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 10:49 on 14 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 "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that islands are home to 50 percent of land species at risk of extinction?

I raised this at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#More_examples yesterday but there's no direct response there yet. I traced the statistic back through the article and sources and it seems that it went from 41% to "just under half" to "almost 50%". And now the hook has it as exactly 50% rather than 41%. And that 41% calculation was published in 2017 so the figure may be different now.

And the original author was just counting vertebrate species -- amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles. But now the hook has it as "land species" which would include countless plants, insects, invertebrates and micro-organisms.

So, a more precise wording of the hook would be:

• ... that, in 2017, islands were home to about 41% of land vertebrates at risk of extinction?

That's not what the article says though so I'm going to edit it now.

The nomination has some ALTs but note that there was extensive discussion of ALT1 at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Island and that seemed too problematic. ALT2 looks fairly uncontroversial:

... that Polynesian navigators discovered new islands without the use of navigational instruments?

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: the line you removed from the article about it being "almost 50%" appears as if it was cited in [1] with the text reading "Due to the large range of insularrelated vulnerabilities, almost 50% of terrestrial species presently considered at risk of global extinction also occur on islands". Other than the "almost" part (which I've just amended in the hook itself, along with re-adding the line you removed), this appears correct. Unless you still think the figure in the cited source is not accurate based on its own sourcing?  — Amakuru (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Explained later in the source, "Islands also have higher densities of critically endangered species, hosting just under half of all species currently considered to be at risk of extinction (Spatz et al., 2017a; 2017b), hence making the loss of terrestrial biodiversity and related ecosystem services a KR [Key Risk] (KR3) for small islands." CMD (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I traced back to Spatz and found their original figure to be 41%. Is 41% almost 50%? If one is rounding, then I'd it expect it to be rounded down to 40% rather than rounded up to 50%. Better to give the exact number which the original review calculated. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Amakuru's revision now reads

... that islands are home to almost 50 percent of land species at risk of extinction?

This addresses the percentage to some extent but doesn't clarify what is meant by "land species". The Spatz paper was solely concerned with vertebrates and they are just a small fraction of all species. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 16)

Monday's FL

(August 19)

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

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)

Probably. Still, it would make just as much sense for the English donate banner to take you to the English donation page and likewise for other language wikipedias. Ose (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not about language it's about donating to the local chapters. For example when I click it I get sent to a page encouraging me to send £100 to Wikimedia UK (as well as the customary Jimbo picture, quote and donation box). I guess it is the same for the other national chapters (there are also some city-based ones in the US, I think) - Dumelow (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Today's Featured Picture

I just wanted to comment that todays picture is beautifully executed. Great featured picture. 04redsox07 (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see a change from "how much did they pay u to have there page featurd". --Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, seems like the National Audubon Society is paying us left and right. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Being a US organization, why would they pay us to feature an Australian bird? howcheng {chat} 06:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As a distraction. They're clearly trying to cover something up. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you know...

Each entry in the usual 'Did you know..' box on the Main Page always starts with "that." Since they do, can't the name of the box be extended to include 'that' word as well, to avoid having it start each line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.38.26.104 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Then it would be the only Main Page element that wasn't represented by a three-letter acronym (TFA, ITN, OTD, TFP, and DYK... or DYKT in your universe). Of course it would be possible, but why?

You might as well ask why they don't drop the "that" entirely, which is perfectly allowable in English. The "that" just serves as an extra punctuation mark to separate each item, and makes a list of sentence fragments a bit less chaotic. --86.170.69.253 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Blade Runner

This is one of the worst FAs in a while. It was promoted way back in 2005, and then barely kept after a reassessment in 2008, but only due to lack of comment. Just a short glance at the article tells you it's not up to current standards; the information is excessively in list form with directory information that doesn't belong in an FA, and there are several one-sentence paragraphs. With a good choice of FAs, this shouldn't have to go on the Main Page. Lampman (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

While it's not at its best form (frankly it should have been on the Main Page a long time ago, when more people were active in editing it), and I just trimmed the plot summary down and cleaned it up, I don't see a problem with the lists of awards and such ... that seems to be in keeping with current WP:FILM practice. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And here I was, thinking that someone was complaining that Ridley Scott paid us to put the article on the Main Page... howcheng {chat} 16:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe the WF is taking bribes from Ridley Scott to advertise his films on the main page. This coupled with the obvious Rwandan bias in ITN makes me want to cancel my subscription. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't we do North Korea right?

After having described the country's last "elections" in ITN as if the result had at some point in doubt, now we say that "businesses all over the country" will shut down until the currency is revalued. North Korea is a country where the state IS the economy; to use "businesses" in the plural is misleading as there is only one business. Can we use another word like "enterprises" (which seems to have been preferred in describing the multiple workplaces of other command economies)? Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not really correct here tbh mate

Pro-Owl bias

I've been sensing a large amount of owl and pro-owl related information on the main page recently. Sort it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.104 (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

But where is the letter the owl is supposed to carry ? 62.241.114.38 (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep I've noticed that too; We need a policy which prevents cunning owls from signing up and adding their articles to the main page--NotedGrant Talk 13:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn those Owls, next their going to want voting rights here. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)