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 16:20 on 9 July 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 "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Flyover

• ... that Flyover, a 2023 science fiction novel by an American author, portraying a dystopian future where part of the US becomes a theocracy, was published in French but not in English?

There are several issues with this:

1. The published title of the book was Et c'est ainsi que nous vivrons (This is How We Shall Live). If you're going to make a big thing about it being published in French then you should use the French title
2. It appears that Flyover is the planned title for an English-language publication. When this happens the hook will no longer be correct. DYK hooks are supposed to be "a definite fact that is unlikely to change".
3. What initially attracted my attention was that the hook talks about "an American author" without giving his name or linking to his article. This reads oddly and it took me a while to realise that the issue was the language.

To fix this, we might have an ALT like:

• ... that Et c'est ainsi que nous vivrons, a dystopian novel about a divided US, was originally written in English by Douglas Kennedy but then first published in French?

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• • If there's an issue with the name, we could just pipe the bold link à la "a dystopian novel" or "a 2023 science fiction novel". I don't see the problem with the author-related wording. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Anna Russell Cole

I’m afraid I don’t agree that ... that Anna Russell Cole, a significant benefactor of Vanderbilt University, donated $10,000 in 1926 to endow the office of dean of women? is an interesting hook. This fact tells us that a benefactor gave money to a university. That sounds likely.

Even the way the sentence is structured—Anna Russell Cole (who?) a significant benefactor of Vanderbilt University (Oh, okay!) donated $10,000 to endow the office of dean of women? The reader begins with no knowledge of or context for who this person is, then learns she was a benefactor, then learns she did what someone must do in order to be called a benefactor.

It’s not unusual, to say the least—it has to be true, give or take the detail provided on where her donation went (which, if interesting, could be emphasized as such with a better hook—but I don’t see any indication from the article’s treatment of the fact that it is unusual or interesting. It’s one of many donations she made). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, there were quite a number of editors involved in this one. Let us ask them for their input: Xoak (as nominator), Hydrangeans (first as reviewer but later having adopted the nomination), Launchballer (as the second reviewer), AirshipJungleman29 (as promoter to prep), and Premeditated Chaos (as promoter to queue). Schwede66 09:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair cop. My initial gambit is ... that Anna Russell Cole donated $10,000 in 1926 to endow Vanderbilt University's office of dean of women?--Launchballer 09:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think WP:ERRORS is the place to relitigate whether hooks are interesting or not. That's a subjective question and not a clear-cut error or violation of core Wikipedia guidelines that I'd expect us to fix after the prep process is over. Suggest we close this and move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree, since WP:DYKCRIT clearly states that approval is subjective. That said, I think the hook is mostly interesting, but I should have trimmed it along the lines of Launchballer's suggestion above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The point is, DYKCRIT and other norms on that page are project-specific. The requirement for something to be "interesting to a broad audience" is one set by the DYK community, not a sitewide guideline. As such, it's beyond the scope of ERRORS. This page is intended for factual inaccuracies, hooks or articles that don't conform to the sitewide policies guidelines (including the manual of style), and those that aren't "main page ready", for example because they have uncited paragraphs. That's not to say we should never make changes, and no doubt you could dig out examples where I've enacted on a report such as this made some in the past too - if there's consensus amongst participants that a change will unambiguously be better then one could consider it. But as a general principle I don't think we should routinely treat these requests as bona fide errors.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

What makes that interesting? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a shame that this was not the picture hook as her lead picture is quite striking. Anna Russell Cole: A Study of a Grande Dame makes it clear that she was quite a striking figure in person. We might have had a hook like:

• ... that Anna Russell Cole (pictured) was known for her brilliance and beauty, called 'The Pride of Georgia', and became a grande dame?

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 12)

Monday's FL

(July 15)

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

ITN

¡Lugo!

Shouldn't ITN have been updated by now. Even the most fanatic Biden supporters might be bored by the same picture, day after day. ;D --Hapsala (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To suggest a new picture for ITN, please go to WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Too bad Obama didn't choose Fernando Lugo to be his veep. We haven't seem enough of him lately. :) Lovelac7 02:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I CAN HAZ TEH NEUZ STORIES?

Clearly there has never been a better time to put MAOR KATZ on the main page. ITN could use some cat related news. Ceiling Cat (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, stopgap image of Medvedev is up now. If someone wants to crop a map or something, feel free.-Wafulz (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Katz in china have started sprouting wings. Clearly this event is worth an entry in ITN. Otherwise, it's yet more evidence of Wikipedia's blatant anti-kat bias. Ceiling Cat (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To suggest a new item for ITN, please go to WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

See Winged cat. Anyway, ITN stories need links to the specific event, and that event in China clearly isn't notable enough. --haha169 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize that in the U.S., McCain picking his VP choice is a big deal, but I think the only way this could be seen as important enough to be on the main page is if some mention is made of her (Palin) being only the second woman VP nom after Geraldine Ferraro. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. is a huge country with international influence. Many internet and Wikipedia users are American. VP nominations are some of the biggest single pieces of news durring an election cycle. As the US is going through a major election cycle, I'd say VP nominations are considered news even on an international site like Wikipedia. Sure, it would be interesting if it mentioned that she was only the second after Ferraro, but the story doesn't need to have that to be considered newsworthy. In my opinion, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.82.144 (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To discuss what news items to include on ITN, pls go to WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To repeat yourself in a condescending way, please go to Talk:Main Page, err, oh wait, nevermind, you already found it. --208.82.225.232 (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Condescending"? How? I was just trying to direct traffic here. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Pic/Pick

Hey All,

I don't know if this has been discussed before (probably has), but I think any TFA should have a picture included. Seriously, the page looks awful when the TFA blurb has no pic. It breaks up the symmetry on the page (ITN, OTD, and DYK all have pics) and just looks off because most days there is a picture. Justice America/(5:15) 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Any image appearing on Main Page must be free-to-use, apparently, so TFA has to be imageless if there isn't a free image available. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, but why pick an article without a pic? Justice America/(5:15) 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think all FA's deserve to be showcased on the Main Page. Obviously, an editor's put enough work into it that it shouldn't be stopped by lack of free image. Spencer^T♦C 19:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Free images are not evenly distributed so doing this would reduce the variety in Main Page featured articles, which I think is probably a worthy goal. --Cherry blossom tree 20:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Enlighten me though, what's the difference between having a non-free image on a regular article and having one on the front page? Why? --Kaizer13 (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The fair use cases for images in articles tend to be stronger (but in many cases still pretty poor). Due to the way the main page is presented comeing up with a solid fair use case would be difficult in the vast majority of cases.Geni 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The claims that main page images must be 'free' are completely false. Jimbo once implied that he felt this way in a single edit. That is not sufficient grounds for policy (see WP:AAJ). However, the fair use approval page de-listed the main page during a rephrasing about a year back, and all efforts to reinsert it have been overwhelmed by the copyright brigade. Read into that what you will. For the record, I completely agree with using fair use images on the main page. Modest Genius ^talk 23:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

According to current policy, all main page images must be free. However we got there, it's current policy and there has never been consensus to change with valid arguments on both sides. The idea that this is simply AAJ is ludicrious. Jimbo has tried to make a number of policies which have failed, clearly people are capable of thinking for themselves and the reason why we are here now is because after this independent thought, people agree with him. No wonder this argument gets no where when those opposing current policy show such disrespect for other editors (by calling them names and claiming they can't think for themselves or don't have valid reasons for wanting fair use images to be excluded from the main page). While I'm not claiming the so called 'copyright brigade' is perfect, by and far, those who do the most name calling and refuse to accept the other parties have valid arguments appears to be those supporting fair use images on the main page Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW the term is "non-free" "fair use"; whatever may or may not be permissible as fair use under US copyright law is immaterial; the non-free content policy is line with the Foundation's goals. howcheng {chat} 05:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is the opposite of a euphemism (does a word for such things exist?) Modest Genius ^talk 15:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Found it myself, the term is dysphlucyiscoolemism Modest Genius ^talk 15:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Those of us who support fair use on the Main Page, such as myself, don't appreciate being generalized any more than you do. If you have a problem with what Modest Genius said, then fine, but it is no more okay for you to belittle eveyone that opposes you than it is for him to do so. Dragons flight (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

<shrug> I didn't intend to belittle anyone. It's just that it was quicker to type 'copyright brigade' than 'a number of users who favour a particularly restrictive copyright policy, including opposition to fair use of copyrighted images'. As for the AAJ, I suggest you read Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content_criteria_exemptions. Modest Genius ^talk 15:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Icon

Do you think we could add this code to the main page? I found it on a user page, and thought it look really cool!

<span style="position: absolute; top: -50px; left: -172px; z-index: -1">[[Image:Tireless_Contributor_Barnstar.gif|180px]]</span>

It makes:

Look at the logo! IT IS SO AWESOME!!

TurtleShroom! :) ^†Jesus Loves You and Died for you!^† 00:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that'd be useful on the main page. ffm 00:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a horrible idea. Colinstu (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not really a good idea. Decorating userpages is fine, but I don't think it's appropriate for the main page. J Milburn (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The main page is not a user. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Red links

I swear I saw this page this morning and their were no red links. Something wierd has happened, because someone has changed the links to the wierd symbols which would appear on the URL, but not on the titles. Someone please fix these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you be a little more specific? J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's rather easy to change the place a wikilink points to. As with all vandalism you should report it to the article talk page or simple revert it yourself. Try Wikipedia:Help desk if you have further general questions about how wikipedia works. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What a bunch of delightful links. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

New Look

I think wikipedia's main page deserves a new look now. Some other color scheme and such.. -59.95.107.51 (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. Teemu08 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -59.95.109.148 (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing w/o source

• "the latter announces it will become part of Russia."--Birmaley (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he is talking about the last headline in "In the news", where it says, "Russia officially recognizes the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; the latter announces it will become part of Russia." However, he is incorrect on one of two counts. Firstly, headlines on In the news don't need citations in the actual section. However, the related articles do, as can be evidenced by the article South Ossetia where it's announcement of it becoming a part of Russia is sourced. Deamon138 (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Citizendium

I think Citzendium, 'the world's most trusted encyclopedia and knowledge base', your sister concern, should be mentioned at the top. You should also mention that it is the forum where experts post —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.141.85 (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Citizendium is not affiliated in any way with Wikipedia. It is similar in that it is based on Wiki software (as are many websites), it's an encyclopaedia and it was founded by one of the co-founders of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger. Also please do not remove the automatic signature from after your posts - sign them yourself. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Citzendium can call themselves what they like and claim what they like- we have plenty of experts here, and we're generally more respected by the press. We're nothing to do with them, we simply inspired their project (as we did Veropedia, a target much more worthy of praise, and Conservapedia, one much less worthy of praise) and I do not support advertising them on our main page, as I can't say I support advertising anything on Wikipedia... J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Burn the Traitors! Or is that too strong? Witch trials perhaps? Oh also, the original posters proposal is probably based on the beleif that Citizendum is a sister project like WikiVersity or Wikimedia Commons. However as it is not, it would be spam. Gavin Scott (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is User:59.92.141.85 a sock of User:Larry Sanger? Deamon138 (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation and a quote from [1]:

Second, a lot of Web 2.0 advocates, whose online temples are websites like Wikipedia and YouTube, are philosophically opposed to our [Citizendium's] basic policies. They tend to be radical egalitarians and closet anarchists.

...Actually, I'm just someone who doesn't like being insulted. Since that page was prominently linked on the CZ home page, I must assume that CZ's "basic policies" include attacking Wikipedians. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A 'closet anarchist'? "I want to fight the power, but I don't want to reveal it in case society hates me for it." J Milburn (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

important

hury and copy pages and make backups. 4chan is staging an attack soon and i will inform more when i know more. Moskus