrmlssmn (talk • contribs) 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Chrmlssmn (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, nothing on the page is false. Just creatively worded. Enjoy! Newsboy85 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible ITN

A new item for today was suggested:

North and South Korea prepare for a hostile stand-off in Seoul, in their quest for world domination.

Because this talkpage has broader audience, I post it here to see if this is ok to have on Main page or not because it is a bit strong, as the public hanging discussed above. --Tone 07:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do it. They're all pretty bad, at least this one is funny. Matty (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok with it. This one won't have any BLP overtones. And we survived the attacks by Turkish missiles. :) Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There were some other BLP ones I could have chosen for this topic (a number involving Kim Jong-il), but I thought it better to steer well clear of them when drafting the above :) Daniel (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it, seeing that the Brian Cowen blurb got trimmed. Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed as of 11:26. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if a resident of Seoul is OK with it and someone who is originally from South Korea finds it hilarious... whatever went wrong? Incidentally, what was the final score? I'm sure I could just check the article but it feels like an incomplete conversation and anyone who happens upon this will have great difficulty piecing it all together. --candle•wicke 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

South Korea won, 1-0. So I guess we could have updated this to read South Korea defeats North Korea in quest for world domination. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hanging" discussion move from WP:ERRORS

"public hanging" has a rather more violent implication that paintings. Perhaps a more specific phrase could be used. (Also, it seems to me to be less than noteworthy enough for the main page, IMHO).—Goodtimber (walk/talk) 00:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The April Fools jokes were pretty unique, I do, however, believe the wording on the piece about the Irish Taoiseach was a little inappropriate. While the jokes were in good fun, they also need to be in good taste as well. PTPLauthor (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The most important requirement for a joke is to be funny. I thought the "public hanging" wording was funny, and the subsequent attempted rewrites are not, and the wikilinking is clumsy. jnestorius^(talk) 02:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You thought it was funny to suggest that a living person was hanged? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Now that the "hanging" is down, I suppose the rest of the main page makes for a good joke. "Row of suckers" indeed. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 02:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm less interested in the question of whether to make jokes about death than I am with whether it is responsible to use what is usually a trusted source of reliable information to imply that the head of government of a nation currently attempting to avoid a reemergance of regional violence/deal with an economic crisis has been assassinated by an angry mob. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What Grant said. 201.154.195.65 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is largely about different perceptions of the boundary between humour and bad taste, so this discussion is somehow apt. However, the current text seems reasonably funny and not likely to offend the sensitive, so I'll sign off. jnestorius^(talk) 05:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The story regarding nude oil paintings of Irish PM is NOT worthy of being on WP frontpage. Also the title is misleading and sensationalist. "Ireland's Taoiseach, Brian Cowen (pictured) is seen publicly naked in Dublin." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.73.204 (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC) (moved from WP:ERRORS)

I can understand the bit about misleading title, but why is a story that has been covered by media in Ireland and beyond not worthy of being on the front page? Kimchi.sg (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with the title? How is him being seen naked any more tasteful than being the subject of a public hanging? I personally thought that mentioning the lack of clothing was in bad taste. --candle•wicke 19:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To The Miseries

I've just been reading some of the grouchy comments about today's April Fools pranks. It just astounds me that people are going on about cultural bias and so on. Now I don't discriminate based on culture or religion etc, but I do find myself being increasingly irked by certain 'groups of people' demanding their rights to practice certain customs etc, then jumping up and down and screaming bias and discrimination when other people exercise that same right. The English Wikipedia is written for a mainly Western audience which means most people looking at it today will realise that there is a prank going on. AND WHY NOT??? When Muslims all over the UK are allowed to take days off work to go to temple on one of their religious days for example, why should we be excluded from doing something that is a tradition in our OWN culture. Seems to me the Political Correctness police are on the case. (I imagine some hairy academic sat humming next to a burning joss stick reciting the mantra - other culture good, white culture bad) 78.150.147.42 (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the April Fools' theme but I disagree with your assertion that "The English Wikipedia is written for a mainly Western audienc." It isn't, it written neutrally for a global audience. To use another example, WP:NPOV takes precendence over American-POV even if Americans make up around half of the readers and/or editors on enwiki. We won't have a Christmas theme on 25 December even though most readers would celebrate the holiday. Second, there is a significant number of readers of enwiki who are not from the Anglosphere (ie. English is their second or third langauge) because the Wikipedias of their native languages are tiny and hopeless.

And although I am not aware, I hope that the Arabic and Persian Wikipedias don't change their front pages drastically during a Muslim holiday nor the Chinese Wikipedia change during say, Chinese New Year. Wikipedia's policies > local culture of readers and editors. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 10:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said Gizza. And to the anon, don't claim April Fools' Day as your group's "own", it is a multinational holiday. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim it as my groups own. I was merely stating that it is a tradition in my culture, I didn't say it was exclusively so. And as everyone seems to be disagreeing with me and spouting about neutral point of view etc, then perhaps you should stick to those policies and not be doing April Fools pranks either. I was just supporting Wikipedia for doing it, but now I wish I hadn't bothered... bunch of pricks. 78.150.147.42 (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, the encyclopedia is "written neutrally for a global audience". It would be a stretch to say that the Main Page is part of the encyclopedia in that sense, though! Gracenotes^T § 11:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I find myself increasingly irked by faux-controversy of all forms, whether "political correctness gone mad" or people being overly dramatic about a silly joke on one day of the year. -93.97.122.93 (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, this may be a bit off-topic, but if I remember correctly, the Chinese Wikipedia often places a drawing of an animal in the Chinese Zodiac along with a banner in front of the logo, on Chinese New Year. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No POV! Not even in a joke day like April Fools' Day! Please.

I don't like seeing that North Korea vs. South Korea in the page. It sounds like North Korea's gonna nuke a football field if they lose. Please remove that. P.R.O.C.K.Y. (Mydoctor93) 10:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"It sounds like North Korea's gonna nuke a football field if they lose" - or South Korea's gonna reduce Pyongyang to rubble if the South loses. I don't sense any POV in the line. Kimchi.sg (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"South Korea's gonna reduce Pyongyang to rubble if the South loses.": LOL!!! I am originally from South Korea and I find the joke absolutely hilarious. :D --BorgQueen (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And yes, we do celebrate April fools' day in South Korea, to a lesser extent. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please clean up the April fools nonsense? Implying that North and South Korea are at war may be funny and fitting for children's blogs, not for an encyclopedia. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-01t10:37z

It's a joke. If you realize it's a joke then there's nothing to worry about. Besides, I find it funny even here on an encyclopedia. --82.103.239.99 (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, score's still 0-0, about 15mins in. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As a resident of Seoul, I find the whole thing hilarious. Waygugin (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed as of 11:26. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if a resident of Seoul is OK with it and someone who is originally from South Korea finds it hilarious... whatever went wrong? Incidentally, what was the final score? I'm sure I could just check the article but it feels like an incomplete conversation and anyone who happens upon this will have great difficulty piecing it all together. --candle•wicke 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

South Korea won, 1-0. So I guess we could have updated this to read South Korea defeats North Korea in quest for world domination. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've propsed the following at WP:ITN/C but nobody appears to have noticed. It would be a shame to let it go to waste.

Venezuelan beauty queen Dayana Mendoza has a fun day at camp in Guantanamo Bay. [1] --candle•wicke 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bravo!

I commend whoever drew up the current version of the Main Page (well, the version as of this comment). A nice mix of humor, factual information and borderline nonsense. Especially the whole bit about British pay-per-view pornography. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{spring • ahead}} 13:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Sometimes facts are stranger than fiction! – Kaihsu (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bravo, indeed! Who says encyclopdeing can't be fun?! A most wonderfoul larf! Cheers! --Phyllis1753 (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I third (fourth?) that bravo. Sometimes this place just seems way too straitlaced, so when I see writing like this I can't help but enjoy it. It's all true anyhow, so no harm, no foul! --NovaKrazny (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For those of you who came in late, I'll explain. "wonderfoul larf" is John Lennonese for "Wonderful Laugh". Just follow the links! Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In the news

The blurb for the nude paintings of the Irish leader seems to have been changed from last night, and is now completely inaccurate. He was not seen nude; a painting was made that depicted him nude, and it was not painted from life.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I notice that all the news blurbs are written incorrectly and deceitfully. Well played, wikipedia, you've decided to subvert all that "BLP policy" claptrap just because of the calendar. I hope the day was worth selling off whatever reliability you still had.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's the breach of BLP? --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh for goodness' sake, lighten up. For one day a year, the Main Page (which is not an article, and therefore BLP does not apply) has a mildly misleading hook on it - which I might add is technically 100% true, it's just worded ambiguously. As soon as you click on one of the links you'll find the real, untouched article. Get a sense of humour already. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages that talk about living people. While technically the blurb is correct, imo its rather cheap. There was no need to ridicule this person on the main page. —SV 16:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It was supposed to be handled with due care (i.e. not mentioning the nudity) but now it appears extremely tabloidy, I agree. --candle•wicke 20:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(←)The main page actually made the news (bottom paragraph). §hep^Talk 00:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured redirects

I've created a proposal for Featured redirects. I'd like to know, if this proposal goes ahead, should these be displayed on the main page. and if so, how? Please discuss on the proposal's talk page. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a priority; I think we should work on Wikipedia:Featured footnotes first. There are, after all, more footnotes than redirects. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not! We should first work on Featured hatnotes, because we need to work from top down, not the other way around.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:34, April 1, 2009 (UTC)

If you take that approach, wouldn't we want to start with Featured maintenance templates first? But I do like the idea of working down the page: Featured maintenance templates, Featured hatnotes, Featured infoboxes, Featured section headings, Featured captions, and so on, ending with Featured interlanguage links. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's how the page is displayed that matters, not the wikitext. Featured categories should be done last. Featured interwikis are just a side issue. Algebraist 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, do we still have space for Featured citations? Pacific Coast Highway ^{{spring • ahead}} 17:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest they should be combined with featured comments —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What about Featured Policy Proposals? Modest Genius ^talk 19:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Tivedshambo - I thought you were suggesting we feature comments that appeared on article talk/discussion pages, but you meant invisible comments in articles. Now that I understand, it seems to me that we've (so far) omitted the talk/discussion page entirely, despite that the number of such pages that are, well, fascinating. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Anyone else think the Main Page should be deleted? Just a place for lazy people to read the news or look at featured articles/pictures when they could go to P:CE or WP:FA/WP:FP, yet hard-working sysops have to maintain it. Æetlr Creejl 15:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke? What would then show in your browser if you go for Wikipedia? --Tone 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If we used the random article feature as a redirect, that would usually send readers to articles that clearly need work, encouraging them to start helping out with writing rather than just sponging off the hard-working editors here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There would then be a (small) danger that they would hit a really good article. Your proposal would work better if we had a 'random terrible article' feature. I think I'll submit a bug report. Algebraist 16:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We could always make it so it goes to the same horrible page, and then lock it so that it stays horrible. I think that would answer your concern. APL (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps a sort of "collaboration of the moment"; all readers get sent to the same (horrible) page until it is improved to at least "C" class; then the target page is switched to another article that needs improving. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A problem is that people might still navigate away to other pages, which don't need improving so urgently, and work on them instead. This could be solved by making the CotM the only page available. Algebraist 22:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

An excellent variant of the "Buy this magazine or the dog dies" approach: "Improve this article or you'll never see another page in Wikipedia." -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Attempts to delete Jimbo Wales were preemptively stopped. I doubt deleting the main page will get much farther. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If this proposal goes ahead, main page will be deleted. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not as good as 2005, when five recursive attempts were made to delete (see the page log on that last link) User:Jimbo Wales at MfD. ROFL. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Still, it does seem to be getting a lot of support, despite well-reasoned "oppose" arguments like "Provides an outlet for vandals that would otherwise attack critical projects like Wikispecies". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lacking...

The Main page needs more information about Wombats. Particularly Pre-Raphaelite Wombats. Our coverage in that area doesn't seem as good as it could be. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

<laughs> I enjoyed that post, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure some people would disagree with you. Where's he at when you need him...? –  LATICS  talk  17:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Charade

Okay, this April-fools charade has got to stop. This is an encyclopedia, not MAD magazine. No excuses can be made for this blatant vandalism and destruction of what this encyclopedia ought to be all about. How is it any different when someone replaces normal content with obscenities, nonsense, or extremely biased opinions? HUCK2012 E. Novachek (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm. What's the problem? None of it is inaccurate or in breach of policy. In what way does it constitute vandalism? --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In any case, it will stop in another eight hours. Till then, celebrate the All Fool's Day spirit and have a good laugh! :-) SBC-YPR (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Three obvious differences are that no obscenities, nonsense, or extremely biased opinions are involved. Algebraist 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, there is no WP:UPTIGHT policy or essay. Ikip (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So is wikipedia going to have a section on the article about itself about its notable April Fools Day hoaxes, like it has for every other website that participates in the "charade"? =P NIRVANA2764 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you might wanna hide under a rock for the next 15 hours or so. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{spring • ahead}} 17:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, first and foremost, a collaborative effort. Any collaborative effort that cannot occasionally have a little fun is, almost by definition, a government, which Wikipedia most certainly is not ("Wikipedia is not any of a very long list of other terrible ideas," quoted from WP:NOTSTUPID). 168.9.120.8 (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a quite remarkably weird definition of government. Algebraist 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(To original poster) You wouldn't have happened to have read WP:IAR by any chance, have you? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but trying to claim "having fun" in this case is, well, despicable. In several cases, you're putting up claims that violate WP:BLP, such as the Irish minister tidbit. If you wanted so bad to do this, you should have restricted yourself to past events outside the range of BLP, where this nonsense DEFINITELY is not allowed in any form. Honestly, I think that considering the massive outrage to this shown on this page, even after you guys have been deleting comments, the editors behind this should 1) stop trying to ignore everyone about it, and 2) probably, not be allowed to edit the main page anymore, seeing how badly you've violated BLP, and how unwilling you are to express any kinds of regret about it.128.210.146.26 (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I still see no BLP violations and would be extremely shocked if I had. We do indeed take BLP very seriously. But it's hard for us to address BLP violations if you don't tell us where there's a BLP violation. --Dweller (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard, because you deleted my comment earlier. Okay, for example: listing that the Irish minister was seen publically naked, how is that not against BLP? It's not even true - he WASN'T seen publically naked. Satirical art was found which depicted a naked caricature of him. You've gotten tons of complaints about this, as well, from what I saw.

But it looks like the violations were finally removed. I'm still dismayed at many of the attitudes displayed on this page - people ask for serious coverage, and they are laughed at; a few editors, without ever bringing it up for discussion here (or for goodness sakes, having a disclaimer on the front page, ignore all the comments from a far greater amount of editors who criticize the decision. I still ask that the editors who put this page up not work on the main page for quite some time; I have yet to see any of them even admit that they might be wrong.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a disclaimer on the front page. The date was clearly noted on the first line of OTD. This sufficed for many other major sources of "reliable information" on the Internet (and other media channels).

As for arguing that the Irish minister wasn't seen naked when an image of him, naked, was seen... that's at least 80% semantics, and the other 20% can be easily ascribed to your need to relax and laugh at the world for a moment or two. I'm sure we're all sorry you didn't enjoy your first experience with April Fool's Day on Wikipedia, but maybe after a short Wikibreak you'll feel better. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK

...both Egypt and the Holy Land were originally settled by Germans?

— Gimmicky, but it worked for me. Sca (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

March 31

Why all the fuss? Haven't we overlooked the fact that April Fool's Day isn't until tomorrow? Mlh loves avon (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC) (<--- Gah, even my computer gets it wrong!@)

Wikipedia works on UTC- it's April Fool's Day here. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow... way to kill my sarcasm dude. Thanks. Mlh loves avon (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is hard to define in writing. Try italics, they might just work! ;) --candle•wicke 20:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose... and besides, in the time zones that won't get to April 1 until "our" tomorrow, April Fool's Day isn't celebrated. So it was dry wit.Mlh loves avon (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

images

Why aren't the images linking to the relevant articles on the main page? When you click it, the picture enlarges instead of going to the particular article. Its better if the images links to the article. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would that be better? Algebraist 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal. Especially since the images are usually in the article anyway... --candle•wicke 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Like candle•wicke said the image is already in the article, users can read the article first then view the picture later. For example users read the headline then view the image then go back and click on the link to read about the whole article. Might as well go to the article, read about it then view the picture. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Pretty simple to do, too. –  LATICS  talk  20:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing so far to indicate the possible collapse of Wikipedia as a result... --candle•wicke 20:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A problem is that this will conflict with what happens when you click on images everywhere else on Wikipedia. Having the main page behave differently from everything else is bound to confuse some new users. Algebraist 20:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Still no collapse of Wikipedia. Just one new addition for new users to deal with. They'll be pretty confused already. --candle•wicke 20:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This wouldn't work, because we need a way to credit the image creators. If you clicked and went to an article, it probably would not be sufficient attribution for the various licenses used in Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Attribution is probably the major issue. See Talk:Main Page/Archive 103#Front page... picture linking for more along these lines. - BanyanTree 01:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But attribution is only necessary with copyrighted work (which wouldn't be on the main page) and {{cc-by-2.0}} licensing, unless I'm mistaken. –  LATICS  talk  19:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Licenses that require attribution include all Creative Commons-Attribution licenses, images using {{Attribution}}, and the GFDL. That's a significant number, if not a majority, of the images used on the Main Page. There are some licenses that would allow redirecting, but you would then have two problems. One, readers would never know when clicking on an image would lead it to an image and when it would lead the image description page, without actually clicking. At least now, regular readers expect consistent behavior. Two, it complicates administration and opens a new avenue for disruptive editing. For example, if somebody turned the image page of a CC-BY or fair use image into a redirect, that seems to me to be a difficult problem to find and fix once it is made. For these reasons I would treat turning image descriptions into redirects as a form of vandalism and would respond with the revert-warn-block cycle. - BanyanTree 00:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

APRIL FOOLS

This isn't remotely relevant. I'd just like to say "nice one". I like the news articles, particularly the shoe one.--81.158.237.86 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Have a nice day. --candle•wicke 19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fools Day

Wikipedia is no place for April Fools Day pranks and jovialitaies. People bang on so much that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and I think it should start acting like one. This is a disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.248.15 (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. -- Phoenix2 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's only for one day of the year - it acts like an encyclopedia for the remaining 364 days. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides, if you think this is bad, take a butcher's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (2nd nomination). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it's "jovialities", dear; and I had some here today, thank you very much. I sign my name: Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You guys have got to be kidding me. Someone complains that the information is acting disgracefully, and you completely ignore her complaint and brush her off. You're disgraceful, and I hope I never have you edit any of the articles I've worked on.128.210.146.26 (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 86.18.248.15, Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia 365 days a year. Brittanica never jokes around. Instead of adding things for April Fool's, you should do something productive for Wikipedia. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't publish on a daily basis, so it's not very relevant to this discussion. If you care to look at 'respectable' organisations that publish an April 1 edition (or even just an April edition) you'll find that many of them do run April Fools hoaxes. This year AP reported exchange visits between the presidents of Israel and Syria, the Guardian announced that it was moving entirely to Twitter, The Economist announced it was building an economics-based theme park, and so on and so on. Wikipedia's stories are pretty mild by comparison; you just have to click the link to get the straight story. --GenericBob (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What about Google? Nobody's claiming that they are unprofessional, now are they? Newscasters have been known to hoax, as have scientists. 12.172.168.176 (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I pray that the majority of these people are being ironic and trying to April Fool us all? Otherwise they need to get a life or at least have a read of humour, wit, irony, sarcasm and fun. Christ, so wikipedia made a funny, the world isn't going to implode! As for "Instead of ... you should do something productive for Wikipedia" ... what, like adding ridiculous comments that are going to get you nowhere to a talk page? Yep, that's productive! Pfffft! Killjoys! --LookingYourBest (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. Both complainants are newbies and both, already, have notes from other editors admonishing them for possible vandalism. Sour people who probably won't stay with Wikipedia for very long. Cheers. --Phyllis1753 (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Shared IPs, warning dates back to November 2007. The users were looking for objective responses regarding the unusual setup of the Main page on April first, not your prejudices about their behaviour. —SV 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter Phyllis and thats a pretty disgusting attitude towards potential contributors to wikipedia. Its not surprising people turn away if they face this sort of snotty attitude. Shouldn't matter if they are new or having 100, 000s of edits. I am one of our most experienced editors on here and I think its a bad idea mixing humor with the actual encyclopedia even if it is for only a few hours and I have a sense of humor too. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld. Charming (and revealing) name. I'm 56. Experience in life does count. I call them as I have already seen 'em. If I can chase away some of the mindless, hidden agenda, shit smearers then it's for the better for Wikipedia. Let them go to Conservapedia and play their games there. Nor am I inclined to feel abashed by some youngster's emotional blackmail. I've already been there too. I onced worked in psychiatric nursing. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, folks. AFD is over and you can get down off the wall. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For everybody, new editor or not, getting brushed off and called a square for suggesting that the main page of Wikipedia isn't a place for half-truths and deliberate misinterpretations, this is apparently the place to start a serious discussion about it. If we try here, it seems we'll just face more name calling. We have 364 days now to establish consensus and put an end to this silly behaviour. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia Must be Banned

Hey, I found this interesting documentary short about why Wikipedia is harmful to education and freedom. I think some of you might be interested in it. It can be found at Why Wikipedia Must be Banned  Marlith (Talk)  23:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

–  LATICS  talk  23:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I gotta admin, that was pretty good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I really should know better by now, but I don't. – PranksterTurtle ^(talk) 23:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the Main Page? --74.14.16.148 (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

GREAT WORK

I must say, I'm very impressed by all this, despite the concerns of those who obviously cannot take a joke. The DYK "that German seamen forced a lesbian to go down during the First World War, and the French did the same during the Second World War?" is, in my humble opinion, the highlight. Great work, guys (and girls), great work. 71.254.9.136 (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, now the featured article is meningitis. Talk about mood whiplash! the wub "?!" 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article of the day image

This isn't really something I like to see when I log onto Wikipedia; I'm sure millions of people today will agree. I'm all for a lack of censorship, but I'm not sure that an image so distressing is fair game for the main page. I just hope gangrene doesn't make it to FA. Seegoon (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya. I actually got sick a little when I saw that (thank god it wasn't on the keyboard). Quite awful. §hep^Talk 00:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Came here to say just this. I have never once complained about content on the main page, not after Bulbasaur or History of erotic depictions or April Fools jokes, but this is crossing the line. Shock images have no reason to be on the main page. ShadowUltra (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[Offended, are you?]

Anyway, maybe... But still, i mean, it's no worse than what you'd see in a medical dictionary handbook thing. 99.184.93.203 (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a shock image -- the girl pictured there is literally the poster child for meningitis vaccination. Raul654 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

True... 99.184.93.203 (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for the love of god, change the image immediately. This is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia's critics will love to point out. Just wait for the Conservapedia folks to point to this as evidence of how immoral and sick Wikipedia is... 63.245.144.68 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's distressing. It's also reality. Hope this image, of the same little girl with prostheses, helps. Kablammo (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were suggesting using that picture on the main page. Assuming you are, it's not a good idea because (a) that picture isn't in the meningitis article, and (b) it's not a good illustration of the topic because she doesn't actually have meningitis in that picture. Raul654 (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm making the same point (although obviously not as clearly) as you, and also showing what she looked like after treatment. And if the shocking picture influenced people to look at the article on the disease and the one on the girl, so much the better. Kablammo (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that Wikipedia isn't censored for minors and all that, but the front page at least should be clear of anything particularly disturbing or offensive, in my opinion. You can avoid disgusting things by simply avoiding such articles, but the front page is in your face all the time. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I too think that the main page is not the right place for shocking or disturbing images. The photo of the little girl with meningitis should be removed. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki isn't censored, and you all know that. I'm fine with the image, no matter how shocking or whatever. Would you complain if autofellatio was featured? 70.149.136.2 (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would, and I'm about as against wiki-censorship as it is. As has been constantly mentioned above, the main page /isn't/ part of the encyclopdia, so a bit of restraint isn't a bad thing. I love the April Fools thing, as it helps show we're not all serious business (like WP:ODD for instance). It's not so much appropriate or not, more of...how to put it...it's just asking for trouble. That said, if autofellatio actually managed to get to FA level, I would be the first one to clap. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Another vote for removal here. Let's have some consideration for our users, and not plaster disturbing pictures on our front page. Axlrosen (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A disturbing image of a child covered all up in bloody bruises is as disturbing as a man gapping out his anus. I would believe it's still an April Fool's prank. CHANGE IT PLEASE. 200.115.154.74 (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Whats the problem with showing a image of the virus instead of this? At the least, we are not free advertising for that girl and her parents cause. Just put a normal, better quality photo and live with it. Matty (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters, we don't have such an image. Or, to be more precise, we don't have one that's usable. At 100 pixels wide, the picture we have would be a meaningless pink blob. Raul654 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the current one is completely fine, but if it does need to be changed, how about this symptoms diagram, which is surprisingly not in the article? Mfield (Oi!) 03:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if i'm not mistaken, isn't the picture in the article showing gangrene? Matty (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The red parts are meningitis rash; the black parts are places where it has progressed to necrosis/gangrene. Raul654 (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The text on that pic is illegible when scaled to 100px, and without the next it's just a picture of a naked guy. Algebraist 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never complained about a main page article, either. This is a really unnecessarily graphic image to have automatically pop up on the main page of Wikipedia. A good image if you're ready for it, but not if you're casually surfin' the web. Get some tact, people... I just ate, for cryin' out loud. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 03:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The child was sick, not dead. Graphic? yes. Inappropriate? Not imo. She has an incredible survival story. The point becomes moot soon enough with the next front page article to replace it.--MartinezMD (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This argument is unacceptable. If 90-95% of people are unimpressed by the featuring of this picture, rather than ignore their concerns as irrelevant because they differ from yours, how about give them the benefit of the doubt?203.56.22.126 (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You all know as well as I do that if I were to get Goatse featured on the main page the image would be removed. There has always been a double standard with main page images and it's gotten to an unacceptable level. This is similar to the time someone tried to get a huge picture of a spider put on the arachnophobia article because it "illustrates the article's subject," when in reality the user was just seeing how far he could toe the line. ShadowUltra (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose removing/replacing the image. As graphic as it is, we're supposed to be a serious encyclopedia, as many have noted earlier in this thread. A serious encyclopedic article on meningitis should be equal to that of a medical paper in terms of comprehensiveness, no? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a slight difference between removing the picture completely and removing it from the main page. Toning the main page picture down might be the loving thing to do for the majority of people who aren't expecting and/or happy to see it. How about a warning that says "some people may find the following pictures on this page disturbing"? How about assuming that other people's feelings are worth something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.22.126 (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Because, per WP:NOT (official policy), Wikipedia isn't censored. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So your freedom of speech is more important that others feelings? I'm not denying you have the RIGHT to display disturbing images, I'm saying that maybe you could use your rights to love those with less of a stomach than you, rather than use it to offend people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.22.126 (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And what has censorship to do with warning people they may find content distressing? I believe that an encyclopaedia should be true to the subject, but should also be sensitive to the feelings of people. The main page is the first thing people see, and with no warning they are forced to see something they could find incredibly distressing. Please give those people a choice, rather than force your anti-censorship onto them.203.56.22.126 (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a great illustration. So what if they find it distressing? Maybe it will help get more kids worldwide vaccinated. In any case, it's not an encyclopedia's role to protect you from the real world. (Nor is it an encyclopedia's role to encourage you to make positive changes - that's just a possible side effect.) Get over your squeamishness - encyclopedias should not represent a sanitized version of life. In my view, hiding the truth of something like meningitis is just as bad as outright lying about it. It's a real disease, and that's what it can do. Newsboy85 (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again. I'm N O T saying change the article's page. I'm N O T asking that the feature article of the day be changed. Let people go to the page, make a choice about whether they want to view the image, learn about the dangers, and make good decisions about vaccinating their children. What I A M saying is that the main page is first thing that people see, and that taking away the right of a person to choose whether they see a distressing image is a violation of a persons rights. Your motivations sound grand, but I don't believe that the end justifies the means.203.56.22.126 (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And still nobody has answered my question. Why can't there be an infobox at the top of an article stating that people may find images within the article offensive or distressing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.22.126 (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Cenarium (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED applies to articles, but it really is stretching it a bit far to have it apply to the Main Page. I'm a fervent supporter of the notcensored policy, but that's because if people choose to go to the autofellatio article, or sex, or syphilis or any others with disturbing images, that's their choice. However, a kid going to the main page to look up flowers and bunny rabbits for school should not be presented with an image of a baby with necrotised arms. For that matter, many adults would not want to be presented with it. Can we at least err on the side of caution given that it's the Main Page we're talking about? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I will put what many others have said in my own words. Can this image and article be found in an encyclopedia? Yes. Does said encyclopedia use this image on their cover? No. That's all. --Alex Barrow (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's a lot of fair use images in Wikipedia, and just because we could probably legally put them on the main page, it doesn't mean people think they belong there. The main page has always been different... it's seen by hundreds of thousands of people a day, what's appropriate for an article isn't automatically appropriate for the main page. Personally I don't tend to read health articles because I realize that, this being a serious encyclopedia, there might be medical pictures and very disturbing descriptions of symptoms and procedures that I just don't want to encounter. WP:NOTCENSORED means that content can be put in the article if it's relevant, but it is just talking about articles and I don't think it means we have to be confronted with it on the main page, where people aren't opting in to the content by searching for it. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2

April Fools' Day is over...so why is DYK still hillarious?! ~AH1^(TCU) 01:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've switched DYK back to serious mode. Raul654 (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You 'forgot' the word militants

The page says on this day - "2002 – Operation Defensive Shield: Approximately 200 Palestinians fled advancing Israeli forces into the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, starting a month-long standoff." You might wish to mention that they were Fatah militants, as acknowledged in the article it links to: Siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Failure to do this appears very POV, since it suggests that 200 were civilians 141.166.227.7 (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The article says no such thing. It says 'Dozens of militants, Fatah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Palestinian Security Forces men fled into the church to fortify, along with forty monks and dozens of other Palestinians who arrived at the site for different reasons.' To call all these people Palestinians is accurate. To call them all militants would grossly misrepresent the article. Algebraist 11:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we not have the horrific picture of a deformed baby on the main page?

It doesn't appear in the headline meningitis article. How can anyone have let that go up? It's awful, and children read this. It's not necessary for the subject. The more appropriate picture is that in the main article. Wikidea 09:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The image was removed from the article about 7 minutes before you posted, apparently due to concern that the picture was visible on the front page. While I don't think it's a great illustration, it's worth noting that the child depicted - Charlotte - survived, and became famous for surviving. I'm not sure I accept the "children read this" argument - partly because Charlotte's story is quite uplifting, partly because Wikipedia isn't censored, and partly because the image is tiny (which is why I don't think it's a great illustration). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of censorship is justified when people are adult and know how to exercise self restraint and decency. Even if the girl had survived, it would not be decent. This wasn't about censorship really though, it's about conscience. Wikidea 13:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, 'even if the girl had survived'? She lives to this day. Algebraist 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please can you remove that picture of that poor disfigured child. There is absolutely no need to put that on the front page of your website. If you're trying to be sensationalist then you've succeeded, i hope you're ashamed of yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcclh (talk • contribs) 11:25, 2 April 2009

Seem to have gone now - thank you! --Rcclh (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(UTC)

OMG! That image is terrible! Do we really want that to be the first thing people see when they visit Wikipedia? I know Wikipedia is not censored, but that picture sickens me, and I wasn't expecting it to be there. Can we please have a picture of the organism that causes meningitis (the virus/bacteria/whatever) instead? Densock|Dendodge^{in public} 11:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's now been removed; and good riddance. Before anyone adds it back just because "Wikipedia is not censored", remember that it's also gone from the article too for some reason, so restoring it just to the main page but not dealing with why it's been removed from the article is pretty much just going for shock value. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It was removed from the article in the apparently mistaken belief that it would simultaneously disappear from the main page. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Striking comment, see clarification below. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The removal of the image from the article appears to have been done because the user contested the relevance of the image, it's disputed on the talk page. I removed the image from the Main page due to the rough consensus above not to include the image. Cenarium (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the clarification. I've struck through my comment, above. The removal from the article seems to be based on an incorrect belief that the photo's subject didn't suffer from meningitis, but this isn't the right forum to address that (and I note that it has already been addressed on the article's talk page). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the image of a bacterium that can cause meningitis. I'm sure no one is going to dispute that said bacterium is irrelevant to meningitis, or complain that the image is too boring. Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It provides no useful information or encyclopedic value, at least at that resolution. I'd rather go with no image. Algebraist 12:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the new image, i cant see what its meant to be, it looks like a pink square with dots! atleast bring back the other picture, i dont whant the same thing to happen when wikipedia got black listed for having supossedly child porn in one of its articles this is getting silly.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I never thought we'd have no image for a non-CVG/music/movie FA. Sigh. Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ah great now there is no image! this is getting silly, wikipedia is not censored!! It will never be now get over it a put the image back!!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this happens every time some disease FA gets featured. Lung cancer comes to mind. Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's something to keep in mind the next time a disease gets FA'd - make sure there's a Main Page-friendly image ready. On the plus-side, I've learned that I'm not as squeamish as I thought ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately im not an admin so i cant add it back, who ever changed the image should change it back!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Censorship is the attempt to keep information out of people's hands. Do you seriously think that I'd argue for the removal of the image because I'm trying to keep people from getting information about meningitis? Or is it more likely that I'm being empathetic to people and trying not to gross them out?

For example, at the Boston Globe's web site, graphic images have a disclaimer, and are blank unless you click to see them (e.g. image #11 here[2]). This is not censoring anything - you can still see the picture - but it lets the user decide whether to view it or not. By putting a graphic image on the front page, you don't give users any choice. (I would vote for a user-decides system like this for both the front page and for the article itself!) Axlrosen (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Illustration is, in my opinion, essential to a comprehensive encyclopedia. I must say I'm rather disappointed that the image was removed, but I seem to be in the minority at this point... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yay, win for egoism over common intellect. If we can't force a perfectly relevant medical image depicting symptoms of an illness off the front page, simply for the fact that a few people dislike gore, what can we do? Nigholith (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's appaling if that image remains removed! It was a brilliant illustration of how dangerous this illness is and the damange it can do. Maybe it would go some way to alerting parents to this fact. But no, just because a few people piss and moan about it being 'graphic' the political correctness police take it down! Amazing! It's the same stupid argument every time something out of the ordinary is on the main page! Frankly, I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing birds and insects on there which I always ignore ... THIS picture made me go look at the main article, I imagine it's done the same for many other people! --LookingYourBest (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the worst thing Juliancolton; you're not in the minority, it's just the fact that all the people who don't mind that image there or acutally find it EDUCATIONAL will simply read the article, add to their knowledge-base and happily go on their way! A few people come on here and kick off and all hell breaks loose! Unbelievable! --LookingYourBest (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the image was fine, but if we can accommodate readers who didn't, then so much the better (I take on board Cenarium's reasons for removing the photo, and Axlrosen's comments re: "censorship"). The photo was of Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman, and her story is fascinating and uplifting, in my view, and I'm tempted to suggest that the Main Page could still benefit from a photo of Charlotte as a survivor. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of when the human eye or something was on the main page a few years ago and there was this terrifying picture of the eye being held open with those tong things.. heh my girlfriend nearly vomited when I showed her the (suprinsingly very high resoltion) image :P — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 13:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, for crying out loud. We're not here to tell harrowing stories, we're not here to put a brave face on things, and we're not here to sweeten the truth. We're here to present the facts; and what could be more factual and relevant to non-medically inclined readers than the symptoms of a condition? Nigholith (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We can do all those things. But we can also do them in a way that is kind and sensitive to the reader. BTW, as with most disagreements, egoism is a matter of viewpoint. To me, the egoism here is: "I am not disgusted by this image, so therefore nobody should be." Axlrosen (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So where is this "kind and sensitive"? policy? The main page's featured article is a representation of the article within, and to censor any representation of the article is to censor the article itself. There are bound to be many things on the main page, from time to time, which, whether text or image, will disgust or shock the reader, and they are all representing the encyclopedia's content. To censor the main page is to censor the articles' content, and that is against Wikipedia policy. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Where is the kind and sensitive policy? It's called WP:CIVIL. Lovelac7 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to content. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• To whomever removed that graphic image from the main page, thank you. Lovelac7 14:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is at least second such discussion I see (first was about cancer showing picture of tumor) - now I don't find such images disgusting, but I know others do, so just out of curiosity - wouldn't it be more sensible to make a decision not to put such images on Main page ? If someone reads article about sex or disiese they expect that there could be such images and can turn off images (my browser at least gives such option), but, if someone comes to Wikipedia to look for some other information there mostly is no way for them to know what's the featured article of the day. You can't just always blindly follow the rules you know 87.110.124.8 (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If the baby picture can't be used, then why isn't the pink image being used? Sure it can't be scaled to 100px, but since the item of interest is less than 100px anyway, why not just crop it? That would look fine. Better than no image at all, anywayAPL (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why so much anger here? I submit the following (loose) definitions as they seem, IMO, to apply to TFA selections:

• Censorship: removing, hiding, or suppressing information by making it unavailable or obscure.
• Sensationalism: adding information intended to shock an audience for purposes of drawing their (perhaps morbid) interest, OR being as shocking and offensive as possible to get noticed.

To those whose knee-jerk response is to accuse the picture-removers of committing censorship on this uncensored website... you apparently fail to take into account a few considerations. First, unless the baby's image is removed from the actual article, how can you call it censorship? Decisions may be made for aesthetic reasons without "censoring" anything. Second, aesthetic motives are perfectly acceptable reasons to remove an image from the Main Page, as it is the first part of Wikipedia seen by the general public.

On the other hand, to those whose knee-jerk response is to accuse the picture-supporters of sensationalism... be careful. I don't think anyone's intent was to be shocking and offensive. The first "definition" of sensationalism that I offer might apply... it could be that someone got overzealous in their desire to "hook" people's attention into reading the article... but getting people to read the articles is what the Main Page is all about.

My personal opinion is that, perhaps, the editor who chose the image may have brushed the line dividing "interest-grabbing" from "shock value"... but it is a very fine line at times, and I can't see that such emotionally-charged responses from either side are really justified. Information that was present on WP about meningitis 24 hours ago is still here... no lasting censorship has occurred... and viewers who were bothered by the image no longer have to see it if they don't want to. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope "so much anger" wasn't directed at my post, the indentation makes it look as though you're replying to me. I didn't intend any anger in my post, and have no opinion on whether or not the baby image should be on the front page. I was simply trying to point out an alternative solution that appeared to have been missed. APL (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

@APL: Done. howcheng {chat} 16:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Neat. Thanks. APL (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what is the rationale for not using the baby image? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't expect to see the baby, but I wasn't "disgusted". 216.79.193.59 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First the people who thought that the April 1 articles on the front page were made up (something that two clicks or, for that matter, picking up a newspaper now and then would have disproved) and now this. Wikipedia needs to implement some sort of anti-moron captcha for Talk:Main Page. Something that asks a simple question like "What is 2 + 3?" or "Do problems cease to exist if no-one openly discusses or displays them?" and anyone who answers incorrectly is directed to the Daily Mail message boards instead. --86.156.134.242 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"morons"? Who, with regards to the image matter, are you implying to be the morons here? Let's not devolve into personal attacks. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Those who think that covering up terrifying diseases is the same thing as curing them are morons. I am personally and directly attacking these morons, sans euphemism or courtesy, because they are being morons. I do not consider this to be "devolving". Animals are allowed to think that burying their heads in the sand will protect them from predators, because they have tiny brains. Humans have no such excuse. The sand-buriers are the ones devolving, not we.

Regardless of the context, you have absolutely no right to personally attack people on any basis whatsoever, so please cut this incivil "moron" and "sand-burier" stuff. Anyway, the discussion has been moot for the last 16 hours. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

--86.156.134.242 (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC) (outdent) Howcheng APL (whoops), forgive my sloppy (lazy) formatting. No, I wasn't responding to your comment; I was mainly responding to anyone who has leveled charges of "sensationalism" or "censorship" at the editors.

Haipa Doragon, the rationale for not using the image is that it is sufficiently emotionally disturbing for a wide portion of our audience that the "interest-grabbing" effect of the image seems to be crossing at least marginally into "shock value," which I don't think Wikipedia as a whole has ever been interested in. The information conveyed by the image is not essential to a basic understanding of the topic or its importance, so why should so many readers' first view of the Main Page be a strongly negative experience? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I happen to know such a child myself, an adopted boy from friends. And I was also disturbed, I don't think such a picture should be on the Main page. It has it's place on the meningitis page itself, to show the possible complications, just like pages about other diseases show pictures. So if you want info on meningitis, you will be fully informed. But the Main page in my view should be slightly more open, welcoming, neutral, ... whatever you want to call it. In addition, if I am well-informed, also medical textbooks nowadays try to avoid head-to-toe pictures of recognisable undressed patients/children with strange diseases or disabilities. Not necessary, and degrading. The fact that the parents of the girl in the picture have made her a show-case is worth another discussion, but would also not justify having her on the main page.80.60.102.202 (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, claims of "it's disgusting", etc., but where is the policy to back it up? Wikipedia's policies and guidelines state nothing about removing content due to any form of shock value. This is encyclopedic content and therefore needs to adhere to all policies, including WP:NOT#CENSORED, therefore makes arguments about shock factor, disgustingness, etc. irrelevant. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I say it is disgusting? I am a medical biologist, I am not easy to disgust and I can deal with pictures like that. I just think they have no place on the main page, as opposed to the meningitis page. And as even the medical profession appears to have guidelines on how to deal with pictures like this, I don't see why Wikipedia should be any different.80.60.102.202 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it means approximately the same thing in this context. "disgusting", "disturbing", etc. are all arguments which contradict WP#NOT:CENSORED. This is what Wikipedia does; whether the medical profession censors its images is irrelevant. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The policy is right in WP:NOT#CENSORED: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." We can talk about the exact details of this situation, but clearly this has the intent of, all things being equal, try to be sensitive to people. Don't offend or disgust them if you can help it. It's just the respectful thing to do. Axlrosen (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

More discussion in Commons Talk about using patient pictures, see link80.60.102.202 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So what is the rationale for omitting this image? It is a perfectly illustrative image of the symptoms of meningitis and is far superior to the current one in use, which is just a blurry image of a couple of pink blobs, which is far more ambiguous than the "shock image" alternative, which, as proven by all these talk page comments, actually does its job of informing the reader of the subject matter. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The picture is not a "perfectly illustrative image of the symptoms of meningitis." It actually shows a rather rare complication of meningitis, and is not representative for the disease. In that sense the picture of the bacteria is more representative. 80.60.102.202 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That sort of quibbling cuts both ways. According to our article, most cases of meningitis are caused by viruses, so the current picture, which shows a bacterium, is not very representative. Algebraist 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. 80.60.102.202 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And it cuts back again. Why would you show a picture on the main page of a rare complication of bacterial meningitis, while viral meningitis is more common than bacterial meningitis?! Certainly not because it is "perfectly illustrative"? 80.60.102.202 (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if it can be proven by reliable sources that the image depicts rare symptoms of meningitis, then it would be definite undue weight to present it on the main page, where it would likely be assumed as depicting common symptoms. Whether or not this is the case should be discussed on the meningitis talk page, as that is where the sources are as to its reliability. Let's not splinter this into a discussion about which sources are or aren't reliable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the info is in the Lancet article cited as ref. 1 in the article, but that is not freely accessible. In any case this chapter on meningitis in the Merck Manual is completely silent on gangrene as potential complication. 80.60.102.202 (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This chapter of the Merck manual] mentions the syndrome we are talking about, including loss of limbs. Not completely clear to me where the boundaries are between meningitis and the other (?) meningococcal diseases. Is there a doctor in the room? 80.60.102.202 (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Haipa, failing to offend people does not require a rationale. Offending people does. I ask again, why should so many visitors' first view of the Main Page provoke a strongly negative emotional response? The image which was removed does serve a purpose, but it isn't necessary for that image to serve that purpose on the Main Page. This is not censorship we are advocating; it is aesthetics and respect... real concerns regardless of the presence or absence of policy which might apply here. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line. main page gets almost 7 mil views a day. u dont want that many ppl almost throwing up because of a picture that may or may not be considered inappropriate. It DOESNT matter if wikipedia is uncensored or not, no one censored the picture. It was removed because it wasnt necessary to show that image to support the article.Ashishg55 (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering there's since been questions (relevant mainly to undue weight, as it seemingly depicts only the symptoms of a rare form of meningitis) as to whether the image's content is relevant enough to be displayed on the main page, the argument relating to censorship, aesthetics, etc. is largely moot. Anyway, the featured article will change in three hours. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'm aware of the arguments above, but I really think the blurry pink dots are not a useful illustration. If for various reasons it has been determined not to use the photo of the baby, then why not use the diagram of the meninges, which is the title picture of the meningitis article. Random89 20:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you still want to change it for the last few hours... 80.60.102.202 (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I say anything is better than blurry pink dots. Selecting an image that conveys absolutely nothing about the topic is much worse than a picture of the disease's true effects, no matter how disturbing some people may consider it. Newsboy85 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually like the 'pink blurry dots' they seem to represent focused example of what the article is about, the previous image showed someone suffering from a mix of 2 conditions which the layman would have trouble separating. I have no objections to the previous image appearing on the front page or in the article, but I do think this one is better as the headline image. GameKeeper (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's 'focused' in its content, but in the optical sense it's a blur that could be anything. If it was captioned "close-up of skin rash" or "pins on a map plotting meningitis epidemic" or "five red balloons in the sky near sunset", how many people could tell the difference? If we can't find an acceptable good-quality image, better to use no image at all. --GenericBob (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I had assumed it was the bacterium without looking at the description, and now I see that is what it is. You suggest it might be confusing but the previous image was more confusing as the person had more conditions than just meningitis, this is an improvement over that I hope you agree. Main page articles are more attractive with images (even if blurry), if nothing else it might encourage a better quality image donation. GameKeeper (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know one of Wikipedia's strengths is sucking people in by tempting them to improve an article, but main-page FAs are supposed to be a showcase of Wikipedia's best work; any major failings should be addressed before it gets to that point. I agree that pictures are generally a very good thing, but I don't think that should be extended to the idea that any picture, however fuzzy and unexciting, is better than no picture. --GenericBob (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ITN suggestion

• Albania and Croatia join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

What if we included a link to these two articles: Accession of Croatia to NATO and Accession of Albania to NATO? I don't know how we would fit them in, however. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would be relatively intuitive to use them in place of the Albania and Croatia links. The accession articles for both will obviously have links to the main country articles, and we should really prioritise the accession articles before the country articles, as they are more pertinent. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Should've proposed on WP:ITN/C, not here. --74.14.16.148 (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors actually. --candle•wicke 16:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Either way would be fine. --74.14.16.148 (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Page Count Stats

“ Main_Page has been viewed 192870187 times in 200903. This article ranked 2 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org. ”

What was number one then?  :) -download | sign! 04:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Without checking, I believe that #1 is perpetually Special:Search. Raul654 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

no g20 news on the front page

that's crazy. --AaThinker (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C is your friend. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Added within 3.5 hours of above comment. It was already being debated – the delay was over the precise wording. --candle•wicke 16:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Shootings

There are now 16 people dead in that shooting. Go here to verify that: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30030756/?GT1=43001. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The site you provided gives "12 to 16" as the number estimated to have been killed; the headline averages at 14. As another point, http://news.bbc.co.uk/ says 12. 79.71.67.202 (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Report problems on the main page at WP:ERRORS, please. See instructions at the top of this talk page. --74.14.16.148 (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)