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 21:22 on 13 October 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)

Today's FA

Today's featured article image is almost invisible in dark mode as it's a black image on a very dark background. 118.3.227.103 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Also invisible with the green-on-black gadget DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Just so that non-darkmode users can comprehend the problem, here's a link that shows the homepage in darkmode. I'll have a tinker. Schwede66 18:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed I've uploaded a jpg version of the logo. That replaces the transparent background with a white one – problem solved.

Why we host a GA as today's FA is beyond my pay grade, though. @TFA coordinators maybe someone from your team could resolve my confusion. Schwede66 18:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

GA? Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The logo is from Inside No. 9, which is a GA. The bold link, "The Riddle of the Sphinx", is an FA. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't have anything to do with October's selections, but this is a free image. The other one isn't. It's more relevant than pasting a photo of one of the actors, and there's nothing in the rules that says that the TFA image has to be in the TFA article. Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confused. I looked at Inside No. 9's rating... Schwede66 20:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I think your link only works in Vector2022, @Schwede66. This one also works if your skin is set to Monobook. —Kusma (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. DuncanHill (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Next DYK

• The hook about the "1961 Pittsburg State Gorillas" is perhaps more unintelligible to non-Americans than its writers intended. I would have appreciated links to "shut out and "All-Americans". Maybe a mention of the sport too. Or is the intention to be unintelligble so that we have to click through? I think such a policy applied consistently would soon undermine interest in DYK. JMCHutchinson (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've included the links. The ABF aspersions, on the other hand...  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Sorry to be dense, but what did you mean by "ABF aspersions" here? To add the sport, one might write "won three national American-football championships?". JMCHutchinson (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Try WP:ABF, Jmchutchinson. Schwede66 18:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Precisely. "Or is the intention to be unintelligble so that we have to click through? I think such a policy applied consistently would soon undermine interest in DYK." was unnecessary.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC), hon

Thank you both for the explanation. Actually I wasn't intending any irony, honestly. From earlier discussion on this page, I gather that there is now some reluctance to add links to DYK hooks so as not to distract from the bolded link, and complaints about unintelligibility have been countered by comments that this will encourage readers to visit the bolded link to find an explanation. It is an argument, and I genuinely thought that it might have been applied in the design of this hook. JMCHutchinson (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I often find American sport blurbs incomprehensible. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(October 18)

Monday's FL

(October 14, tomorrow)

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

Cut the crap, please

Someone get rid of that stupid goddamned advert on the top of EVERY SINGLE page please. Even "hiding" it doesn't remove it from my sight or screen. At least be truthful with them as well; stating that you don't use adverts to generate money in an advert used to generate money is just pathetic. I would have considered dropping something in the tin for you, but as you felt the need to be so rude and intrusive with your adverts, you can forget it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.92.119 (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to burden you. I'll bear it in mind. I'll try to come up with some way of not forcing you to visit Wikipedia and be assaulted by our vulgar appeals. Thanks for your input. Stanstaple (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP has a fair point about the Hide button not actually hiding it. That is pretty bad in my book. As a workaround, if you register an account there's an option in the preferences that turns all such notices off. Modest Genius ^talk 22:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the hide button works for me. What browser are you using? I also find it somewhat strange that we say we don't use adverts in an ad for donations. Either way, this is not the page for this discussion. --Yair rand (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the Hide button does not actually hide, it just makes it smaller (down to one line). And yes, you are correct, this is not the place for discussion, of which there has been plenty already. For the interested, try m:Fundraising_2009/Launch_Feedback Modest Genius ^talk 01:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It does hide it, it just doesn't hide it completely. Perhaps 'minimise' would be a better word choice, but hide is also a completely legitimate and accurate word in this instance IMHO and in any case wikipedia is hardly alone in this usage. Besides that, unless you're the IP, you're only guessing what he/she means and although the wording does suggest it, you could be wrong. IIRC, from previous years we've had complaints about the hide not working and while people have presumed they were just complaining because it doesn't disappear completely but in reality their problem is that there are some circumstances e.g. if cookies are disabled or when there were problems in the code when the hide button either doesn't work at all, or only works for a single instance. If the IP is having this problem then it he/she can probably get help somewhere. Obviously more info would be needed in any case. Nil Einne (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I might add that we do not use third-party advertising, that is other companies/organisations do not give us money to show adverts for them on this site. If they did I'm sure Wikipedia would earn a lot of money from it, however it would undermine our integrity and clutter the site hugely, thus it is not done. When you're provided with an incredible free source of knowledge by a charity such as this, one unobtrusive hideable banner at the top of the page is practically hiding the donation requests. You might want to learn not to be so ungrateful next time somebody gives you something for free and asks if you might consider helping them back. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we have a de facto ad for Virgin something a couple years ago after they donated money? --NE2 05:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Unite. -- Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'ad' wasn't actually about them donating money per se but about them matching donations. Also we 'advertised' an anonymous friend before we 'advertised' Virgin Unite IIRC Nil Einne (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

FIRST, FLOQUENBEAM - NO PERSONAL ATTACKS IN THIS ONE. JUST A GENERAL OUTRAGE. AND NOW ON TO MY QUESTION:

WHAT IS THE OPTION IN THE PREFS TO PROPERLY HIDE THAT SLIMY BEGGING APPEAL? I HAVEN'T LOGGED-IN IN A LONG TIME (MAINLY BECAUSE TOO MANY BELL-ENDS TOOK OVER THIS PLACE - YOU DON'T DESERVE MY UTTER GENIUS, SO I'M CONTENT TO WATCH FROM THE SIDE LINES) BUT I'M FED UP ENOUGH WITH THAT SHAMELESS ADVERT TO SETTLE FOR LOGGING-IN FOR A WHILE IF THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET RID OF IT PROPERLY. AND NOW, A DISCLAIMER OR TWO...

1) I'M WRITING IN CAPS BECAUSE THIS SEEMS LIKE AN OLD THREAD AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF CATCHING SOMEBODY'S EYE. 2) I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO'S DISILLUSIONED WITH THIS PLACE. SEE HERE 3) JUST LOOK AT HALF OF THE COMMENTS MADE BY (SORRY - I'VE BEEN GAGGED) ON THIS PAGE - NOW TRY TELLING ME (SORRY I'VE BEEN GAGGED) AREN'T BELL-ENDS... 4) (redacted by one of the bell-ends) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnOw (talk • contribs) 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My preferences --> Gadgets --> Browsing gadgets --> Suppress display of the fundraiser banner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Australian bias

Oh snap, two Australian related FAs in two days. Cue the obligatory Australian bias complaints... Or maybe all the complainers have moved on to vandalising the articles? Nil Einne (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Third day in a row. Aussies have kidneys too. –Howard the Duck 10:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd current event related type kidney connection thingy for those who like these things — a proud non-Australian kidney after winning an award. --candle•wicke 12:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

However, there is an Australian connection to that... ): --candle•wicke 12:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the count is up to four, unless Australians have replaced their use of coenzymes with an alternate form of biology. What is even stranger though, considering the "vast sums of money" to be made by via product placement, is why the start of the Christmas shopping season has not been dominated by video games and other retail products. I can only wonder if our FA Director has a new girlfriend from down under;-). --Allen3 ^talk 12:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Caversham today? This is obviously some sort of conspiracy involving users from the southern hemisphere. --candle•wicke 01:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

who created wiki

Who created this wonderful place? Who ever you are I love with all my heart and you are my personal hero!!! XOXOXOXO <3 XOXOXO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.143.121.245 (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually has an article on the History of Wikipedia. APL (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome ;)Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically, we all create Wikipedia (including the readers) Jackiespeel (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking a look at 168.143.121.245 shows why the user loves Wikipedia. Except for a particular user, it seems. . . 79.79.84.3 (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

When will VandaliseWiki be set up 'for all those people who enjoy such activities'? (As distinct from 'weak jokes and similar purusits', the occasional 'fingers in a twist' and 'enlighten my ignorance' type questions) Jackiespeel (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For this purpose, may I suggest Conservapedia... 168.9.120.8 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately most people are too liberal/open-minded, 'wrong sort of Conservative', 'proper socialist', Fifth Internationalist, still have a sense of humour... etc to be accepted. The Vandalimpedia would be a Thomas Hobbes' style environment, of the war of all against all, where name-life is nasty, bruitish and short. Or the Wiki equivalent of Limbo, and soapbox/hobbyhorse wiki for other groups.(being slightly tongue-in-cheek)

Anyone care to develop the thought exercises? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The maturity of some of the replies here equal that of original person who posted the question who I have a strong impulse to report for abuse as a "cheerleader vandal." Last week I didn't even know Conservapedia existed and now this week I'm seeing it here somewhere on a daily basis, usually in the same line as "vandalize." I consider it disgraceful that some editors here overlook calls for people to vandalize the particular Wiki whereas everybody here is complaining about the immaturity of those who encourage Wikipedia vandalism at Encyclopedia Dramatica and 4chan. Whether any one editor agrees with them or not, anyone encouraging vandalism to the wiki is encouraging a form of internet abuse, the same kind of abuse we try to fight at WP:ABUSE. Alas, if it's okay to encourage trolling at Conservapedia because some people disagree with them, it should be perfectly okay for me to post links to the Myspace and Facebook profiles of the Charlotte Tarpon and Lemon Bay Manta Ray cheerleading squads and ask everybody that reads this to hound them with the C - United Nations - T word. After all, their vandalism is the reason Wikipedia is blocked from Charlotte County Public Schools; they are nasty, evil, subhuman creatures, right? Oh wait a minute, if I as much as identified them by their first names along with such comment I'd be blocked for violation of WP:OUTING. Honestly, there's certain things at Conservapedia that I don't agree with either, and I'm as conservative as they come, but there's still no excuse for the encouragement of malicious activity, and there's no excuse for those of us who allow such trolling to remain in this encyclopedia project, just as there would be no excuse for someone to encourage the vandalism of a liberal wiki. Personally, I wouldn't even encourage vandalism at an Osama Bin Laden operated wiki as it's very immature, although I might report the IP to the authorities. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. "C United Nations T" word. Maybe because them Conservatives are the enemy. –Howard the Duck 03:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Antwerps?

I noticed there is no Wikipedia in Antwerps (I don't know the English equivalent) there is nor any article about it except these in French Dutch and Esperanto: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anversois http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antwerps http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antverpena_lingvo I am volounteer to create one, as I perfectly know (not speak, but know!) this language. How can I do to create a wiki? Thanks for reading, ChOm1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChOmuno (talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it sufficiently different to Dutch/Flemish to warrant its own wikipedia? According to the nl:Antwerps article (and my limited reading of Dutch) it's a very minor variant, I'm guessing no more than Scouse or Geordie is different to standard English. Nevertheless, the process is described at Meta:Language proposal policy. Modest Genius ^talk 23:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello modest Genius, I am sure that it's far different than Dutch, because of its very different pronounciation (which is badly described by the Dutch Wikipedia), grammar, and vocabulary, which has different sources, more French-worlds-originately than in Dutch for example. Groetjes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.96.83.138 (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Modest Genius. I affirm that the difference between Dutch and Antwerpsh (I assume there is no English word...) is the same than between Scots and English, and a Wikipedia in Scots exist so... I'd be happy to make one and follow the informations of the Meta. Thanks!(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

To propose a new Wikipedia language, see here. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Banner at top.

Hello. Middle click (open in new tab) does not work on the donation banner. I found this confusing because I normally browse wikipedia by following links in tabs. I suspect many other people do too. I hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.238.2 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too. The reason is that the link isn't actually a link to a page, instead it executes a javascript function when clicked that take you to the page. No idea why they did it that way though. Ose (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Something to do with the geolocation that takes some people to local donation pages perhaps? Modest Genius ^talk 23:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Prince George Washington???

Obvious vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.83.197.151 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(for context). While I think DYK hooks like this are trying too hard to be clever, it isn't vandalism. See Vichaichan#Early life. Whether a confusing hook like this should stay up as-is can be addressed at WP:ERRORS, if you're inclinded to pursue it further. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO, hooks should not be intentionally misleading like that except for the annual April Fools' silliness. Modest Genius ^talk 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the article is clear that he is sometimes referred to by that name- seems like a valid hook to me. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)