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 17:28 on 29 May 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, determined not to be an error, or the item has 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

• Regarding "* ... that Israel's systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gaza has been described as an ecocide?", this is SYNTHing two events covered separately by the sources, the overall destruction of trees in the Gaza strip, and the systematic destruction of agriculture (including agricultural trees) that is the focus of the hook. The sources also do not describe farmland alone, but also other kinds of agriculture. All four mentions in the article of "systematic" destruction relate to agriculture, so the hook should be changed to "* ... that Israel's systematic destruction of agricultural areas in Gaza has been described as an ecocide?" (with "agricultural areas" being one of the variations used here, other options might include agricultural infrastructure, or agricultural sites[1]). CMD (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  In addition, "systematic destruction" is attributed by the provided source; we can't put in Wikivoice something that sources attribute. BilledMammal (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'd suggest removing the word "systematic" (which isn't really necessary) if the only source that uses that word in its own voice is FA (which is the only one I can find; the others I can find that use "systematic" are quoting FA). "Israel's destruction of orchards and farmland" or "Israel's destruction of agriculture" can be sourced to FA, Guardian (linked by BM above), WaPo, Scientific American, and other sources used in the article and posted on its talk page. "... has been described as an ecocide" can be sourced to FA, Guardian, and other sources in the article and talk (or just Google "Gaza ecocide"). So I don't think the rest of the hook poses a problem. E.g. "... that Israel's destruction of agriculture in Gaza has been described as an ecocide?" Levivich (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, I'll take out the word "systematic"; at least for now. There have been lengthy discussions about the hook and article:

  • nomination page
  • DYK talk archive 199
  • DYK talk

  @John Cummings, Launchballer, AirshipJungleman29, and RoySmith: pings to you. Feel free to discuss further. Schwede66 06:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Next DYK

Regarding the fourth hook, "liberation" is not capped in the article in running prose. Primergrey (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed – Schwede66 02:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

There are two Green Bay Packers hooks in this set. Is that a mistake? Primergrey (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I've swapped things around to clear this double up. Schwede66 03:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

There are six American hooks in this set. I think two of them (likely Giovanni Manu and North West) should be moved. If an admin could (for example) swap these out with Julius Welschof and DellaXOZ in prep 2, I can rearrange the rest.--Launchballer 08:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(May 31)

Monday's FL

(June 3)

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

Yagan's Burial

Resolved

 – This is a candidate for "In The News and should be discussed there. TFOWR 09:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The following is a notable event for Australians and for indigenous peoples worldwide.

• After more than a century in British collections, the head of Noongar leader Yagan is ceremonially buried on the 177th anniversary of his last full day of freedom.(ABC)(Perth Now)(The West-Yahoo!-7)

I'd like to see it included on the "Main Page". Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 09:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Raise it at WP:ITN/C, as this is a candidate (a good candidate, in my view) for ITN. TFOWR 09:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank U deeply. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 09:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It would've been better without a painting of a severed head. Rimush (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That's Omar al-Bashir. His head, unfortunately, is still attached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.95.107 (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

From the timestamp the Rimush is clearly referring to [2] which did have a photo of Yagan derived from File:Yagan.jpg (see [3]) Nil Einne (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Text almost unreadable with the default Vector theme.

I don't know who had the idea of reducing the font size here with the new Vector theme, which was designed with the first goal of usability. The text was perfect with the Monobook theme, as it used the default browser's font size.

It was OK to reduce the font in the left column or for the top tabs or in the page footer. But I really suggest that you revert this font size reduction for everyone.

The solution of zooming in is not a solution as it also zooms other things than text (notably images), and all the side bars.

Anyway, if you want to get readable texts with the Vector theme, add this in your vector.css file (the link is in your preferences):

div#bodyContent{line-height:1.2;font-size:1em;}

This will revert the very bad adjustments made in the default vector.css theme (which uses a line-height:1.5em, which does not work properly as line-height in 'em' are not inherited, and uses a font-size:0.8em that causes this very small text).

Thanks for our eyes ! And thanks also for reading other scripts than Latin.

Note: this message is on topic here, because the Main page is the first thing that visitors will see, using these too small fonts. and yes, this applies equally to all other pages on this wiki.

verdy_p (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, visitors without an account can't edit their vector.css and is rather unlikely to see your message in the 3 days it would have been on Talk:Main Page if I hadn't responded anyway, no one here is likely to edit the default vector.css particularly not based on some random comment at Talk:Main Page and the chance of anyone from the Usability Initiative who would be interested in bug reports seeing this is close to none (in fact far for wikipedians are going to see this then if posted to a more appropriate place). Nil Einne (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Add a "Nominate" link to T:ITN

Now that the link to the World Cup is gone, I suggest we add a link to WP:ITN/C to T:ITN, similar to the one that DYK has. We've been in fairly slow period lately (about one story a day) and adding a link to ITNC might encourage more participation (plus, it should stop users from posting here about ITN). I realize some people assume new users would view ITN as a pure newsticker, but we don't know if this will happen unless we actually add the link. The worst case scenario is that we'd simply remove a link to ITNC from T:ITN. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 08:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. That respondents would view the section as a news ticker isn't speculative; we already deal with that issue on a regular basis (and it isn't even entirely confined to "new" editors).
  Additionally, this proposal doesn't target the true bottleneck. The scarcity of updates stems not from a shortage of users to nominate items, but from a shortage of article updates/creations reflecting current/recent events.
  I would support the addition of a link to a newcomer-friendly page explaining the process (thereby alleviating the aforementioned confusion regarding the section's purpose, and then pointing readers to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates) and encouraging appropriate article contributions (thereby addressing the underlying problem instead of a symptom). Simply dropping unprepared users at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates would generate a great deal of well-intentioned noise without solving anything. —David Levy 13:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with David that directing users straight to ITN/C would only serve to confuse. An explanatory newcomers-friendly page (perhaps WP:ITN, with a little updating) would be a better idea, but even then only as an experiment. As has been pointed out, the lack of nominations isn't a problem, it's the lack of updates. Having more nominations is not necessarily a good idea, since that will inevitably result in more suggestions which do not meet the criteria - we have enough of those as it is. And since the whole idea of the timer was to encourage 1-2 stories per day, having 'about one story per day' is pretty much bang on target. PS. probably a good idea to inform WT:ITN of this discussion. Modest Genius ^talk 13:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the Main Page doesn't link to T:DYK, or to WP:DYK for that matter; the four links in the DYK section are T:TDYK, WP:YFA, and WP:DYKA. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

One per day is not that bad. --candle•wicke 23:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Total Solar Eclipse

Moved to WP:ERRORS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howcheng (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding other language

Please add Bengali in in the main page. (just add bn:প্রধান পাতা) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushikahmed (talk • contribs) 06:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Bengali Wikipedia consists primarily of stubs and placeholders. We omit such Wikipedias from the list. —David Levy 13:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Front page broken

Some sort of Wiki formatting on the front page is broken, as of this post. Just letting you know. elektrikSHOOS 04:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not on my screen. Please be specific - those things are browser dependent. Materialscientist (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Elektrik Shoos may be referring to the edits of another admin who attempted to remove an image on ITN that was recently tagged for deletion, but since this admin appeared to be unfamiliar with editing ITN, it ended up breaking that Main Page section. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Purge your cache. Prodego ^talk 05:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Morally repressive era?

Isn't labeling two entire decades, which were pretty different from each other on almost all counts, both morally repressive, as the blurb on the featured article does, POV, insulting, inaccurate (even if you thing there was some "moral repression" during them, does that mean the both decades in total were morally repressive?), and stating opinion (uncited at that) as fact? That statement needs to be deleted or severely reworded. And please don't say you need to go to the page and edit it there, as that should have been removed before granting it featured article status in the first place. 67.176.85.226 (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is quite insulting, now that you mention it. It was removed from the article earlier as well (although I don't know when; it's just not there now). I removed it from the blurb on the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 07:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable content about lesbian author?

I love Wikipedia, and have often referred my 9 yr old daughter to this website to come and look up information that she is curious about. However it really offends me when I see articles like this discussing altermative lifestyles here. That's fine if you want to have it on Wikipedia where you have to go and look for it, but don't paste it on the Main page. I'm not at the point yet where I'm ready to explain to her what this is, nor should most parents have to expose their kids to this. Yes, I understand that this is freedom of the press, and I'm not trying to take any political sides, just leave that out. Don't go down that road. Whoever is on the board of decision making for deciding what article should be featured should please next time take this into more consideration. In my opinion - this was a 'featured aritlce fail'. Ask yourselves, do you want your 5 or 6-year old kids to read about this? v/r Zul32 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. Sorry - forgot to login. OK, now it's updated. NOTE: If this discussion/message is to go in another page/area please feel free to move it there, but don't delete it.

I've no objection to my younger relatives reading about lesbianism, no. I do, however, monitor their access to the Internet - there are plenty of things I wouldn't be happy with them seeing. Human sexuality, however, is not one of them. TFOWR 18:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The liberal bias of the front page is nothing new, and quite unlikely to change. I sympathize with not wanting to have sexuality waved in one's face, hetero, metro, or homo. But surely a nine-year old has heard about homosexuality. You can simply say, matter-of-factly, if she asks, that some women like women and they are called lesbians. No need to go into the physical mechanics. Acting as if it is a big deal just brings more attention to the subject. And, of course, you should be aware that Wikipedia is simply overrun with homosexuals, not that there's anything wrong with that.μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I haven't run this by my 6 year-old niece, but my 11 year-old niece did see the front page earlier. She knew already about lesbianism (some of her parents' friends are lesbians). The big surprise for said niece was that prejudice existed comparatively recently. To her lesbianism simply means "girls who have girlfriends, not boyfriends". That said, she was far more interested in the featured picture. TFOWR 19:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What personally offends your sensibilities is irrelevant to the placement of TFAs. Wikipedia will not assume the responsibility of parenting your children. And to answer your last question, the only thing I would regret in allowing my hypothetical children to view an article discussing "alternative lifestyles" is that they will invariably learn about the shameful bigotry that has afflicted it. Nufy8 (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that mention of a lesbian is intrinsically sexual and therefore inappropriate for children?

That's an ignorant attitude that will get harder and harder to maintain as whole generations of gays and lesbians feel no need to hide the fact that they have same-sex partners or even spouses.

You cannot expect society to ignore five percent of the population.

(By the way, by attempting to categorize lesbianism as intrinsically sexual or intrinsically inappropriate for children you are absolutely taking a "political side". Don't fool yourself.)

APL (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cut the sanctimonious crap. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment. This woman who actually has a child (the term "my hypothetical child" speaks volumes) expressed an opinion that articles about sexual matters not be chosen for the front page. This was not an attack on Lesbianism. Now we have the standard leftist pitchfork brigade on the march. I personally happen to enjoy homosexuality immensely. But as a private pursuit, not as a self-important, holier-than-thou, public crusade.μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Glenn Beck in commercial break, you facist-fuck? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 21:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(The above comment was redacted in good faith by howhcheng. I would prefer it not be. Personally, I take it as a compliment (except for the implication that I cannot type and watch a TV show at the same time) and think it is a perfect example of the sort of mentality I was speaking of.μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons comments like these are removed is to ensure that everyone understands they aren't acceptable. But I suppose that prior sentence would do just as well. Prodego ^talk 23:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey you, yeah you. Remember that Wikipedia does NOT tolerate personal attacks. I don't care how much you disagree with him. Cool down and no name calling. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I did the redacting, not the attacking. howcheng {chat} 22:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No, she expressed an opinion on articles "discussing altermative lifestyles," and didn't even mention "sexual matters". -- Maxamegalon2000 22:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, "This woman who actually has a child" identifies as male. TFOWR 22:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops!μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Medeis, That's the point. There's nothing sexual on the front page. Would Zul32 have made this complaint if, instead of a writer of lesbian novels, it was a writer of "pulp romance novels"? Just as sexy! But straighter. APL (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. There is mention of and a link to Human Female Sexuality, but still, that didn't seem to be the point of Zul32's argument. APL (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

From my read of the blurb, I would guess her novels are probably less 'sexy' then quite a number of romance novels which are sometimes called female pornography Nil Einne (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Zul32 seems not to find the topic of alternative lifestyles (for which read alternate sexuality) tasteful. I have no problem with that. He is not advocating stoning homosexuals, outlawing sodomy, or deleting articles on sexuality from wikipedia. His (?) point seems to be that the front page, to which people bookmark, shouldn't feature articles likely to raise problematic issues for children. Would we, for instance, have an article that says "Santa Claus isn't real" on the cover? Now I don't necessarily agree with him - but I understand his point. I believe that there was an article on the Mohammed Cartoon Controversy on the front page. That didn't bother me. I suppose the greatest question is, how do those of us who oppose early sexualization of children deal with the issue? I think that one very appropriate way is simply not to make a huge issue of in front of children. I can remember as a preteen my father cursing under his breath when stories about gay marches came on the news in the seventies. I had already developed a crush on both the Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman and I was uncomfortable and I knew that there was something I was missing. I find it unlikely that those who chose to promote the article on the very handsome Ann Bannon did so without being identity-politic motivations. This should all be able to be discussed civilly and with an assumption of good faith and without a moral chip on one's shoulder.μηδείς (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Santa Claus is currently a good article. If you were to work it to be a featured article, I'm pretty sure Raul654 would have no problem making it the 24th or 25th December TFA. On July 4th we had "The known history of the Grand Canyon area stretches back 10,500 years when the first evidence for human presence in the area started". Likely to be a problem for many Young Earth creationists and their children. On July 5 we had July 2009 Ürümqi riots, I think wikipedia may still be blocked in China and if not the main page was probably blocked that day but even so imagine the horror of the poor good (from the PRC government POV) Chinese parent on their kid reading that! Then on July 6 we had "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks is an adventure module written by Gary Gygax (pictured) for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game", surely a problem for any parent worried about their children learning about such evil things [4] Nil Einne (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How do people "who oppose early sexualization" handle the concepts of "dating" and "marriage"? Those are arguably more sexual topics, but no one is suggesting that the Main Page be scrubbed of those topics. Surely it's impossible to raise a child without giving them at least a basic outline of those concepts?

Why single out lesbianism? I'm not being intentionally disingenuous. I honestly can not think of a logical reason. APL (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The same question and same answer applies to why the article was nominated. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Featured Articles are nominated on quality, not on subject matter. All kinds of crazy stuff gets put up here.

So ... you don't have a logical answer then? I'm pressing this point, because without one this whole discussion is a pointless exercise. APL (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sure, Nil Einne, you understand the difference between taking a stand on a topic of controversy, and introducing to a child a controversial topic of which they were not aware. Barrier Peaks was a fun article, BTW.μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nil Einne doesn't seem to have mentioned taking a stand on a topic of controversy. APL (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the original point, if there are some things you would prefer your child not to be exposed to, you should supervise them whilst browsing. Personally I see nothing sexual or inappropriate about the TFA blurb or topic. Please be aware that your own moral standpoint may differ from those of others, so if you want to limit the information that your child has access to then you will need to do it yourself, not rely on websites (particularly those which are uncensored like Wikipedia) to do it for you. Oh and now we (entirely by coincidence) have a story about same-sex marriage in the top slot on ITN. Modest Genius ^talk 23:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely this doesn't have to be a sexual issue if you don't want it to be - as mentioned above, just state that some women fall in love with other women instead of men. Surely the fact that the novels were cheap erotica is far more likely to be difficult to discuss with a child. Children are exposed to the concepts of romance and marriage all the time, a simple acknowledgement that love doesn't just apply to male-female pairs is all that's required. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 23:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any content-based policy on front page articles?μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Each section of the main page maintains its own policy on content. For TFA, the main rules are 'must be a Featured Article' and 'must not have been selected as TFA before'; there are no (at least no written) restrictions on the subject. See WP:TFA for details. Modest Genius ^talk 23:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe so. ( I could be wrong.) Articles get added to the list of "Featured Articles" after a review of their quality. After that User:Raul654 chooses one each day from that list with an eye towards choosing diverse topics. (So that we don't get three video games in a row, for example.)

I think he usually sets them up at least half a day ahead so people can point out problems. I suppose you could also use that interval to register your moral objections before the articles "go live" on the main page. I don't know how Raul responds to such objections. It might be worth asking him directly if you're interested. APL (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Raul does have a short personal "blacklist" of featured articles which will not make it to the main page, so theres probably no point in getting human-goat sexual intercourse up to FA standard just to see the fuss it would cause! Physchim62 (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)