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 18:02 on 1 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 the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 2, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(August 5)

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

What the 'L

Lemur, Lindow Man, Lincoln cent, Lince, Laurence of Canterbury Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector. Maybe it's just apophenia, but it's an amusing coincidence all the same (especially since, other than Lemur, the TFAs reverse alphabetically): I'm not in screaming "bias" or anything, just thought that maybe someone should pay attention to Raul's requests for more activity on the Requests page - I think he's getting bored. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 02:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

In related news, anyone else notice the double Archbishop of Canterbury? I found it wonderfully interesting, lol. ResMar 05:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not apophenia...I noticed the same and thought, even if only half of the letters were as common an initial as "L"....well, do the math. It's a big coincidence or someone is trying to be noticed. Archbishop of Canterbury is less intriguing since choices of featured articles are often related to anniversaries and holidays.--71.232.14.151 (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering whether it was building up to some "first no-'L'" joke. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 10:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not have alphabet-themed days? Having all entries on the MP exclude a given letter might be more of a challenge. (What was the e-less book?) Or will alphabetism be added to the list of topics mentioned above? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Gadsby (novel)? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It was either that or the French novel mentioned - it is easier to remember the 'particular aspect' than the specific example.

Should such Main Page events be discussed on the 92nd/93rd day of the year (depending upon whether it is a leap year)? Jackiespeel (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the elk, the 2 Lamberts, and ... but hey, where's Lugo? --70.31.11.146 (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

He's on the talk page. Buddy431 (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Here I am

Plotting his return to the main page. (e • nn • en!) 10:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that that picture isn't even used in his article any more. Obviously it considers the MP home now, and refuses to be used elsewhere. Modest Genius ^talk 18:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank God for the German, Japanese, Latin and Portuguese Wikipedias! The traditional Lugo image is File:Fernando Lugo - ITN.jpg which crops up on 8 different archives of this page... - Dumelow (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Geejo, you got me. After I had scheduled lemur, lindow man, and lincoln cent, I saw the pattern and decided to run with it. So no, not an accident - more like a small joke to see if anyone was paying attention :) Raul654 (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So what would the main page for 'Day X' cover - X-Men, the X-Ray of the 'hand with a ring', Xerxes, Xenophon and what/who else?

Front-page by letter or absence thereof is an addition to the 'Wikipedia Xmas Games.' Jackiespeel (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent deaths

Clicking on the "recent deaths" link on the main page goes to Deaths in 2010. Should that be changed to Deaths in 2011 for the new year now that the new year has begun? Bcperson89 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been fixed by Allen3. A solution using {{CURRENTYEAR}} would avoid the need to update. Modest Genius ^talk 15:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless something has changed in the past year or so, {{CURRENTYEAR}} within wikilinks doesn't work for some technical reason beyond my ability to understand. See my old bugzilla request. - BanyanTree 00:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's only in redirects it doesn't work. It works fine in Recent deaths but I think a yearly manual update is better than an automatic link to a page which may have no deaths yet. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

For anyone else who was confused by this comment, the code for that link is [[Deaths in {{CURRENTYEAR}}|Recent deaths]] Modest Genius ^talk 02:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Now all we need is a means to insure the appropriate new page is in place at the start of each coming new year (decreeing that an unnamed somebody will take care of a problem that only appears once a year is a good way to ensure the task is forgotten between now and the next occurrence of January 1). Otherwise the traditional avoidance of WP:REDLINKs on the Main Page will be violated. --Allen3 ^talk 20:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Adapting the fallback code we already use for TFP should work for that, and ensure (;)) there's no redlink. I reckon:

{{#ifexist:Deaths in {{CURRENTYEAR}}|[[Deaths in {{CURRENTYEAR}}|Recent deaths]]|[[Deaths in {{#time:Y|-1 years}}|Recent deaths]]}}

The two links render as: Recent deaths and Recent deaths, which work provided last year's article exists. Modest Genius ^talk 20:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Gta 4

People the awards that have been listed in Grand Theft Auto IV main page are all "Game of the Year" awards rather than "Action game of the year". Then why after several times editing that page, the awards change back to "Action game of the year".

There is one other issue too. The reviews are mostly of PC version rather than PS3/X360. The game is the highest rated game of all time and that rating is represented by its PS3 and Xbox 360 version.

So its a request to wikipedia to solve this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gta4best (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia and for your attempts to improve these videogame articles. This is, however, not the forum for discussing the Grand Theft Auto IV page specifically; this area is intended for discussing the Main Page only. When editing this Talk Page you should be presented with a whole host of links to suggested areas that you may find useful and I would direct you to the New Contributors' Help Page in the first instance. To discuss GTA4, please post your comments on the Talk Page of that article. Happy editing! Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 10:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Man, Eugene, that has got to the politest "re-direct the newbie" post I have ever seen!! Maybe we should keep it as a template somewhere and just modify it with new topics each time it's needed! Most excellent!! Keep up the good work!  :) Rhodesisland (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

International Interwiki Links

some are missing.--PeterTrompeter (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#How are interwiki links in the left-hand column chosen?. The other languages are available from the 'complete list' link at the bottom of the interwikis. Modest Genius ^talk 17:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We really need to sort this out

it's always annoying when i see there is a Christian festival and then it's followed by western Christianity and not also eastern when they are in fact both celebrating on that day. The reason i think this needs changing is two-fold

• on article pages for saints and Christian festivals, in the info-box it has a "observed by" column which will list the churches which do celebrate, e.g. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Some Anglicans etc....so if it just says western Christianity, on the main-page it may be misleading
• secondly, although the main rationale i presume for exclusing eastern Christianity for say, the epiphany today, is because numerically the greater portion of us keep a 13 day behind calendar, e.g. Russia, Serbia, Jerusalem,... Greece, Cyprus, Albania, Bulgaria, almost all the Greeks outside the home countries, e.g., millions in the Americas, Europe, Oceania, celebrate today and the Russians ARE celebrating on the 6th of January anyway it's just they cannot count properly!! they think 6th January is the correct date for the epiphany too, it's just they think 6th of January is when it's 19th January.Eugene-elgato (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What? All those nations are using gregorian calendar, just the holidays fall on different days, so it is perfectly fine as it is. Regarding the first point, it would be better to address it to a dedicated wikiproject. --Tone 10:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, but i still would argue that essentially they hold Xmas on 25th December, and their calendar is out of synch- apparently in a few years they will be celebrating Xmas on our 8th December and no longer 7th even, which indicates not that their Xmas is simply on the 7th January, but that their 25th December is way out of synch and not even linearly. If that makes any sense??Eugene-elgato (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, wouldn't we then place their Christmas on the 8th?  狐 FOX  12:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We would, the same as we do for other holidays which change. We use the gregorian calendar on wikipedia, and it's also what a lot of the world uses in a variety of circumstances. The fact that some events are based on a calendar related to the gregorian one which therefore has the same month names doesn't change the fact it's a different calendar. More importantly, ultimately whatever you want to call the date the events fall whenever they fall (sometimes it depends on where you live or what system you use), the fact that Chinese New Year falls on the first day of the first month of the year of the Chinese lunar calendar or Eid ul-Fitr on 1 Shawwal doesn't change that. Those who follow the different practices were not celebrating Christmas several days ago whatever you want to call the date. The will be soon, whatever you want to call the date Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Would "Epiphany (Gregorian calendar)" be better then? We do that for Christmas (and you'll see it there on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 7). howcheng {chat} 16:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be not bad idea at allEugene-elgato (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, and "Theophany (Julian calendar)" added to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 19. howcheng {chat} 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That is excellent; it really clarifies things better- thank youEugene-elgato (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is the information about the latest letter bomb terrorist attacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.186.126 (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You could try Wikinews via the link at the bottom of the Main Page... Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 13:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield's study linking autism...

What's the source for this? I only ask because it is not mentioned here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science_and_environment/ . Is this an example of WP breaking a story? --FormerIP (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: Yes, I know it has happened and that it has had coverage. I guess my real question is about why this is WP's main headline if the BBC don't even appear to have a story on it. --FormerIP (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This and This, for example, as included in Andrew Wakefield. See Wikipedia:ITNC#MMR_vaccine_controversy. And the answer to your question is, therefore, no! Bencherlite^Talk 12:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your PS: "In the news" doesn't have a main headline, it just has a most recent headline at the top. See the ITN discussion for more, well, discussion of reasons for inclusion. Bencherlite^Talk 12:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but Wakefield was struck off by the General Medical Council some time last year over this research. The BMJ calling him a fraud now is obvious extremely significant to his biography, but it doesn't seem like an earth shattering event, particularly if major news outlets are ignoring altogether. --FormerIP (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit it's lost a lot of impact in terms of newsworthiness since he was struck off so long ago, but we didn't report on it then. It's a big story, both with the striking off and the fraud announcement, and covering it now is better than never. (Also, a good amount of news outlets have covered BMJ's announcement, a lot of them not giving it premier placement.)  狐 FOX  13:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a bit surprised by the timing of this as well - the wider picture has been known for quite a while, and this doesn't seem hugely surprising in that context. But if we didn't cover it last time, then I guess it's good to get it out there. Trebor (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The breaking news aspect is the revelation that he faked data in the original study, this is what prompted the BMJ labelling him a fraud, and it only happened in the last couple of days. cyclosarin (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)