Talk:Main Page

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 13:40 on 13 June 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

• Caption — Not a factual error, but Wreckage from the Battle of Villers-Bocage seems unduly vague. Suggest change to "Wreckage of a British Cromwell tank at the Battle of Villers-Bocage." – Sca (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Will expanding the caption increase the portion of the main page taken up by the TFA?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wehwalt, I suggest that this is a useful addition. I've just read the item and had the exact same uncertainty; is it the tank that we are talking about? If there's an imbalance of the main page as a result, that is easily fixed by adding or deleting something at OTD. In fact, I've just done so. It happens routinely. Balance concerns should never stop us from removing ambiguity. Schwede66 00:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it'll fit. Photo file says yes it's a Cromwell. I suppose "the Battle of" could be dropped from the caption for space, since the text begins with "The Battle of Villers-Bocage." – Sca (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

So? – Sca (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors with "In the news"

• Starliner – The Boeing Starliner spacecraft conducts its first crewed flight.... – Not a factual error, but "conducts" seems too anthropomorphic. Suggest change to "completes." – Sca (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• The mission isn't complete, though. Hence, that does not seem the right verb to use. Schwede66 03:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

'launches'? Modest Genius ^talk 11:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Anthropomorphic. -- Sca (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• French Open blurb
  • women's singles and men's singles should be lowercase
  • suggest adding "titles" after "men's singles"

Thanks. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 05:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I've dealt with that. In prose, I would also drop caps for "Men's" and "Women's"; what do others think. Schwede66 06:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Next DYK

... that Arthur Fulton, his father and his son all won the Sovereign's Prize for rifle shooting? There should be a comma before 'and'. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

do we enforce the oxford comma at DYK? not sure that's ever been a house style... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no house style respecting the Oxford comma on Wikipedia, although it is commonly used. In this context, "his son" refers to Arthur Fulton's son. Perhaps the absence of the comma makes it easier to parse. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Never mind the punctuation, the hook fact doesn't appear clearly in the article and requires considerable effort to piece together. It was approved as AGF and seems inferior to the primary hook:

• ... that Arthur Fulton became the first person to win the Sovereign's Prize for rifle shooting three times?

I reckon we can do even better:

• ALT2 ... that Arthur Fulton was a deadly sniper in the First World War and described as "the most famous rifle shot the world has ever known".

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 14, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(June 17)

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

Featured template?

Just an idea to have templates featured on the main page to show the diversity of work that is done on Wikipedia. I don't know what the criteria would be, but as a person who does a lot of work on templates, they could be shown some small appreciation. - LA @ 09:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Before it goes live on the main page, perhaps the work might be mentioned in the community portal, first. There are probably dozens, if not hundreds of separate projects of the type and scale you mention. If the mentions of these projects start as a trickle, and then swell into a flood, your efforts might then be seen for what they are, which might then build support for their appearance on the main page. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't support it on the main page, as it is not very useful to the reader. ffm 12:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't support it on the main page, as it is not useful at all to the reader. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't support it on the main page, as it is not even understandable to the reader. —David Levy 13:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

{{oppose-because-not-for-readers}} -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(but it may be a good idea for the Community portal.) -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good thought. Might be worth a shot there. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Daily Kitten

I wouldn't support it on the main page, as it contains insuffecient cats. Suggest we create a daily kitten feature () instead. Ceiling Cat (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Kitten of the Day proposal. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Support with change - How about a main page subpage with all the funny features. :) -[[Ryan]] ^{(me) (talk)} 17:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Support I like the kitten idea, just hope we have enough kitten pictures! And oppose the template on the main page idea. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-9-2008 • 18:20:42

Domestic cats breeding

Support Of course we have enough media for a featured kitten content. Like this one for instance:

Oh, no. Kitty porn! --Nricardo (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Support.  :) Raul654 (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Raul654 is a sockpuppet of User:Ceiling Cat; this is a violation of WP:SOCK. howcheng {chat} 21:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Meow MessedCat 20:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Mow. 86.144.151.47 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Meow. Now it's just time to wait for Kitty and all the have cats shown up. EvilCat (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Try Portal:Cats.Geni 00:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't stray out of topic. :-D (Support, by the way.) Waltham, The Duke of 17:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Geni's suggestion to redirect the Main Page to Portal:Cats. - BanyanTree 06:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It should include those adorable hairless cats:

The ugliest rat ever found

How could anyone say no to a face like that? Raul654 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait! Shouldn't a proposal like this be made at Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal? Spencer^T♦C 23:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! Ceiling Cat (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Cute blinking Support
  --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 23:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agree Partially I think that there should be a "animal of the day" instead of a "cat of the day". Imagine all the cat lovers, dog lovers , and (put your favorite animal here)lovers would think about that. It also could have another page, showing the 10's of today animals. or it can be divided into the 10 more popular animal pictures. Raupi (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support: As long as basement and other subterranean cats are well represented. Lucifer Cat (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  On the condition that this doesn't happen at the expense of upper-class cats... Waltham, The Duke of 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What about the bird lovers?

A pair of boobies

While I have no problem with a daily kitten, a cursory inspection of the Main Page history shows that the true demand is for images of cocks, tits, and boobies. Why not respond to the real demands of the community? --Allen3 ^talk 23:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That made me laugh quite heartily. Again, please see Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. Spencer^T♦C 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In the news picture

Pardon me if this has been brought up before, but I have to say that I find the picture placement for the "In the News" section disconcerting. It seems that the picture is rarely placed next to the news item it accompanies. I realize that news item that accompanies the picture has the "(pictured)" caption, but I still don't like the aesthetics of it. Usually I just bite my lip, but I had to say something after I momentarily thought we were saying that Salman Rushdie had been crowned Miss Universe.

My suggestion is that the news item with the picture should always be on top.--Kubigula (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2008 (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?. Please also note that items at ITN are listed chronologically. If you want this policy regarding the order of the news headlines on ITN changed (I don't like it, either), please go to Template talk:In the news and start a discussion there with the ITN crowd. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - very helpful response. I'll take a stab at it.--Kubigula (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if the reaction is somewhat negative. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 12:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Or completely negative. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-15 20:53Z

Kubigula is correct, we look collectively stupid every time the headline associated with the picture slips, and the lazy counterargument is that there are several infrequently-seen pages that would be affected in some way by fixing it; and no editor has the energy (including me) to get off their ass and fix it. I'll give you $1.00 US if you do. I'll note that the French Wikipedia handles this correctly. Tempshill (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that I've asked for a defense of this last assertion at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Main Page#French Wikipedia image alignment against evidence to the contrary, and have yet to receive a response. - BanyanTree 07:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

GH3?

OK, I know that half of Wikipedia users are nerds or computer geeks, but this has completely gone out of control. Guitar Hero 3 is featured?! Oh my god, this is outrageous! Have you ever seen an encyclopedia covering video games? That's what gamespot is for, but an encyclopedia is not the place to post video game reviews. Please, go read gamespot and stop posting video game content in Wikipedia! Oh, and here's the link: [1]  J.C.(talk) 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC).

Okay, I'll go first: Guitar Hero is featured, not Guitar Hero 3. Now the next person will point out a flaw in your reasoning, then another person will have a crack at it, and so on. It's an interesting routine, to be sure. Nufy8 (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Free encyclopedia, it's notable, yada yada. —Animum (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Any topic that is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia is notable enough to be a featured article and therefore to be on the Main Page. (There are some very small exceptions; Wikipedia was at one point a featured article and was classed among FAs that would never be on the Main Page, but that was to avoid self-aggrandizement.) —Verrai 01:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia can cover anything notable. The demographic is also interested in games. That's just a coincidence.  Marlith (Talk)  04:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea. GET INVOLVED. Go and comment about featured article candidates! Ɔrassic ^(talk) 04:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely MXER is being sarcastic here? At least, I hope so... Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Video games are a notable part of our culture, many individual video games are notable, and Wikipedia should not limit itself to topics that existed in 1911. Tempshill (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I see from your userpage you like U2, so remember the following sentence if you add anything about them: Go read NME and stop posting U2 content in Wikipedia. Or maybe you could learn to realise that not everyone has the same tastes as you? Jetekus (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so Dreaded Walrus, you're right. I'm being sarcastic. When I saw the Guitar Hero on the Main Page, I was going to write telling you that you should be ready for criticism, but then I decided to complain. But I was really close to taking my complaint seriously.--190.137.224.112 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to Wikipedia

On the Welcome to Wikipedia the Wikipedia is a redirect, can this not be changed to a direct link, or is there a reason for it going through the redirect? Darrenhusted (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be going through the redirect so that it can be protected. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Set up to track internet traffic? ... Can someone put this in the Main Page FAQ, pls? The question keeps getting asked. --76.64.77.19 (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The redirect has only existed since 8 July. And the redirect isn't protected. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. 76.64... is right- it was created so that it could be judged how much traffic was going to the article on Wikipedia from the main page. It's part of the main page redesign proposal- links used a lot are more likely to stay, links barely used will probably be axed. I forgot about that. J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I couldn't see a lock. Makes sense now. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Locks are added manually after the protection- it's not an automatic thing. J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

See the conversation at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_124#Changing_links_on_main_page for more information about the link changes. Spencer^T♦C 20:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be automatic, though. I've often come across protected pages which were not marked as such; it is at least confusing and at most misleading. I've had half a mind to propose such an automation, but haven't acted on it yet. I posted a thread in the Village Pump some weeks ago, but there was very little feedback. Waltham, The Duke of 15:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK Bird eye image

Is it just me, or is that picture really freakin' creepy? Can we change it to Image:Hawk eye.jpg? And yes, I'm fully aware of that "not censored" stuff, I just wanted to ask if it could be changed. bibliomaniac15 17:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the DYK text is talking about the eyelids which are not illustrated by your suggested image. And the image currently there, I find excellent. Tempshill (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Move main page to Wikipedia namespace

Copied from Wikipedia Talk:Village pump (technical):

I would like to propose that we move the Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page. This would offer a number of benefits, including:

• Causing the top-left tab to read "project page" instead of "article"
• Making it easier to make a mass-copy of Wikipedia's articles without picking up project-specific pages like the main page

There would of course be a redirect from Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page, and we could even hide the "redirected from Main Page" notice using CSS, making the transition virtually seamless. The German Wikipedia has actually already moved their main page to the Wikipedia namespace and it is working great for them. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I find illogical that the Main Page be in the article namespace, too, but wouldn't this proposal belong to Talk:Main Page? --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  09:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

--A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  09:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page is at the Main Page namespace. --Howard the Duck 09:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Been propopsed many times the answer is no.Geni 11:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no harm in discussing it again. I've been hanging around this talk page for a long time, and, personally, I've never really seen a great argument either way. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Argument Summary

Here's a summary of one of the "for" arguments from last time:

• If someone writes a book/movie/play/etc called Main Page, will we have to put a disambig? People are already confused that they cannot get to Homepage by typing in Main Page, we should start the transition now so we can avoid namespace conflicts in the future.

Against (I'm biased, someone else want to write a better one?):

• It will cause everyone to have to update their bookmarks. ffm 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it won't, since a redirect from Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page can be created. --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But...if its just going to be a redirect anyway, won't that pretty much defy the whole point of moving it?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A soft redirect could be created alerting users to update their bookmarks during a transition period. Lympathy ^Talk 15:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• It isn't broke and doens't need fixing. ffm 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Better point... :-) (See also Why is Main Page in the main namespace?.) --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page is on its on mainspace. As for Talk:Main Page... --Howard the Duck 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian (Magyar) Wikipedia

The 100,000th article has just written in the Hungarian Wikipedia. Please move it to the correct section. Thanks! Quisczicza (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 14:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia

The 300,000th article was just written in the Russian Wikipedia. Please move it to the correct section. Thanks! Mhym (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 03:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

IT questions

Ways to secure physical access to IT assets. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

Could some one please direct me to where to go get more information on the question above. Thanks

Hoangn (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see the box at the very top of this page, where it says "If your question is not directly related to the Main Page, consider the following locations:..." --199.71.174.100 (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah- for this unrelated question, you may be able to find help at the reference desk- however, please be aware that they are not there to do your work for you. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why MUST a picture of a completely diferent bus be included in the routemaster article?

also why don't Minkythecat and MickMacNee (very simmilar names) have to comply to the 3RR rule yet apparently I do? I have tried to discuss the subject on these users talk pages but all I am getting is lame insults Oxyman42 (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the main page only. For a content dispute, you can file a request for comment or request a third opinion in another way. If you wish to make a comment about another user's conduct, you could try a Wikiquette alert or, for a serious issue, the incidents noticeboard. J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

A discussion about moving this page to the Wikipedia namespace is underway at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Proposal: Move main page to Wikipedia namespace. This will be primarily a technical change, the transition will be smooth, and it will fix some issues like the top-left tab reading "article" when the main page is clearly not an article. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody else have this problem?

[2]. It happened with 4 or 5 pages. Is there a hacker on Wikipedia? Looks the zodiac killed striked again. --Fixman (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Something similar, but with a different picture and a text offensive to people of the Islamic faith happened with the page Copenhagen a few days ago. I reported it here (although it wasnt the proper place to report it as I now know). The problem you have noticed has been discussed here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's template vandalism, the current vandal tool of choice. There is code that will block off the top of the screen like that- someone did it on my talk page once. J Milburn (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect verb in sentence #5: "were" is plural; subject "string" is singular, requires "was".

"His string of election wins was assisted by a system ..." Steve Edgel (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see American and British English differences#Nouns and WP:ENGVAR. Art LaPella (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this not at WP:ERRORS? --74.13.129.166 (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Guadalete.

Why must we make a link from the main page to an article that is not even half finished? This article is in serious need of help; but enough about the article - my point here is that we shouldn't make links to articles that are so poorly written.Tourskin (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)