Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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 22:07 on 3 August 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 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.

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 the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 9)

Monday's FL

(August 5)

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.

General discussion

Oh no, Vitaly Ginzburg died!

Finally a worth the Main Page! And here I was thinking there was some rule preventing IMPORTANT deaths to be news items... I guess nobody IMPORTANT had died this year... until now, that is! 190.157.137.110 (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean like Michael Jackson [1], Omar Bongo [2] (who's death was I believe annouced prematurely Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 26), Corazon Aquino [3], Ted Kennedy [4] (who can forget the mess/fuss that created?), Roh Moo-hyun [5], Alicia de Larrocha [6] [7] and Raúl Alfonsín [8] [9] which doesn't count Velupillai Prabhakaran [10] and very likely misses a few others as I don't have a photographic memory and don't always check the main page/ITN and although I did search in the template history for death, this presumes someone used the word death in the edit summary in association with the death which they of course don't always, and did in fact miss Roh Moo-hyun (someone used suicide but not death) who I happened to notice (do remember now but probably wouldn't have otherwise), Alicia de Larrocha who I found from the ITN talk page and Raúl Alfonsín who I found by coincidence when looking for someone else. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There was another [11] only last week. --candle•wicke 21:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed just after I turned off my computer earlier I remembered another one. Couldn't be bothered starting it again but Noordin Mohammad Top [12] [13]. Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And then there was Les Paul [14]. --candle•wicke 19:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are frequent complaints that there are too many deaths on ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Some even try to remove them from ITN although the entries have been approved by consensus, while others keep adding certain deaths, usually American, even when they are not exactly supported by consensus. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to add balance before this discussion closes,I was very interested to know that Vitaliy Ginzburg had died, since I understand his importance and the importance of people like him in the real history that shapes our lives. As a counter example, like many people,I found the death of Michael Jackson an uninteresting and essentially boring matter. He was an ephemeral phenomenon, and did not shape history in any relevant way (except possibly the need for greater focus on childcare). Nice songs, but a mayfly. Remember that Wikipedia is for everyone. Michael of Lucan (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. Michael Jackson's music did help reshape musical history espeically in the United states. Michael Jackson's love of music and his drive to continue that love is what made him so popular. He wasn't afraid to be an individual and not conform and he let that side of him shine through his music and how he presented himself, dressed, etc. if there ever was one popular figure who thrived off of being unique and being himself as an individual, it was Michael Jackson.Storm norm (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Double agree that we shouldn't think that just because a person isn't important in our own lives doesn't mean that he wasn't important in others'. Michael Jackson is widely credited by Black Americans and also some outside the US for becoming the first black superstar. He paved the way, for example, for later black stars to get endorsement deals and other perks that had been denied to African-Americans in the past.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My point was in my last line. Contrary to what the original poster thought, Wikipedia is for everyone. It is also for those who know that Vitaliy Ginzburg was important - perhaps more important in the long run than Michael Jackson. That's what a real encyclopedia does. It covers stuff about everything, not just what you know about or have an interest in.Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ERROR tab?

I notice that a lot of people use this talk page to address errors on the main page. Is it possible, in order to resolve errors in a quicker manner, to add a tab solely for error reports? By that I mean one thus: "main page | discussion | edit this page | new section | report an error | history", or one visible from the main page itself. 79.79.17.155 (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP:ERRORS at the top of this page? Art LaPella (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One difficulty is that the tabs are determined by the MediaWiki software - you can't arbitrarily add tabs by editing the page contents. You'd have to modify the MediaWiki software itself. That's a significant undertaking for a change that's only going to be used by one page on one WikiMedia site. (On every other page, the talk page is where you're supposed to report errors, if you don't fix them yourself.) Practically speaking, there is little harm in people reporting errors on the main talk page versus the error page. It may not be as quick, but the errors get fixed. If it somehow disturbs you, you can always be bold and move them to the error page. As Art mentions, if people aren't seeing/aren't reading the links at the top of the page, it's unlikely that louder klaxons or an additional tab will change their behavior - at least, it's unlikely enough not to be worth altering the MediaWiki code. -- 128.104.112.237 (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it would be quite easy to do with some simple javascript. Ose (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem would be that everyone would posts all errors about anything there, not just those about the main page.--Macbi (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Forever banner

I find it rather ironic that there is the banner on Wikipedia saying "Knowledge Forever, Ad-Free Forever, Wikipedia Forever" and yet it is advertising itself and the fundraiser. Simply south (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a particular fan of "For your great, great, great, great grandson". Apparently Wikimedia is now forcing me to have children. There is a section at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Abolish_the_silly_headers where all criticism against the current campaign is encouraged to be posted. I guess it keeps this page clear of the mountain of posts it would get otherwise (or keeps it out of the public eye!) - Dumelow (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That Village Pump section is rather WP:TLDR now. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia Forever may be a better destination. Rd232 ^talk 17:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What about (great x several) grand-daughters and 'persons of other genders?' What if 2012 doomsday/computer clock bug/other scenario comes into effect. 22:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I just hope Wikipedia stops using Unix time.  GARDEN  10:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think both grand-daughter and grand-son versions existed. Now it just seems to be the "FOREVER" banners, for some reason. APL (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Past reports

If I report an error in "pic o' the day," for example, and the next day there is a new pic o' the day, how can I go back to see what comments were made subsequent to my report? Eh?

The only thing you can do is to comb the history of Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. howcheng {chat} 06:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Crappy featured picture

It had to be said. — RockMFR 00:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There is another fly as a featured picture. Décémbér21st2012Fréak  |  ^Talk 01:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

i dont think it was the fly that made it crappy :) -- Ashish-g55 01:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just keep in mind: Everybody Poops. :P --slakr^\ talk / 10:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Why Can't I start an article

Why wont it let me start an new article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.114.116 (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Due to you not having an account.  GARDEN  10:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There is always articles for creation if you do not wish to create one.  GARDEN  10:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do I need an account to create a page but not edit? "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit but not create" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.114.116 (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it was mainly an issue of exceeding an abuse-to-revert threshold. That is, while people can vandalize en masse through various means, the manpower and robotpower available to undo it is extensive—any editor can undo it. It can take as little as one click to commit an edit as well as revert it immediately—no matter the user level. When it comes to articles created for abuse, only administrators are able to delete them; so, whereas one click could create abusive articles, geometrically more would be needed to undo it. It's believed that the extra few steps of creating an account, plus the automated backend checks involved in doing so, helps to reduce the disparity. --slakr^\ talk / 10:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Thou it does not seem very welcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.114.116 (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course ANYONE can edit, and ANYONE can create, too, as ANYONE can register and make an account. It is free, but it doesn't mean without rules and procedures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.78.193.1 (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone is able to create an account, and there are some who are opposed to doing so for various reasons. As has been pointed out, there is articles for creation for those who are unwilling or unable to create an account but would still like to "create" an article. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity who is unable to create an account? APL (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering. Anakinjmt (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Those who have disabled cookies perhaps? Modest Genius ^talk 04:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

An IP address with an account creation block would not be able to create an account :) Calmer Waters 05:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

They could request an account in such an instance Wikipedia:Request an account and I presume it would normally be created for them unless the admin believes they are the person that got the IP blocked in which case it's fairly obvious there's a good chance they're not going to get an account. In any case they do need an e-mail address to do that. If the problems is cookies (although I'm not sure if a lack of cookies actually prevents the creation of an account) then they still won't be able to log in even if they have an account. Ultimately as I've said before when it comes to this level you can make philisophical arguments either way. For example someone without access to the internet can't edit anything. Even someone who does have occasional access to the internet is limited in their editing. (I've heard before suggestions of developing means for offline editing but it sounds like something that's a very long off, if ever developed especially given that AFAIK the offline readers are still rather limited.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

im unwilling to create one

Frankly, it's worth making an account for privacy reasons alone. I'm happy not having people be able to go through WP's logs and find all the IP addresses I've ever posted under. APL (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Get a free cookie! All you need is to ask please. What, you don't want to ask? You're "opposed" to asking for things? You want a cookie, but won't do the simple request to say please? So I will not give you a cookie. And yes, it is still a cookie anyone can have. 187.78.103.179 (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of Wikipedia articles...

(in millions), and then again 13.3M - that seems redundant. Surely, we don't have 13.3 million million articles...Cribananda (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What a super-deceptive banner. I thought that was the money-donated bar that had suddenly jumped up.

(Also, what happens when it hits 25.0M? Does WP close forever?) APL (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Doomsday is approaching! WAAAHHH! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume the last article will be a link to http://www.internetlastpage.com Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the banner makes us look horribly amateurish. However the proper place for this is at meta:Fundraising 2009/Launch Feedback (where it has already been brought up). Hopefully the fundraising team actually read that once in a while and will fix this soon - Dumelow (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)