Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

Main Page toolbox
Yesterday January 28	Today January 29, 2012	Tomorrow January 30
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 08:04 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 (08:04 on 29 Jan 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 In the news

Croatia's accession is not yet a fact. The majority of voters (it would also be true to say that voters, about ⅓ of them, opposed) supported the country's proposed accession to the EU. Kevin McE (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Fox corrected this, and then David Levy removed anything that indicated the majority decision. It is meaningless simply to state that voters supported something: voters also opposed it. The only relevant fact is that a majority of voters supported it. Kevin McE (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't revert to the previous wording ("voters support"). I switched to "voters approve" (a collective act that cannot occur without a majority supporting). Because this was a binding referendum (not a non-binding referendum intended to gauge support), the key fact is that the proposal was approved (and therefore will take effect).

The wording "the majority of Croatian voters support" was grammatically problematic (because "majority" is singular, at least in American English) and ambiguous (because it could be interpreted to mean that a majority of eligible voters supported the proposal, which isn't so). —David Levy 21:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The singular/plural issue is a red herring that could easily be resolved by rephrasing (necessary only because of ITNs continued insistence on pretending to be news headlines and using the present historic). Someone who does not vote is not a voter, even though they might be part of the electorate: a majority of voters did approve the proposal, even though the majority of the electorate didn't even bother expressing an opinion. Kevin McE (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The singular/plural issue is a red herring

On the contrary, it's what led me to edit the item, at which point I noticed the other issues — including that there was no indication of the referendum's binding nature.

Before I visited the article, the blurb's wording left me with the impression that this was a non-binding referendum intended to gauge public sentiment. Otherwise, why mention the "majority" response without stating that it brought about the proposal's approval?

that could easily be resolved by rephrasing

And that's exactly what I did. So what's your objection?

You noted above that "it is meaningless simply to state that voters supported something", but my wording (which predates that message) doesn't contain the word "support".

(necessary only because of ITNs continued insistence on pretending to be news headlines and using the present historic).

Indeed. As we've discussed previously, I agree that past-tense wording should be used instead.

Someone who does not vote is not a voter, even though they might be part of the electorate: a majority of voters did approve the proposal, even though the majority of the electorate didn't even bother expressing an opinion.

"Voter" is defined as "a person who votes" or "a person who has a right to vote" (or simply as "a person who can or does vote"). A statement that "the majority of Croatian voters support[ed]" something can be interpreted to mean that a majority of the Croatian electorate expressed support. —David Levy 11:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

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

General discussion

Joe Paterno's death

Should we include Joe Paterno's death in the "In the News" section? Yes, he was under a dark cloud the last year of his tenure, but he's still arguably the greatest college football coach ever. His death is pretty significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCodeman4 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, this is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Death_of_Joe_Paterno, in case you would like to observe or take part. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's too late now - it's old news. But I'd have to say it was far more important an event for the english wikipedia main page than Rushdie cancelling an engagement. Seriously? Pull your heads out guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

To each his own. For example, I for one haven't the slightest idea who this Paterno chap was, bar the allegations last year. — Joseph Fox 16:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And Etta James' death is still up there, but no mention of Paterno? Come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

MOTD

Hello, to everyone. I'm Dipankan001, and I'm from MOTD (Motto of the Day) Group. It's totally a voluntary group. I, on the behalf of MOTD, are requesting administrators to put this into the Main Page at the bottom- {{Motd Bold}}.

This produces

Today's motto...

→ Programmer - an organism that turns coffee into software.

Can anybody please do it? Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 12:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Materialscientist (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipankan001 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  I had a look at it and can list several reasons for opposing, but I believe it is you who should convince the community why this template should be added. Materialscientist (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Totally non-encyclopaedic. FerdinandFrog (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not clear on how this endeavor even pertains to Wikipedia. Today's motto and the others that I viewed have no apparent relevance to the project (though you're welcome to explain why "Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!", You won't bore him, honey. You won't even get a chance to talk.", "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." and Ah, thank you, Buzz off to you too." are suitable Wikipedia mottos).
  Please note that a new addition to the main page requires consensus within the Wikipedia editing community, not approval by administrators (who possess no special authority to make such decisions). —David Levy 12:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• I'm against this change too, mostly since MOTD regularly and without remorse rips our copyright policies apart. — Joseph Fox 14:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, aside from not being encyclopedic and not following copyright policies most of the examples given here aren't even mottoes. A quotation is not necessarily a motto. --Khajidha (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Adding something like that really looks immature. I really think we should try to look professional on the Main Page.~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  
• Oppose - Not even close to being accurate. Coffee becomes piss, not software. Total mis-understanding of human anatomy. Kiltpin (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I helped revive the MOTD project years ago, but I completely agree that it's utterly unsuitable for the Main Page. Completely unencyclopaedic, riddle with narrow-audience injokes that only work for subsections of the active editing community, and just not at all representative of Wikipedia. I still like the project (despite a certain lack of originality after 6 years) and am happy to have it on my userpage - but that's all it was intended for, people's userpages for a bit of fun. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote of the day?

What about to add a section in the main page with a "guote of the day" picked from wikiquote just like the italian wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilthanas91 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why including one particular sister project's material on our main page (thereby essentially presenting non-Wikipedia content as though it's part of Wikipedia) is desirable.

What might make sense, as I've commented in the past, is a section containing rotating content from our sister projects in general, serving as a promotional tool that benefits all of them.

In fact, it appears that this is what the Italian Wikipedia is doing. The section in which a Wikiquote quotation appears is titled "Dagli altri progetti" ("From other projects") and also contains material from Commons, Wikinews and Wikisource. —David Levy 17:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the picture of the day always from commons? (though I suppose the featured picture process takes place here, making that a moot point). We also have a fairly prominent link to wikinews in the ITN section. Hot Stop^UTC 00:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As you note, the featured picture process is local (and based upon criteria specific to the English Wikipedia, including a requirement that images appear in English Wikipedia articles). The files are hosted at Commons to enable their availability to all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. Commons has a separate POTD process.

Our main page includes links to nine sister projects, which is very different from displaying their content.

The ITN section contains an additional link to Wikinews because readers commonly mistake ITN for a news ticker. In previous discussions, some have questioned whether the link actually increases confusion by appearing to label the section "Wikinews" (evidenced by some users' references to ITN by that name) or otherwise blurring the distinction between the two projects. —David Levy 11:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If quotes are sourced from a copyrighted work, we have the burden of establishing fair use. Since we cannot have fair use material on the main page, I don't see this happening. — Edokter (talk) — 11:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We could, however, include free quotations in a section containing rotating content from various sister projects. —David Levy 12:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Burns Night

Why isn't Burns Night in Scotland mention for today's date 25th January 2012. For us Scots, this is a day bigger than St Andrews' Day. I'm sorry if I've placed this complaint in the wrong section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.193.146 (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Burns supper article is ineligible because of maintenance issues (see Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries#Criteria for listing items on this set of pages #8) and thus was omitted. Later, someone suggested that we just link to Robert Burns directly, which I did, at about 22:35 UTC. —howcheng {chat} 00:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

News

Any reason why the lead news item (EU embargo on Iran) is not updated in the article it links to? 208.106.47.200 (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who initially updated the article. Since then, several other Wikipedians have contributed to it. Would you elaborate on what may be missing?--WaltCip (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Related discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Publicize featured content feeds?. Max Semenik (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Horse racing in "Did you know?"

Is it just me or is there really a horse racing-related information in "Did you know" just about every day? I don't know, but this being the main page it seems to much of a niche subject to cover it all the time... 84.73.177.231 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC).

There are not enough horses "to cover it all the time..." DYK content depends on contribution from various Wikipedians. Related articles sometimes come in waves. We have more horses these days. We used to have lots of DYK articles on old churches in England, old houses in upstate New York, college football players, and local politicians in the US, .... Why don't you write up articles on topics you like and nominate them for DYK? With more varieties vying for the precious real estate on the main page, you may see the horses less frequently. --142.1.32.35 (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Did you know#Selection criteria. Variation is not a criterion. If many suitable horse racing-related articles are nominated in a period then many of them will be selected. The same goes for other topics. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have checked the criteria. However, I don't think many readers will do it. I did not mean offense, just interpret what I said as a hint that some readers might wonder. I think at least for readers variation would be a quite intuitive criterium. However, as 142.1.32.35 pointed out, I don't work here. I also have no idea how exactly you guys discuss things. Just do what you want. 84.73.177.231 (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)