Revision as of 23:15, 12 January 2011

Main Page error reports

• WP:ERRORS
• WP:MP/E

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

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

• Main Page queue

In the news

candidates

discussion

admin instructions

Did you know

nominations

discussion

queue

BotErrors

Protected pages

Commons media protection

Associated

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

• It is currently 20:23 UTC.
• Purge the Main Page
• Purge this page

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 20:23 on 13 January 2025) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Next DYK

• ... that of the 156 Conestoga wagons (pictured) brought to the Braddock Expedition of the French and Indian War, only one remained intact by the campaign's end? That's not what the article seems to say. "Only a few wagons of the Braddock Expedition ultimately remained, and they were returned to their original owners when the vehicles arrived at Wills Creek in Pennsylvania." and "In total, 156 wagons are thought to have been employed for the disastrous Braddock Expedition, the only wagon to survive intact being that of William Douglas." meaning that only one wagon survives until now, but multiple survived the expedition (or else they couldn't have been sent back to their owners surely). Fram (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also, surely it should be 'employed by' or 'taken on' the expedition 'during' the war, not 'brought to ... of'. Modest Genius 13:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Pinging nominator PrimalMustelid. SL93 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not what the source says. It says (I quote):

The number of Pennsylvania wagons that arrived back at Wills Creek has not been definitely established. For the service of their wagons, 30 owners received payment for a period greater than the 51 days, but of these, only 10 were paid for services beyond what appears to be July 20. Only the wagon of William Douglas, out of 146 wagons involved, seems to have survived the campaign intact. Inasmuch as the other owners were reimbursed for loss of their wagons, it is likely that those few that arrived back at Fort Cumberland were so badly damaged as to render them unserviceable, and therefore not worth driving back to eastern Pennsylvania.

In short, the writer is talking about the situation at the end of the campaign, where only the one appears to have survived the campaign in serviceable condition, the others being too damaged to be worth retaining.

Please note that I am about to log off so will not be able to respond further today. Gatoclass (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

So am I expected to emend the hook and/or article, or has the situation resolved itself? PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Next Monday's FL

(January 20)

"45 men have served in 46 presidencies". That's true now, but that text will still display on inauguration day. The extra presidency refers to President Grover Cleveland, but Trump is about to enter the same status. So the number of men won't change, but the number of presidencies will. Despite Martin Luther King day, 46 will be wrong after noon Eastern Time or 1700 UTC, January 20. Art LaPella (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If someone remembers, this can be amended in real time on the day...  — Amakuru (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

OK. Art LaPella (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Friday's FL

Monday's FL

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

• T:MP
• WT:MP

Is picture placement a problem for anybody else?

I am constantly confused by the pictures used with In the news and On this day blurbs. Nice picture of a old guy in a shirt and tie next to Andrew Wakefield's blurb -- but it's not Mr Wakefield, it's the assassinated Pakistani governor. This catches me every time, and I've been around long enough to know better.

Same thing in OTD: old guy with handlebar mustache and wing collar probably isn't Bonnie Prince Charlie -- but you can't find out who it really is unless you read through ALL the rest of the blurbs.

We're really not doing our casual readers a service with this misleading picture placement; and even an experienced reader such as myself still finds it annoying that I have to slog through each and every bullet to find "(pictured)".

Can this be easily fixed? Or am I the only person who's bothered by it? (And, apologies if this is beating a dead horse; I'm not up to speed on restricting searches to just certain pagesets.)

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry? —David Levy 03:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Crap; didn't find that earlier. Still, one thing isn't clear to me, since the French seem to be able to do it "sometimes": is it impossible, or is it merely difficult, to float the picture to its appropriate bullet? Thanks! DaHorsesMouth (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't particularly difficult, but it purportedly would cause layout problems on other pages on which the templates are transcluded. And if I recall correctly, some people expressed a preference for the current aesthetics. —David Levy 04:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it would look horrible if we put a caption under the image... howcheng {chat} 06:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe they use rollover text for a caption. wackywace 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The use of the modifier 'although' in the first sentence of the featured article, 'John Helm', is misplaced

The use of the modifier 'although' in the first sentence of the featured article, 'John Helm', is inappropriate. The fact that he was the 18th and 24th Governor of Kentucky is in no way diminished by the total amount of time he spent serving in that office. Perhaps it should read "John L. Helm (1802–1867) was the 18th and 24th governor of Kentucky. In contrast to other Governors of Kentucky of the era, his aggregate service in that office was, in total, less than fourteen months." 174.58.42.212 (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The word "although" refers to the disparity between the likely assumption that a two-time governor served more than 14 months in office and the fact that he didn't, not the disparity between his time in office and that of other governors. —David Levy 00:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Why would an assumption be made that having served 14 months in office is more exceptional for a one-term Governor than a two-term Governor, regardless of whether it was sequential or non-sequential? A lack of attention to the non-sequentiality of his terms in office is negated by the use of the word 'aggregate'. Its use draws attention of that Helm's terms in office were not continuous.

It would be similar or analogous to stating "Jerry Brown is and was 39th and 34th Governor of California, although 27 years elapsed between his two terms in office." The fact that 27 years elapsed between Brown's two terms as Governor of California does not diminish the significance and the exceptionality of the fact. The only rational assumption that ought to be made is that the use of the modifier "although" somehow makes the fact of the the statement made by second clause diminish the significance of the statement made by the first clause. It doesn't--Jerry Brown is and was 39th and 34th Governor of California, and the fact that 27 years elapsed between Brown's terms in office is irrelevant to the fact or to the significance that Jerry Brown is and was 39th and 34th Governor of California.

It might be appropriate to write "Richard Nixon was 37th President of the United States, although he was the only President ever to resign the office." Or it might be (arguably less) appropriate to write "Bill Clinton was 42nd President of the United States, although he was only one of two Presidents to be impeached" (it's arguably less appropriate because although Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, Clinton was not convicted by the U.S. Senate, nor was Clinton thereby removed from office). The fact that Clinton was impeached but not convicted and removed from office did not diminish the significance of the fact of his Presidency, i.e., the duration of time Clinton was in office, or the significance of the policies for which his was responsible for having made in office.

By contrast, to say "Richard Nixon was 37th President of the United States, although he was the only President ever to resign the office" would be inappropriate, because of the exceptionality of the fact of his resignation does not diminish the fact that Nixon was 37th President. Whether or not Nixon's resignation diminished the amount of time he spent in office does not diminish the fact that Nixon was 37th President of the United States, but the fact that he was the only President to resign is of significance, although not to the fact that Nixon was 37th President.

It would be appropriate to state "Gerald Ford was 38th President of the United States, although Ford was never elected to that office or to the office of Vice President." The use of the word "although" is appropriate there, because the essence of being President of the United States, as envisaged by the U.S. Constitution, is the quality of having been elected President or Vice President. The fact of that missing quality from the fact of Ford's Presidency would, therefore, definitely warrant the use of the modifier "although". 174.58.42.212 (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would an assumption be made that having served 14 months in office is more exceptional for a one-term Governor than a two-term Governor, regardless of whether it was sequential or non-sequential?

No one is claiming any such thing. You're badly misunderstanding the statement, which is entirely unrelated to the fact that the two terms were nonconsecutive.

The term of office is four years, so a likely assumption is that someone who served in said office (particularly twice, irrespective of chronology) did so for a total of significantly more than 14 months. —David Levy 01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why should that be an assumption? Simply because the U.S. Constitution specified a limitation of the Presidential term to four years--and the States, in adopting a "republican form of government", followed suit for their Chief Executives? In the Westminster System utilized in Canada (where there is a "fusion" of the executive and legislative branches in that the Ministry is comprised of Members of Parliament who are also elected legislators) for example, as to the term of a chief executive, the maximum duration of one term of office for the Prime Minister (through a limitation on the maximum time a Parliament can remain constituted) is limited to five years. However, governments in the Westminster System often fall on non-confidence votes, mostly on national budgets. Also, since the Prime Minister is also the titular leader of the political party which is elected in the most Parliamentary seats, if that Member of Parliament is voted out as Leader of the Party, by very strong position, it also means that Member of Parliament is no longer Prime Minister, because such a departure would lead to a non-confidence vote. 174.58.42.212 (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Most people will assume it, it is an assumption - the phrasing is fine. Trebor (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is "fine", but it remains misleading. 174.58.42.212 (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation is unusual. Nothing about the statement is inherently misleading. —David Levy 04:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement turns on an issue of the duration of time spent on office during two non-sequential terms in office. It does not diminish the fact that Helm was both 18th and 24th Governor of Kentucky. The use of the modifier "although" implies that Helm was somehow "less" the 18th and 24th Governor of Kentucky for having served in that office an aggregate fourteen months. 174.58.42.212 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't imply that. You mistakenly infer that. (See above.) —David Levy 04:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand the article, it's this conversation I can't follow. 81.139.135.66 (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"I watched two baseball games, although not full games."

"I went to school during spring and fall semesters, although only for two weeks total."

This is entirely reasonable and normal English. It doesn't "diminish" anything, it clarifies that while these things were done, they were not done with the completeness that they normally imply. APL (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-Americans probably won't be immediately familiar with term-lengths of US Governers, while they would with seasons/school semesters. --Kurr 12:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a country in which two terms in an equivalent office typically total less than fourteen months? —David Levy 17:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but knowing that two terms are 8 years total puts the 14-month total term into (a meaningful) context. -Kurr 22:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The context seems fine to me. Even if an average term length was 2 years, saying although for 14 months would still be fine. If people are interested in precisely what is normal they are welcome to check out the articles. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Newest articles or newest content?

For DYK we currently have: "From Misplaced Pages's newest articles:". As both expanded (but pre-existing articles) as well as genuinely new articles are featured, wouldn't it be more accurate to have "From Misplaced Pages's newest content:"? Greenshed (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the current phrasing doesn't cover expanded articles. But 'newest content' would include small amounts (paragraphs) of new material added to existing large articles, which are not eligible for DYK. Perhaps WT:DYK might have some ideas? Modest Genius 23:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should maintain status quo, Dipannita —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.66.7 (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

10th Anniversary FA

There was a discussion here about what the FA for the 10th anniversary (Jan 15) should be. Some of the ideas thrown out were (in no particular order):

• Featuring an essay describing the FA process, or perhaps linking to the old signpost dispatch describing it
• Featuring 10 featured article that have previously appeared on the main page
• Featuring a range of content that normally doesn't make the main page - featured sounds, featured lists, etc. (I find this idea particularly intriguing)

I wanted to open up discussion here and see what everyone thought. Time is short, so I need to decide this soon. (I'd also like to see suggested blurbs for the above ideas, particularly for the ' range of content that normally doesn't make the main page ' suggestion). Raul654 (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I had suggested finding the best possible unused TFA and running it. My idea was speed of light, which I thought might carry a nice implication.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe Transport is the oldest known WP article. What about a drive to get it to FA standard? Appreciate there's not much time, so it's just a thought. --FormerIP (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems with that idea: (1) it would be impossible to get up to FA status in 3 days, and (2) The transport article dates back to November, 2001. Doubtless there were earlier articles whose revision histories have been screwed up, which doesn't strike me as a reason to get excited about it. Raul654 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Anything that could be got up to FA standard at all could be got up to FA standard in 3 days provided there's the will to do it and we can be confident that the topic is not going to be contentious (I reckon so, anyway). U was redirected in Feb 2001 from UuU, created on 16th Jan 2001. I expect that ] probably predates this by a few hours, although early edits are not in the database. William Alston was edited on 17th Jan (so ditch Transport), although it might be hard to FA. --FormerIP (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A look at the logs here: appears to show that the first WP article was titled "Philosophy and Logic" (no article by that title now - this also appears to inclclude WP's fist ever gross violation of NPOV, by placing Ayn Rand in a short list along with some philosophers). The second ever article seems to have been "United States". The first page with actual article content was Afghanistan. Assuming I'm understanding the logs correctly. --FormerIP (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I do like having the other WP:FCs in there, even just for a day. lists can replace ITN, sounds can replace DYK, topics can replace OTD, and the portals at the top replaced with the Featured Portal. Can we just have a randomizer (1 of each per refresh) that'll allow all featured content to be on the Main Page for that day? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than replacing ITN, FP, DYK, what I am envisioning is using the FA slot to simultaneously run a featured list and a featured sound and a featured topic. The write ups for each would be short (probably no more than 2 sentences each, along with an appropriate image and a links to Misplaced Pages:Featured lists, Portal:Featured sounds, and Misplaced Pages:Featured topics). Raul654 (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If only Misplaced Pages was a current FA... Time to hunt through Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page. I think it's a bit late to start replacing content in other sections or implementing new randomising code, which would need to be tested on multiple platforms. Modest Genius 19:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to feature a Misplaced Pages-related article (which normally I would not), so long as it is actually a featured article. But I don't think any are up to FA status. Raul654 (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Australia is our oldest article to now have FA status, according to the log I just mentioned. It looks like it was created by a regular user in Australia and it has the log number 979992628. Can someone else verify that I am right about this and can this be our anniversary FA? --FormerIP (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think age is a good criteria on which to base the selection. Nobody is going to make the connection unless they read this thread, which is bad. Raul654 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point, although the connection could be flagged up. --FormerIP (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I support the 10 FA idea. Browsing through the category of unused FAs, it doesn't seem we have any single article that would be quite good enough. 10 FAs would be a bold change to the main page that would draw attention to the anniversary. And it would be able to showcase the broad range of FAs that we have. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't limit yourself to unused ones. If you could pick the 10 best/most interesting articles to feature on the 10th anniversary, regardless of whether or not they have appeared on the main page, which ones would you want to see? Raul654 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be good to open that to some form of community input, although it might be tough within the short timeframe. WRT our great writers, I don't think we should have one Australian cricketer, one Alberta politician, one South Vietnamese military article, and one mushroom. I'd go with (a) FAs that are highly viewed (demonstrating that we can write well about significant topics); and (b) across a broad range of subject matter. But we'd also need to take care that we weren't picking any old FAs that had degenerated significantly since their promotion. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposals for 10 FAs

Since Raul asked, here are some proposals for FAs to be featured on the main page for the 10 year anniversay. Remember (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Truthiness - I think that this would be somewhat self-referential and show wikipedia's ability to chronical current trends.

Encyclopædia Britannica - Since I think this is somewhat appropriate.

Speed of light - new FA that is well-written about an important subject

Evolution - good general topic.

Bird - another good general encyclopedia topic

Tulip mania - interesting historical economic topic

Hydrogen - first element

Antartica - good encyclopedia geography article

Tang Dynasty - good history article

Romeo and Juliet - good literature article

Free will - good philosophical article

Earth - good planet article.

Those are my ideas. Any others? Remember (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of using FAs on the WP:CORE list. In which case we'd have the following to pick from:

1. Antarctica
2. Earth
3. Poetry
4. Evolution
5. Bacteria
6. Fungus
7. Virus
8. Big Bang
9. Galaxy
10. Moon
11. Planet
12. Star
13. Sun
14. Atom
15. Law

Admittedly that's a bit biased towards science topics. Or we could supplement with articles from WP:VITAL. If we do have a rotating list, there should be some sort of indication that we're doing so, rather than just a random one showing up each time someone hits F5 (how will they know to do so?). Modest Genius 21:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the core idea, but yeah, the bias is a bit of a concern. Ultimately, I think we should showcase our variety of coverage. Mix a couple sciences with a couple biographies with a sporting topic with an entertainment topic with something completely off the wall. Resolute 21:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Love the idea of 10 FA's, so....

• Irrespective of the Actual FA's, I strongly support the idea of showing a lot of featured content (totaling 10) on the main page (and in-line with what Raul describes as "intriguing" above.

The issues are, however;

1. Coding the page to work and look okay (I assume we will need to remove ITN, OTD, DYK etc. ??)
2. Balancing the FA's (we have 8 portals and my personal like would be 1 FA from each portal, one Featured Picture and One Featured .......list? Featured .....sound? Something to balance but show diversity.)
3. Agreeing, QUICKLY, said content - Raul will have to be pretty firm here if this idea was accepted.

Just thought I'd throw this out. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Blending MG's idea of using WP:VITAL FA's with a need to go a bit beyond science topics, I'd suggest the following 10 articles:

1. William Shakespeare
2. Law
3. Elizabeth I of England
4. Ancient Egypt
5. Antarctica
6. Charles Darwin
7. Poetry
8. Olympics
9. Sun
10. Archimedes

I've left out articles on countries or religions - which ones of those to select will unnecessarily divide opinion. The list has four biographies, one sports article, and no more than two related to the one country. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

... Shakespeare, Elizabeth I and Darwin all strike me as being from the same country; Shakespeare and Elizabeth I are also from the same era, and four bios is at least one too many I think. How about Oxygen instead, and / or an animal article such as Sheep? My original suggestion at WT:TFAR was ten randomised FAs, using the same code idea as for US Presidential Election day when we had two random FAs on display - I don't think that removing DYK / ITN / OTD would be a good idea, particularly because placing the entire focus on the FAs would take away the spotlight from the other sections that people might find interesting or useful. Bencherlite 22:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd cut out QE1. And you've got 4 bios but only one science now. And yes we've only got the FA box to work with, there's no way we can exclude all the other sections. Modest Genius 22:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right, it's three British bios and that's too many (especially with no Americans). Oxygen is an excellent idea: it would be good to have an element article. Perhaps we should dump Shakespeare. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont know which one but i would replace one of them with Earth considering thats the only Level 1 VA FA we have. -- Ashish-g55 22:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't care about Americans or Brits, but all bios on that list are all white guys. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You're calling a former Queen a guy? :P  狐 FOX  03:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In my demographic, "guy" refers to both boys and girls. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Earth would be an easy replacement for Sun, I think. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as main page balance goes, we don't need to do ten full TFA's, I think, but rather a standard size TFA blurb that brings ten FAs together? Resolute 23:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking of an FA blurb in the range of 1x to 2x the normal size. If we go with a larger-than-normal blurb, we can balance it out by putting something at the top of ITN along the lines of "Misplaced Pages celebrates its 10th anniversary." Raul654 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Our mini-blurbs for each TFA might need to be so short as to be essentially useless. Another option might be a collage of pictures, with a "clockwise from top left, ten of wikipedia's most prominent featured articles..." caption. Perhaps someone with some creative ability might have a bright idea from "outside the box", so to speak. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So I started wrigging an example mockup of the 10 article idea at User:Raul654/test1/User:Raul654/blurb1, but I stopped because with pictures it is much too long, and without them, it looks just like DYK. I think the idea needs to be scrapped unless someone can come up with a way to do it that doesn't re-do DYK with FAs. Raul654 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I implemented the other idea (featured content that normally doesn't make the main page) at User:Raul654/test2 and I'm pretty happy with how it came out. Raul654 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Once y'all decide on this, better notice WP:AN and WP:ANI to get extra vandal watching (I'm not participating in this discussion, as I'm entertained at Andrew Wakefield ITN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So what does everyone think of the above mock-ups? Raul654 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No question test2 is the better, and perhaps you could make it better by moving one (if the sound) or two of the images to the right.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Be my guest - play around with it, make it look better. Raul654 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right: the 10 FAs just don't work. Making it work would seem be a graphic design/coding feat that we couldn't realistically ask of anyone in the little time that we have. The "other featured content" comes up quite well and isn't too much longer than a normal ITN. Would Solar System or Nobel Laureates be better for the featured topic? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We already have a science article, so solar system isn't a good choice, and the nobel laurietes article doesn't use the name of the article in the introductory paragraphs (which makes it very hard to write up a blurb). In short, I'm happy with the articles I've picked. Raul654 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of chemistry is currently on our list of FL's that may be below standards though... Courcelles 23:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured content for a day

Ok, just so everyone's clear - I'm going to go with the "Today's featured content" blurb that I've done up at User:Raul654/test2, which includes a featured topic, list, and sound. I'd appreciate it if someone could check my HTML and make sure I didn't do anything bad. I'd also appreciate it if someone could play around with the pics to get rid of the empty space below the featured sound. Raul654 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lastly, are we planning to have some kind of "Misplaced Pages celebrates its 10th anniversary" statement somewhere on the main page? If not, I will put that in the featured content blurb. Raul654 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Love this idea. As an 2007 FL, timeline of chemistry may or may not in decent shape, and I've alerted the folks at WT:CHEM so we can be sure it's up to snuff. If it's not, may I suggest List of cutaneous conditions instead? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Main Page