Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

Main Page toolbox
Yesterday February 25	Today February 26, 2012	Tomorrow February 27
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.
		TFL (Mondays only)
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 08:15 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 (08:15 on 26 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

• Link Gepids in "their main neighbors, the Gepids". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Errors in In the news

Quran burning

Can we change US troops to ISAF troops as its technically ISAF and also npov without exact vrification of who did it. All troops at Bagram are not americans alone.Lihaas (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have been taken down by Tariq for reasons unknown (haven't asked him why, though). — foxj 06:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, copyvio. — foxj 07:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

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

• Today's picture, the Pine Siskin: "They grow 11–14 cm (4.3–5.5 in) in length" should be "They grow to 11–14 cm (4.3–5.5 in) in length". Fixed in the regular version.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Seem fixed, thanks. — foxj 05:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

Another day

Another tombstone. I'd rather nothing to them. ResMar 23:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The tombstone image was ridiculous. Why shouldn't a properly rationalised non-free image of the TFA subject be shown? I doubt that any worlds would collapse as a consequence. Brianboulton (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mario's initial post. As for Brian's, if we were ever to change our existing approach, it would surely have to be on a one-slip-and-we-stop basis. Would the Main Page operating within fair use law make much difference? Probably not. Would repeatedly being found to have used inappropriate fair use rationales on our most prominent page? Quite possibly. —WFC— 03:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This came up last week. My position hasn't changed - the ad Jimbonum ban on fair-use images on the Main Page is unreasonable and counterproductive. Modest Genius ^talk 11:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not much chance of it changing when we continue to get highly inaccurate offensive comments like that either. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean that you found my comments to be "highly inaccurate" and "offensive"? I can understand that you might not agree with them, but don't see how they could be offensive. Modest Genius ^talk 13:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

John Glenn

Shame on you for ignoring John Glenn on the 50th anniversary of his launch into Earth orbit! He inspired a generation of geeks, and not only in America. It was international news in 1962. If an oversight, it's not too late to update the Main Page, is it? All I would like to see is a mention in the "On this day" section. -- tbc (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Mercury-Atlas 6 is tagged, which dictates against its being featured on the Main Page. OTD gives no particular priority to round number anniversaries: it is just as eligible for posting on the 51st anniversary next year. Kevin McE (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Now I know I have to plan ahead and spruce up pages so they're ready to showcase. -- tbc (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we do prefer round-number anniversaries when possible. Unfortunately, as Kevin explained, the article is ineligible. The other rule we have is that one article can only be featured (the bold link) on one day a year, which is why the blurb doesn't highlight John Glenn; he's been reserved for October 29 (which currently has a small pool of potential candidates). —howcheng {chat} 19:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The date on the main page

A passing mention could be made of the palindromic nature of the date - 21.02.2012, as this won't happen again 'for a while.' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Even longer if you're a Yank! They use a different date system in the United States (and indeed they use completely different systems all over the world!). — foxj 11:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It could be linked to Palindrome#Dates. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should be highlighting such minor trivia on the main page. Modest Genius ^talk 13:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Should have mentioned it before so a link to the palindrome dates could have been included. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If we did that, though, we would need to mention 12.12.12, 31.02.2013... Anyway, "for a while"? Today, 22 February 2012, will never ever ever happen again. We don't comment on that, so why these? — foxj 07:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I am certain that if 31.02.2013 came around we would mention the extraordinary date somewhere one the main page. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.65.57 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It was the palindrome that was not going to repeat for a while - and 21.02.2012 #will# occur again, several times (depending upon which calendar one uses).

Perhaps there could be a (Rationalwiki funspace equivalent) to satisfy people's inner 12 year old fascination with strange dates etc (including 12.34.56 on 7/8/910 - if our system of dates and times had been around then).

In part trying to find a topic for the main page talk page that does not involve a reference to Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Skyscraper

Why does it say "that a Skyscraper won the Epsom Derby of 1789" when Skyscraper was the name of the horse? It make it sound like it is a literal skyscraper. Bzweebl (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that was the intention. Personally, I think it's a bit annoying when DYK does that (outside of April 1). Aside from being gimmicky and misleading, it waters down to novelty of the April 1 hooks. -- tariqabjotu 02:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And here I was, about to comment that I was looking forward to the resumption of the same debate on April 1. You beat me to it, Tariqabjotu. (Incidentally, I disagree with you, in that I think the is-it-a-vase-or-two-faces approach is never out of place. Keeps our cognitive abilities flexible.) - Tenebris 04:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.6 (talk)

Except the indefinite article before a proper name implies uncertainty. Might as well have written "Skyscraper possibly won what may be known as the Epsom Derby, maybe in 1789 or maybe not". Hooks shouldn't be worded like that on days other than 1 April. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Job well done

Most front page clips are of considerably higher than average quality, but special congratulations are due to those who are responsible for the OTD blurb "1987 – Light from the supernova SN 1987A ... reached the Earth." A welcome piece of precise wording! - Tenebris 04:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.6 (talk)

Not sure if this is snark or not. — foxj 06:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) What a cynical age; and (2) is genuine positive feedback really so rare? (And yet I do understand. In my experience, most people are quick to complain, but rarely as quick to compliment. So much of what masquerades as positivism these days is really cheerleading and/or determined blindness on one side, and sarcasm on the other. How can assuming the possibility of snark upfront be anything other than sheer self defence?) - Tenebris 13:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Read what you wrote again, I think you'll forgive my cynicism.
2. Well, yes, especially here... :( — foxj 13:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Without getting into a debate about context and perspective, can we just take it as read that I meant it at face value? - Tenebris 18:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.191 (talk)

Yes, and thank you. :) By the way, that precision was introduced by User:Howcheng (diff). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't even remember doing that... heh. —howcheng {chat} 00:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In the News

Shouldn't it be "At least 44 people" were killed? Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 08:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The section is written in the present tense. —David Levy 09:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought

I apologize if this isn't the place to post this. If it is not then it would be nice if someone could point me in the right direction. A tool I absolutely love on the main page is the random article section. However I sometimes find it a bit broad. I think it would be great to be able to do a random article for different categories that you could select. So it would be a random article, but in a category you are more interested in or are in the mood to read about. Art, history, politics, sports, etc, whatever categories could be thought of and decided upon. I'm not sure how feasible this would be, but I thought I would toss the idea out there. Thanks. --Politicsislife (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'Random link' link in the navigation menu on the left-hand side of the screen performs the function you have in mind; I think it also works for non-category pages. Hope this helps, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Your 'Random link' is not default. It's made by this line in User:Black Falcon/vector.js:

importScript('User:GregU/randomlink.js');

See more at User talk:GregU/randomlink.js and Wikipedia:Random. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh... I don't remember adding that. Anyway, thank you for pointing that out. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Christian Wulff

Shouldn't the photo of Christian Wulff be located adjacent to the blurb about him? In its present location, it looks like he's happy about the train crash in Argentina ... Rani nurmai (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry?. —David Levy 06:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

copy vio on main page - again

Does anyone actually bother checking the articles that are placed in the ITN section? The article 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests, in addition to being badly written (in the parts that were not copyvios) half consisted of stuff copy-pasted from various news agency reports.VolunteerMarek 05:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You realise of course that you are welcome to check the stuff coming through WP:ITN/C yourself? — foxj 07:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)