Talk:Main Page

Sections of this page older than three days are automatically archived.

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 00:39 on 28 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 "On this day"

Today's OTD

• 1967 – Australians voted overwhelmingly for the number of Indigenous Australians to be included in population counts for constitutional purposes and for the federal government to make laws for their benefit.

Two suggestions for this hook:

1. "for the number of Indigenous Australians to be included in population counts" feels clunky to me, I would suggest "to include Indigenous Australians in population counts"

2. I would also change "and for the federal government to make laws for their benefit" to "and to allow the federal government to make special laws affecting them in states" (much closer to the article's wording). As this section points out, although the intention of the change may have been exclusively to benefit them, that was not part of the wording of the law and not always how it's been applied. And as it also mentions, the government already had this power in territories. And thirdly, the referendum simply gave the government the power to enact such laws rather than directly forcing the creation of any like the current wording implies.

-Elmer Clark (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sorry that it took so long. Schwede66 17:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• In the 3rd hook, remove the extra space right before the period. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 00:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(May 31)

Monday's FL

(June 3)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Today's POTD

• "Van Gogh saw plowing, sowing and harvesting symbolic to man's efforts ...". I think there needs to be an "as" before "symbolic". JMCHutchinson (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed. Also changed it to British English "ploughing". The mix of language varieties in the target article should be fixed up. Schwede66 23:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  "symbolic to" should be changed to "symbolic of", and "This oil-on-canvas Wheat Fields painting" to "This oil painting on canvas titled Wheat Fields" the latter per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts § Medium. I also think "painted" is a better choice of word than "created". Ham II (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

   Done – Schwede66 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Main page general discussion

Britain NOT England

The Duke of Marlborough did not command the forces of England, the Holy Roman Empire and the United Provinces at Blenheim:he commanded the forces of THE UNITED KINGDOM, the Holy Roman Empire and the United Provinces. I realise that using 'England' when the United Kingdom of Great Britain is actually meant is a common practice: but that does not make it any less wrong. Flonto 21:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The United Kingdom didn't come into existence until 1800. The Kingdom of Great Britain didn't even come into existence until 1707, so in 1704, "England" is the correct usage. Corvus cornix 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Although it might be worth noting if he was also leading Scottish forces, the two being de facto the same country at the time. —Verrai 04:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Flonto, you may want to post at #Main page error reports above the next time you want to suggest small changes and minor corrections on MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai 00:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

de facto or not, its the de jure that counts. Besides, as previous discussions elsewhere have stated, England was used to refer to the whol Island. Which was, by the way, under Eglish control.Man of Bravery!! 04:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should not perpetuate ignorance. The island is Great Britain. The forces the Duke of Marlborough was leading were English. Corvus cornix 23:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What previous discussions, where? I'm intrigued. Badgerpatrol 23:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Island at the time was called England for the most part, I mean for de facto reasons. Previous discussion, to the best of my memory is somewhere to do with the Battle of Trafalgar, where Nelson used the signal "England expects every man to do his duty" - although it is true he used england because it was easier than the words "Great Britain" it still made sense to the many non-English British sailors fighting the French. All your base are belong to us! 02:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For the honour of pedants, led it be known that Nelson led the forces (de jure) not of Great Britain but of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Algebraist 02:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, he didn't; there was no Kingdom of Great Britain, let alone a Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1704, only the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Kingdom of Ireland. The three happened to be de facto the same country, but de jure each was independent (to varying degrees; Scotland still had its own Parliament until the Acts of Union 1707, but Ireland's status as an independent kingdom was a complete political fabrication). —Verrai 02:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to continue this, but when I said 'Nelson', I meant Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar, as alluded to by All your base are belong to us! above. Algebraist 03:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And sorry to lengthen this but Nelsons battle is well after 1707 - its in the early 1800's. Not that I care, I've had my fill of discussions!All your base are belong to us! 07:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly a great deal of confusion here. The Battle of Trafalgar was in 1805, well after both acts of union. Why he chose to signal "England" rather than something more accurate is not known to me, although clearly it would have been a considerable pain in the arse to signal "The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Ireland Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty" in semaphore. I'd still like Tourskin to point me to the discussions that provide reliable sources that the island of Great Britain (or the wider UK) was referred to habitually as "England" at the time - to the best of my knowledge, that just isn't true. One naval order on one day from Admiral Nelson does not a paradigm make. Badgerpatrol 14:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude, if I remembered every discussion, I would shoot myself, but fortunately for me I don't and unfortunatly for you. However, just to satisfy ur taste, look at the movie "Last of the Mohicans". This is not a reliable source (so dont bother nailing me about it not being one) but in it the British soldiers refer to a so called foreign policy of "Make the world England". Also, look at Master and Commander, where Russel Crowe as the commander of the ship says to his British crew (theres lots of scottish accents there so its not only english crew lol) "this ship is england". England, England, ENGLAND!!!! Tourskin 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK- I feel I should point you towards this page, one which I feel should be an essential reference for any Wikipedian. You in particular may gain considerable benefit from a thorough analysis of its contents. Badgerpatrol 21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are a sad little man. I don't give a damn what you feel, it seems that you yourself are well-acquainted with that Bullocks page. You wanna get personal than thats ur problem, I told you that England was used to refer to the whole of Britain at the time. I don't have specific references because such information is common sense. Just like how people use to call the Soviet Union "Russia". The reason being is like Russia, England is the dominant political entity, backed up by the fact that English is spoken is the de facto official language and the capital is in England etc. I did not mean to insult you so next time present an argument, do not present ur Bullocks stuff. Tourskin 23:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, from your immature response it seems that you have not taken that in the light-hearted way in which it was intended. Never mind. With the best will in the world...you don't know what you're talking about. There is a vague element of truth to what you're saying, but you do not present a very credible argument unfortunately. Badgerpatrol 01:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I like to take what people meant so I will take back what I said against you. However, you should have known that your above response was offensive. You can't just tell people "look at the page about bullocks and you will be much better" or something along those lines. I haven't been able to make my argument here without many sources. Well, the thing is, soruces of the olden times don't generally comment about informalities so much as formalities. For example, a historian of Nelson's time would not likely say "England won" but "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has triumphed" to sound all heroic and official. Tourskin 22:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of clear light between bullocks and bollocks, although I suppose the former does tend to connote the latter. In short, if the sources don't say it, then it isn't true (or at least it isn't verifiable, which is far more important that subjective "truth" for our purposes). (Ironically enough, in this case the original entry was actually accurate - it was your subsequent line of argument that was flawed.) Anyway, that's the end of it. Badgerpatrol 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hold on end of what? what statement was wrong? I think that you need to seriously change the way to present your thoughts since I have no idea what your are on about - soruces verify what? What was correct? What first statement? R u saying that Marlborough commanded British forces? Wasn't Blenheim before those Union acts? Listen buddy, you don't direct someone to a page that says "Bullocks or Bollocks" or whatever the hell - don't be so foolish to think that everyone knows the difference, if there is one (im not disputing it so hold ur horses). That is beside the point anyway. I only said that alot of people use to refer the whole of Britain as England and indeed some people still do. As stupid as it sounds, you can't seriously expect me to quote or obtain sources suggesting this. What the everyday man says like saying "England" instead of UK or "Bullocks" instead of "Bollocks" is not exactly a science that is recorded for future reference.Tourskin 02:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermoore, don't make me laugh - don't point me to an article that isn't Wikipedia policy - is says so at the top with a template its just an author's opinion. Tourskin 02:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem very stressed, Tourskin, perhaps you should take a breather? You're really overreacting in these two threads. Atropos 02:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Gees, will u guys lay of my back? U think I need a breather, make room for one then!Tourskin 03:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Curious

How is Hurricane Dean not a top story 69.33.74.119 15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In the news isn't updated by magic. Feel free to make a suggestion at WP:ITN/C.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bit stressed there Fyre2387? ImmunolPhD 16:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not particularity, no, just stating a fact. Thanks for the concern, though.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dean isn't a hurricane but only a tropical storm. If you really want big and bad storms, please go this way... --Howard the Duck 16:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Well, Typhoon Sepat isn't mentioned on the main page either. Are you going to wait until it hits land? Dean has already hit land, and is now a threat to major cities Like Santo Domingo and Houston. Typhoon Sepat is already starting its weakening phase, while Dean is expected to continue mostly strengthening over the next few days. Dean could easily become the strongest North Atlantic hurricane since 2005, it's already a major hurricane. It may as well be on the main page...soon. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dean is now on ITN. Also, Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland and Washington, D.C. is today's featured article, so it is obvious that there is a BLATANT HURRICANE BIAS in Wikipedia. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And Typhoon Sepat (2007) may be up next on ITN. (See WP:ITN/C.)

Talk about Windocentrism !!!!! --PFHLai 06:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about windo... seems to me it's bigostormocentrism. No one's writing about the minor storm we're having in Auckland or the light breeze they're having in KL Nil Einne 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL. 8D --PFHLai 05:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Not too many people claim topicocentrism unless it is about a country... and dinosaurs. --Howard the Duck 00:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Or catfish....  :-) --PFHLai 05:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Or cricket, football (soccer to some), space (okay that one was never serious) Nil Einne 08:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Eurovision... --Howard the Duck 16:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I remember that but I thought it was somewhat connected to Europe. Then again, cricket tends to be connected to supposed British Commonwealth bias and even football is sometimes connected to British-centrism somehow. I did forget fish though. Nil Einne 17:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

69.33.74.119, there is no "top story" on MainPage. The top line on ITN is simply the most recent item that has qualified for an appearance, as per Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. The items are listed chronologically, with the oldest item disappearing at the bottom as new ones appear on top. --PFHLai 06:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

2 million article

hi sory my english not that good. will there be main page notice about 2,000,000 articles when we hit mark? i know there was celebration for 1,000,000, but what about 2 milion? 69.115.13.5 01:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Party. My place. BYOB. Antimatter--talk-- 02:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been brought up several times recently. General consensus is that it isn't a big deal. After we reached one million the focus is more on quality than quantity. Out of those two million articles it's said that the vast majority are unreferenced stubs. Big round numbers aren't particularly notable except for those of us with ten fingers. --Monotonehell 04:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I was about to contradict that, but I decided to hit "random article" ten times... 8/10 were stubs, 9/10 were unreferenced(!!) Still, it might be worth a small mention. Grandmasterka 05:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

2,000,000 articles might be worth a "small mention?" Tim Q. Wells 06:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Explain why.... ;) --Monotonehell 06:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We will have created one million articles since March 1, 2006. Tim Q. Wells 07:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Today we've created one million articles since 15 February 2006 (or something) Nil Einne 08:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Where should this go then? --Monotonehell 09:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple: when the counter hits 2,000,000 make the text on it BOLD. Otherwise, the main page should be unaltered. Antimatter--talk-- 14:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually tink it be mention on main page somewhere and it be in bold. 69.115.13.5 15:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

How about placing it on DYK for like 2 days... --Howard the Duck 16:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you going to delete the wikipedia article and start again? Nil Einne 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, since it's "special," we'd highlight a different fact on every DYK update. --Howard the Duck 03:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent)It will be an event which promotes considerable press-coverage, so I think we should certainly show it in some way... I've created a test page to highlight one possible solution (a small banner; nondescript but still clearly noticable); feel free to edit it. Laïka 17:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I imagine we'll use the built-in banner like last time. Cheers. --MZMcBride 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what we did for 1,000,000; it's a bit bright, which is why I've used TFA green for the proposed banner. Laïka 17:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I like that. Maybe a tad smaller though Antimatter--talk-- 17:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I love it. --Boricuaeddie 17:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that that banner was taken down rather quickly after the event generated no press coverage. I expect the press will care equally little about two million as they did about one million. Atropos 17:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Who said it's only for the press? --Boricuaeddie 17:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally this is what I think we should do User:Nil Einne/Wikipedia:Main Page test Nil Einne 18:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I care about having 2,000,000 articles. How many encyclopedias have done that? I know we have to improve existing ones, but creating new ones is just as important, IMO. --Boricuaeddie 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Boricuaeddie. Tim Q. Wells 18:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nil Einne, do you mind if I fiddle the wording on that a bit, to try and find a compromise? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's not a very good approach. We don't need to downplay it, 2 million is an achievement and we can be proud of it and enjoy it. Sure, improving articles is important, but there's no need to go the "2 million? yeah, ok, so what?" approach.... -Elmer Clark 19:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to downplay it; I want to try and work something out that shows off the achievement, while still pointing out that we want quality, too. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Blech. Please just don't do anything. The only people who care are editors; the main page is not written for editors. Post it at the community portal or something if you have to. Atropos 20:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No I tink you wrong Atropos. It not just for editors we should be proud of acomplishment and how we work together. We should do the banner. It not to big but not to small. 69.115.13.5 21:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who has an accomplishment to be proud of is an editor. Readers are the consumer, they did not contribute to the encyclopedia. Atropos 23:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is defiantly true, but I don't think readers would mind a small announcement stating that we have now 2 million articles. The important thing is to keep it small and humble. If reaching X million articles was common I would agree with you. Jeltz talk 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. As a reminder, this is whaqt we did when we got 1.5 million articles for 2 minutes: [1]. If we celebrated our 1.5 m article, we should celebrate our 2 m article. Also, I clocked random article 20 times, and I found 14 stubs (70%), 5 pages with no references or links whatsoever (25%), 2 articles with a tag at the top (10%), 4 articles without talkpages (20%), 10 biographies (50%), 1 created within the past month (5%), 2 with any edits within the past week (10%), 1 with a talkpage with more edits than the article (5%), 13 with no images (65%), 1 with potentially offensive words or images (5%), and 4 articles that do not require scrolling on my computer to reach the bottom of the actual article (20%). What do you think about these stats? I think we should do a little something for the main page this labour-day-ish event. The wikipedians might want to be all technical about the insignificance of nice round numbers, but the general public likely won't. Wikipedia is generally among the top ten most visited sites in the world, and it would be nice if we did something to commemorate and notify. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean the one that was removed two minutes later with the edit summary "This is not how we do this"? I think that makes my case for me. Atropos 23:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It was removed with the edit summary "This is not how we do this" because the banner was put in the wrong place. Those types of banners belong on Template:Main Page banner. It was subsequently put there and resided there for three days (although that might be a bit on the long side). -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sure you did something to help improve those articles (or at least tagged them) while you were performing a survey of a far too small sample size (one 100,000th, that's a centimeter's part of a kilometer). Atropos 23:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So because the readers won't mind it it should be included? Anything included on the main page should either be encyclopedic content (which, as metadata, this is not) or assist the reader in navigating the sea of encyclopedic content we have accumulated, 2,000,000 articles I hear (which this does not do). Atropos 04:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) As stated above by Nil Einne, albeit possibly tongue in cheek, two million articles isn't such a big deal when, as suggested by AstroHurricane001's random survey, a vast majority of those two million are sub standard. 25% of 2,000,000 is 500,000. Not as great an achievement when you look at it objectively and focus on the reality not the statistic. Perhaps something like Nil Einne suggested but with the wording tweaked. --Monotonehell 23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I was asking his permsision to fiddle it higher up, but he doesn't seem to be on right now. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, do you really think I have that much time? That would give me a horrible headache (no offense)! I'm also pretty sure I don't want to have a case of Severe Acute Addictional Wikipedian's Sudden Penatrative Traumatic Migranative Radiational Electromagnetic Meningitial Abfunctional Brain Tumour Syndrome (I like to eat eat eat eepples and beeneenees...). I don't normally edit random articles, and if I did, there are thousands more I could edit, and I just don't have that kind of time. Also, surveying each article took about 3 minutes, so I can't possible examine, like, 10 000 edits a day! Besides, I'm not that wikiholic, even my my highest score was actually under 10000, and I have less than 2000 edits, although I haven't taken it in a long time. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to complain to Wikipedia readers that many of our articles are poor in quality. All we need is a short message taking little space, and to the point: "Wikipedia thanks its contributors for over 2,000,000 articles." Tim Q. Wells 02:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

By that logic we don't need to put it in "reader space" at all. --Monotonehell 05:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Laïka's suggestion. Succint, measured, perfect. Recurring dreams 09:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay my suggestion was more tongue-in-cheek then serious but it did occur to me that we should have something a bit like that if we're going to mention the 2 million articles thing. Since I'm thankfully not the only one, I've modified it to a more serious suggestion User:Nil Einne/Wikipedia:Main Page test. Feel free to change it as you see fit. I've included a few comments in the talk page there too. Nil Einne 13:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite get the idea of Wikipedia thanking its contributors. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it has no feelings and no means to express them. If Wikipedia is its contributors, it would be saying thanks to itself. Thus, any sentence like that sounds formulaic and fake to me and perhaps to other people too. --cloviz 13:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, how about my edit to Nil Einne's test? --Monotonehell 13:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's not festive enough? I thought about: "The English language Wikipedia now has articles on over 2,000,000 subjects. An abstract being (i.e. people that make comments on the Main Page discussion page) congratulates all contributors who use the decimal numeral system and are fond of round numbers." But it happened to be a bad joke.--cloviz 14:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

you know whats a good cause for celebration? My birthday which is today. TaylorLTD 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Censorship on the main page?

From the main page:

Old Dan Tucker" is a popular American song. Its origins remain obscure; the tune may have come from the oral tradition, and the words may have been written by songwriter and performer Dan Emmett. The blackface troupe the Virginia Minstrels popularized "Old Dan Tucker" in 1843, and it quickly became a minstrel hit, behind only "Miss Lucy Long" and "Mary Blane" in popularity during the antebellum period. "Old Dan Tucker" entered the folk vernacular around the same time.

From the article itself:

"Old Dan Tucker", also known as "Ole Dan Tucker", "Dan Tucker", and other variants, was a denigrating American popular song of the antebellum period, conventionalizing the then-common blackface comic travesty of Black people. Its origins remain obscure; the tune may have come from the oral tradition, and the words may have been written by songwriter and performer Dan Emmett. The blackface troupe the Virginia Minstrels popularized "Old Dan Tucker" in 1843, and it quickly became a minstrel hit, behind only "Miss Lucy Long" and "Mary Blane" in popularity during the antebellum period. "Old Dan Tucker" entered the folk vernacular around the same time. Today it is a bluegrass and country music standard.

So why the rewrite? I thought Wikipedia wasn't censored? --293.xx.xxx.xx 02:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When an article attains featured status, it gets archived, and that edition of the article can go onto the main page as TFA, what your looking at is that archived version, and subsiquent edits are living strong on the actual article. --Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 03:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the version from which the main page blurb was culled. Raul654 03:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I object

It is a thing of great disrespect and moral degeneration,if the event of 21th August 1968,the invasion of Czchoslovakia by the armies of the Warsaw pact and the subsequent ocupation are not mentioned to have ocured on this day.If it remains so,It will be yet another disapointment,out of many,with Wikipedia.Is a stolen Mona lisa,witch was uncovered two years later more important,then an invasion of a 15 milion country by five armies and a subsequent ocupation,leading to a restored dictature,lasting over 21 years?My grandfather was not allowed to teach anymore,because he openly opossed the ocupation, thousands of people lost their jobs or were sent to prison-ive seen people who were banned from their workplace,just because a russian soldiers opened fire on them and another man,who was forced to pay a fine (for "purposely damaging soviet property") ,when a rusian tank hit his car and injured him.Many people were left with lifelong consequences and the head of government was,prior to this,kidnapped into Moscow for "negotiation".Also note that this was presented as a "allied asistance",against the "creeping contra-revolution" and it was thereafter praised as an act of salvation of our "socialist nation" from "falling into the hands of western fascists and imperialist".Please respect this.

New Babylon 2 13:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For the past couple of years, the Prague Spring article has been posted on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/August 20, yesterday's "On this day" page [2] because, I assume, Prague Spring#Occupation currently says, "On the night of August 20' - August 21, 1968, Eastern Bloc armies from five Warsaw Pact countries invaded the ČSSR." (emphasis added) [3] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you click on the More events on this day... link at the bottom of the "On this day..." section and scroll down to 1968, you'll see that the event you refer to is mentioned to have occured on this day. Of course you might want it to be more prominently displayed...I personally have no idea how it's decided which events are displayed on the main page proper, but I doubt it's decided by "importance" and am sure no slight was intended. 24.22.163.169 13:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Things are not placed on the main page because of their significance. Atropos 23:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I was under the impression that only events "of moderate to great historical significance" were chosen. But if we're not going by significance, can someone add my birthday then? 17Drew 23:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, only be sarcastic when you aren't obviously missing the point. While there is a minimum requirement for inclusion, things are not included on the main page because they're the most "important." As cute as I'm sure you think you're being, the hyperbolism is just annoying. Atropos 00:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining the point then? The main are that chosen items must be "of moderate to great historical significance" and that the article isn't a stub. Items most certainly are chosen because of their importance, and in this case, the event was included in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/August 20 because it is an important, non-stub article. 17Drew 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought that while items must be "of moderate to great historical significance" that They were chosen from within that set arbitrarily for variety and interest? --24.2.176.64 00:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about that, Atropos? Articles with maintenance tags and other deficiencies tend to be excluded from the selected anniversary section, but as far as I know items are placed because of their significance. (Yes, yes, variety of topic and/or location is nice, but significance is still a major factor.) -- tariqabjotu 03:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is both those factors: international significance and whether the bolded article is well-written. You probably would not never see "Franklin Pierce was elected as the 14th President of the United States." But if September 11, 2001 attacks is under a heavy POV edit war, like it currently is now, it will not be on there (unless someone finds another way to rewrite the blurb so another article is featured and bolded). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)