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 12:54 on 14 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 "On this day"

Today's OTD

• 1950 – Korean War – North Korean troops began attacking.... — Suggest change to simple "attacked." Readers can go to the article for more detail. – Sca (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Concur. Anyone with the permissions here willing to change the OTD? Bremps... 12:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's 'began attacking' because the attacks lasted 5 days. So on this day the attacks started. Stephen 12:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 19)

Monday's FL

(July 15, 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.

Today's POTD

7/14/2024 POTD Happy Chandler I think it is a mistake to refer to and individual by his/her nickname (without"")and last name without giving the given name.Wis2fan (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

---

General discussion

2010 Open

Discussion belongs at WP:ITN/C, not here. This page is for discussion of the entire Main Page only. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Correct location for this discussion is WP:ITN/C, as is noted multiple times on this page. Modest Genius talk 23:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Why is Louis Oosthuizen 's British Open victory not notable enough to make the main page? It is a major, so should be considered the equivalent to a major in tennis etc. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC) The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#2010 Open Championship, not here. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC) There is a huge notice at the top of the page, and another one that appears when you hit 'edit', which both say that suggestions for stories should not be made here. The Toolbox also contains a link to 'suggestions'. The correct venue for these is WP:ITN/C. I'm marking this as resolved; please read these things before posting in future. Modest Genius talk 23:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

On this day

Resolved

 – WP:ERRORS is the place to go. TFOWR 13:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

1916 – World War I: Australian forces engaged the Germans at the Battle of Fromelles in France, described as "the worst 24 hours in Australia's entire history" since 5,533 Australian soldiers were eventually killed, wounded or taken prisoner in the failed operation. The use of the word "eventually" sounds as if this event was a long drawn-out operation. The event happened in the space of 24 hours. Amandajm (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Ultimately" or "finally" instead? 68.248.228.217 (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The correct location for this discussion is WP:ERRORS, as is noted multiple times on this page. 79.67.148.247 (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Another article about Antarctic explorers?

Either I'm going crazy, or there have been a number of articles elevated to front page status dealing with Antarctic explorers or expeditions of some kind in the past year. Can someone more familiar with the front page and the featured articles in the past year confirm this? 99.180.87.32 (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured Antarctic exploration articles

From 2010: March 17, June 27, July 20
From 2009: January 9, April 7, September 23, December 3
From 2008: May 1, June 28

From Jan 1, 2008 through July 10, 2010: 9 out of 932 days, or about .965%
From Jan 1, 2009 through July 10, 2010: 7 out of 566 days, or about 1.236%
From Jan 1, 2010 through July 10, 2010: 3 out of 201 days, or about 1.492%

Since Jan 1, 2008, a period of 133 weeks, there's been about 1 Antarctic exploration article for every 15 weeks.

I only glanced over the articles, but it seems that they're all British expeditions/explorers, many times involving the same people (Robert Falcon Scott, Ernest Shackleton, etc.). As interesting as this subject may be to some, it seems absurd to focus on this small slice of history. Even if it can be argued that it's of interest to British readers, there are too many articles that are up to featured-article quality to justify a bias like this. Isn't it the purpose of the point system to weed out related articles so close to each other?

Note: I didn't count just anything related to Antarctica (e.g. endemic animal species) or anything slightly related (e.g. March 1, 2009). I also would be interested in the number of Antarctic exploration articles in "Did You Know..." and "On This Day..." from 2008-2010. And, of course, readers/editors should do similar research into closely-related articles from other subject areas that are featured on the front page too frequently.

137.99.115.95 (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that the latest two featured articles from this subject area (June 27, July 20) are not even a month apart. 137.99.115.95 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine that the reason there are so many FAs about these particular explorers and expeditions is because they're of interest to somebody or a small group of people who have sufficient skill and determination to write FAs. There have been a few recently, but I'm not sure there have been so many to make it a real issue. If it is, then keep an eye on WP:TFAR and the schedule and make comments on the nominations or, if your complaint is about an already schedule article, talk to User:Raul654 about it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

First, to describe the 20 July TFA on Clements Markham as an article about Antarctic exploration is pushing it a bit. This was one aspect of his life, among others that are fully explored in the article; he was arguably Britain's leading geographer of the Victorian era. Another of the articles, Tom Crean on 17 March 2010, was I think chosen not so much for Tom's renown as an explorer but because TFA wanted an Irishman for St Patrick's Day. The FA pool is a skewed population, in which many subjects are over-represented and others largely ignored. Raul has to choose from this pool, so some topics may seem to get undue attention at TFA while others get none at all. But I can't take seriously the suggestion that Raul is in some way biased in favour of British explorers, based on a selection rate of less than 1% (and falling) over the past couple of years. Even conspiracy theorists might baulk at that idea. Brianboulton (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to say biased, I can easily see how it might happen -- but I do admit that my immediate reaction upon seeing that article was, "Again?" - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.245 (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Signpost

{{Editprotected}} The Signpost, a community-written and community-edited newspaper, covering stories, events and reports related to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation sister projects, is a interesting part of the community at Wikipedia. 1,063 users subscribe by talkpage, including several IP addresses and a new issue is published each weel. I am proposing to recognize the role that the Signpost plays in reporting news "around town" by asking for the addition of a link (yes, just a link) in the main page. At the Other areas of Wikipedia section, there are several links to community news stuff, however, the Signpost is omitted. I've flagged this with {{editprotected}} to get some attention, but feel free to discuss this. —mono 04:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a link might be okay. Adding the full {{Signpost-subscription}} would obviously be too large.

The {editprotected} template should only be added when there is an exact change that should be made to a protected page (either because consensus can be pointed to, or the change is an obvious benefit). Admins randomly check Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, and then one of them will turn up to make the edit. It is not meant to be used (and also wouldn't really work) for gathering mass-attention. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would find a link extremely useful. Mono, in addition to the 1063 subscribers there are also people like me - non-subscribers who "steal copies from their neighbours" ;-) I don't subscribe because I usually see the Signpost being delivered to editors on my watchlist, and read "their copy". I frequently miss this, however. TFOWR 09:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Could there be a link to (Random page with a tag indicating improvement) - rather than having to 'hunt through lists'? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

1. See Magnus' "to do" tool: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/wikitodo.php?title=
2. That's really what the Wikipedia:Community portal is for. See sections 2 and 3. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Support link per TFOWR. I always forget about it. --candle•wicke 20:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the main page is aimed at our readers, the signpost is for editors. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 20:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Heh, yeah, I'd oppose it on the Main Page, which I now realise Mono suggested. I'd support it here, on Talk:Main Page. TFOWR 20:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it would be rather redundant. {{Signpost-subscription}} is already transcluded from Wikipedia:News which is linked to on the Main Page. --Yair rand (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We could link it at the bottom of ITN, possibly replacing one of the links that's already there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Main Page is for readers, not editors (though the recent addition of the nominate link in the DYK box may have confused this point). It gets 4 million views a day, so 1000 Signpost subscribers is nothing, comparatively. The Signpost is two clicks away from the Main Page, and every other page on the wiki, through the Community portal link in the lefthand column, where it is prominently placed on the Main Page-equivalent aimed at the community. - BanyanTree 03:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I added an example link at Wikipedia:Main_Page/sandbox in the "Other areas"; please tell me what you think. It's possible to remove the italicized text as well. —mono 04:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's better than the idea above to put it 'above the fold' but, again, I don't see the target audience. You state the objective is "to recognize the role that the Signpost plays in reporting news." The Signpost is already regarded, as far as I can tell, as invaluable and the article writers already get a byline, so I'm not sure what additional recognition you think it would get. While the Signpost writers do a great job, I imagine that directing readers who know nothing about the community to articles on WikiProject development and such would result in general bafflement. I'm not impressed by the claim that we need to cater to editors who claim to be fans of the Signpost but can't be bothered to subscribe, watchlist the Signpost page, or occasionally click on the Community Portal link (found on every page) to see if there's a new edition. I imagine such editors wouldn't bother to scroll down on the Main Page either. - BanyanTree 06:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per the long standing 'Main Page is for readers, not editors' policy. A much better justification could be made for adding a link to the sidebar, say below Community Portal. Modest Genius ^talk 18:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose main page link - MP is for readers, not editors. I do, however, support Modest Genius's suggestion for the sidebar link - the interaction section seems to be an excellent place for it. --Lucas Brown 19:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be superfluous to the Community Portal link. The Community Portal includes a copy of the Signpost template near the top. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that's a good idea. —mono 02:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that modifying MediaWiki:Sidebar is beyond the authority of a discussion here. It would probably require a discussion resulting in consensus at WP:VPP. - BanyanTree 06:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The Main Page is for providing readers with a jump-off point to various areas and articles of interest, not for boosting the egos of wikicrats (or "recognising the role they play" if you prefer). If you add one link to Signpost, it would open the floodgates; next someone would ask for a 'WikiProject of the Week' or an 'Editor of the Week', as I believe has been regularly proposed in the past; and the Wikipedia newspaper already has a permanent pride of place, there would no longer be any logical reason to deny them. --86.184.21.222 (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Support bigger presence on community portal As has been stated above, the Main Page is not really aimed for editors, but for readers. If there were news articles about the running of Wikipedia on the main page, this would confuse readers since many of the issues discussed and the terms used in the articles would be unfamiliar for them. I'm neutral on HJ Mitchell's suggestion that it be put at the bottom of ITN - I think this might just have the same effect, in giving readers the impression that it perhaps is Wikipedia's document of the day's international news, which it isn't. I think the best place for it is the Community Portal. This is where I personally (and I imagine many other editors do the same) convene to find things that need doing. It is, really, the Main Page for Wikipedians - and this is where the Signpost should go. Whilst it is already there, there are a lot of editors who don't know about or forget to read (as stated above) the Signpost, and so having a bigger presence than the small box at the side would be the best way to go. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 18:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

While I don't really understand what 'bigger presence' you want compared to the already fairly prominent transclusion at the top left of the Wikipedia:Community portal where it's rather big and seems rather hard to miss to me, wouldn't the place to discuss that be at Wikipedia talk:Community portal? Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

News: Love Parade Stampede

Resolved

 – Raise article errors at Talk:Love Parade stampede. TFOWR 13:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the article a least 18 people were killed. The News states 17. Programmer101^Talk_{What I do} 01:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I expect number will change as story unfolds. This ref: "Love Parade stampede in Germany kills at least 18 - latimes.com". latimes.com. Retrieved 25 July 2010., has the number at 18.

I've added the ref to the Duisburg article. -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

On a procedural note, discrepancies in articles, even articles on the Main Page, should be discussed on the article's talk page, but we try to be conservative with casualty figures since it tends to take a while for officials to produce an official final figure (even in a G8 country, you can imagine what it's like for disasters in the developing world) and for that to be reflected in the media. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

News: Torch Lighting for 2010 Youth Olympic Games

Resolved

 – Suggest it at WP:ITN/C. TFOWR 13:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The torch lighting ceremony for the first Youth Olympic Games were held in Olympia last Friday. The Youth Olympics will be held in Singapore from the 14th-the 26th of August this year. Ja24896kin (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You'd need to suggest it at WP:ITN/C, the forum for discussing "In The News" candidates. TFOWR 13:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Another stupid video game making featured article status? You can tell a lot of teenage nerds are running wiki these days

'Nuff said.

• Oh lordy, how about trying to ensure that the featured article is accessible to all, and does not feature technical language and jargon not intelligible to the non-techies among us? What on earth does "Microsoft Game Studios bundled Crackdown with an access code" mean? There are no bluelinks for either "bundled" or "access code" so I have no idea. We're not all 15 year old computer nerds, you know. 86.134.116.252 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • By the way, I didn't add the original thread and comment: it was deleted by another editor as 'unecessary' wheras I think it's valid and should stay to generate discussion. 86.134.116.252 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The entire sentence is "Microsoft Game Studios bundled Crackdown with an access code to the multiplayer test version of the much-anticipated Halo 3 Beta." Given the context, I would think that it would be pretty clear that an "access code" is a code that lets you access something.--99.251.239.89 (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)