Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

Main Page toolbox
Yesterday February 1	Today February 2, 2012	Tomorrow February 3
TFA	TFA	TFA
SA/OTD	SA/OTD	SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.	POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.	POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.
Today's featured list (Mondays only): requests
In the news: candidates · discussion · admin instructions
Did you know: suggestions · prep area · queue
Protected main page images Protected pages associated with Main Page articles
Error reports · General discussions · FAQ · Help · Sandbox
It is now 16:08 UTC Purge the Main Page Purge this page

To report an error you have noticed on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below.

Please note the following:

• Where is the error?: The more specific you can be (an exact item, for example "item number 3 on DYK"; or a sentence) the faster an admin can find it.
• Be specific: Errors can be fixed faster when a correction is offered.
• References: Can be helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Consensus: Remember that the Main Page usually defers to supporting pages for accuracy or when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
• Time zones: Note that Coordinated Universal Time is used for the current date and time (16:08 on 2 Feb 2012), and this may not coincide with your local time zone.
• Should I use {{edit protected}}?: No. Using {{edit protected}} here will not give you a faster response, and in fact breaks the template when it is placed directly on the Main Page Errors page instead of on a talk page.
• Done?: Once an error has been fixed, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history to verify that the error has been rectified and for any other comments the administrator may have made.
• No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.

Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article

• Less error, more enhancement. No need to give a latest date for world rankings from back in September. They're accessible today: and Germany are still second --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Or, the phrase could be reworded to indicate that they have been ranked second since 2008, using this handy source. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The Main Page always defers to the supporting articles. Please correct this in the article first. Modest Genius ^talk 11:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Well clearly we're just pointing out the error....! You are able to correct the article (as you prescribe) as well as we are. And I wasn't aware that TFA blurbs were deferential to articles. But thanks for the info. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Errors in In the news

Aus Open

Its not the 100th women's tournament, which is a little deceptive their. perhaps move 100th to precede the "men's" bit. Could also add record-breaking before that.Lihaas (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Easier to just get rid of it. — Joseph Fox 02:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Or even easier to accept that it was the 100th Australian Open, regardless of whether women have been playing at the tournament those 100 times. Stephen 00:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Good pt. i guess hat was the first tournament, period. (umm, full stop!)

But theres not prose update (for which other noms have been removed on that basis alone) at the current article. some admin unilaterally got it into his dictatoprial policy todecide to change the nonm'sd Day-by-day summaries of the 2012 Australian OpenLihaas (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There were prose updates at the men's and women's tournaments sections, therefore it was ok. The day-to-day summary is currently on AfD and therefore not suitable for Main page. --Tone 10:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Port Said

The article has not 1 word of article prose on the incident itself, just background match info and reactions. it should be pulled asap till something of an updat is there.Lihaas (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day

What is going on??? Felicilijonas (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Felicilijonas, What do you mean? It looks OK to me. Could you be more specific? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

A popular Jet Fighter (F-16)?. A "popular" machine to kill people? "Popular among who?Pedron (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

tr7ue its derfinately pov, but when it gets inyto an admins head...power corruptsLihaas (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Popular amongst armed forces that purchase jet fighters (over 4,400 units produced, which from what I can tell is second only to the MiG-23). Do you have a suggestion for better phrasing? —howcheng {chat} 08:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I also agree thet "most popular" is a highly subjective POV characterization and, in my opinion, also offensive terminology. If you mean "best-selling", then say "best selling|. Dabbler (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

Reporters: please first correct today's or tomorrow's regular version.

General discussion

ITN picture

Seeing Salman Rushdie's face up there for an entire week is starting to give me nightmares.--WaltCip (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Rushdie may break Lugo's record on ITN (if it hasn't done so already)

Can we change the image? I think it's about to break the Fernando Lugo record (if it hasn't done so already). Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Except that Lugo was on twice, both for long stretches. —howcheng {chat} 01:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I was about to say, I don't think anything will be able to top Lugo for quite a long while.--WaltCip (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It was up for less than four days -- not that long -- but I've changed it anyway. -- tariqabjotu 02:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Lugo needs his own section on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me just say I wholeheartedly support this idea, as frivolous as it may be. We could do it for April 1st.--WaltCip (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Definitely! Top item for April Fools' ITN? Modest Genius ^talk 12:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, we could get his article up to FA status in time for April Fools', find something to get him on ITN, and get some new content to put him in DYK. I don't know there is a good OTD subject... j3anders (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This would be humorous only to tiny percentage of the main page's visitors. In recent years, we've agreed to confine inside jokes to editor-facing pages. —David Levy 18:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure we could come up with a humorous blurb that would amuse everyone. Modest Genius ^talk 09:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fernando Lugo is still alive?--WaltCip (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Village pump discussion about Talk:Main Page

Watchers of this page might be interested in chiming in at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Indefinite semi-protection of Talk:Main Page. Jenks24 (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Foreign languages

Something's got weird with the foreign language tags, not only in the Main page but at Wikipedia on its whole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.246.215.219 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was just fixed at the other pages but it is still a problem ath the Main Page...--46.246.215.219 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

FIXED!--46.246.215.219 (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Someone somewhere pressed the Big Red Button. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Request to be sensitive to ENGVAR issues on the main page

Of course this is a triviality compared to the sadness of the event itself, but I would request that the news segment on the violence in Egypt refer to an association football match, rather than just a "football" match. This is the accepted compromise for football (all codes) content on Wikipedia. --Trovatore (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed a piped link to Association football because this information is not directly relevant. (Which code of football was played before the deadly rioting broke out is an unimportant detail.)

I'm American, incidentally. —David Levy 01:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The piped link doesn't address my concern in any case. I think it should say association football in the text. I agree it's unimportant compared to the event, but that isn't my point. --Trovatore (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I considered switching to "association football", but because this term is unfamiliar to many, it requires a link to Association football. And the item is about deadly rioting (not the football match itself), so it seems inappropriate to include such a link (which has very little relevance).

My point is that it's unnecessary to specify which code of football was played. To comprehend the blurb, readers needn't possess this information (just as they needn't know which clubs participated or the name of the league to which they belong). —David Levy 02:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That is true, but beside the point. The point is that the term football should not appear anywhere in Wikipedia without being glossed at some point in the page. --Trovatore (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? —David Levy 02:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Because there are contingents that want football to mean their preferred code by default. The use of the term association football is part of a compromise that prevents the establishment of such a default, which would violate the spirit of WP:ENGVAR. --Trovatore (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

We have an Association football article. We also have a Football article, which pertains to football in general. In this context, conveying "football in general" is sufficient. We aren't assigning the word "football" to a particular code, nor are we setting any sort of precedent to not specify the code when it actually matters. —David Levy 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What about ACTA?

I'm interested in your answers to the questions I posted at the link above.

I also have one that I'd like answered here...

How come the blurb about ACTA on the Main page is so vague?

It mentions nothing about its target: the Internet. Or its similarity to PIPA/SOPA. Or the public's concerns about its negotiations not being transparent enough nor their being closed to public debate. The Transhumanist 02:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it's in In the News and space is limited. Anybody wanting to find out more about this can click on the link, where it's discussed in detail in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is electronic. Space is not limited. The Transhumanist 04:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is in this case, where we have only a fraction of the Main Page to fill. Curious visitors can click the link. — Joseph Fox 06:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)