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 17:50 on 22 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 23, tomorrow)

• In blurb there are a few redirects to tweak pls...

pine family - pipe to Pinaceae

yew family - to Taxaceae

Alaska cedars - to Callitropsis nootkatensis

terpenes - remove s out of link JennyOz (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Monday's FL

(August 26)

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

Delinking

Is there consensus for removing most of the wikilinks from the Main Page featured article summary? If not, did I relink the right things? See edit, edit, null edit, this discussion, and the WP:OVERLINK guideline. Art LaPella (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This raises an interesting and broader point that main-page editors might be inclined to discuss: the extent to which TFA blurbs are or should be a somewhat different genre from the article leads on which they're based (I think Raul has long recognised this in several ways, and I'm sure Dabomb87 would agree). My guess is that they differ in at least five ways:

1. Disconnection. The blurb is a stand-alone, in that many or most readers won't end up proceeding to the related FA; thus, the blurb needs to make sense and to be a satisfying read without clicking to the article lead, and probably should emphasise The Big Picture even more than the related lead. Just one issue as an example: some relatively unknown terms coming up this month I've found linked but not glossed on the spot ("entomologist" in an opening sentence, which should have been glossed in both blurb and article lead; I've glossed it in the blurb. Same for "Zanzibar", which I've pointed out in a nested phrase is an island off east Africa—rather than requiring readers to divert via a link to a different article to find out a basic fact necessary to contextualise the blurb; in the lead, of course it needs to be linked as well as glossed (it still isn’t glossed), but I wonder why it's linked in the lead now that it's glossed: we do want the readers to go to the FA, so why offer the competing Zanzibar link that is in the FA's lead anyway?).
2. Length and tightness. The blurb often needs to be shorter than the related lead, especially for long articles; I believe less than 1250 characters is the rough guide. Blurbs need to be tight and immediately engaging to whet readers' appetites for more, while to some extent the lead has already captured a readership that is likely to engage with the main article text, or at least to scroll through selectively; a lead can thus afford to include more higher-level details. The blurb could dispense with foreign-language equivalents (I've removed one, as cluttter), as well as the alternative terms and the day-month dates of birth and death that Raul already excludes. An example of inappropriate detail was the opening of the blurb for Millenium Park, which talked about the "Illinois Central rail yards and parking lots" that used to occupy the location—boring stuff that needs to be trimmed out of the blurb). Of course, some leads are already suitable as blurbs, with little change.
3. Visual environment. The blurb has to fit visually into a four-corner display on the main page in which the column width is relatively narrow, especially around a pic at the top (hence Raul's single-para format, removal of the bolding of the topic-name, and the exclusion of alternative terms);
4. Primary linking target. A major function of the blurb, surely, is to encourage readers to click to the FA so painstakingly prepared; thus, some wikilinks that are appropriate in the lead should be considered as unhelpful dilution (I've unlinked "earthquake", for example, in a blurb for next week's 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes, but the link is appropriate in the lead); and I unlinked the names of little-known political parties and operators in Zanzibar in the 1960s on the basis that they are very secondary diversions, and a reader who is interested enough to click on them is highly likely to visit the FA first and click from the larger context.
5. Lack of checking of direct secondary targets. Every secondary link in a blurb is hugely exposed on the main page, but is not currently checked/audited for policy compliance and article quality (e.g. copyright infringements, verification, plagiarism and close paraphrasing, neutrality, and prose), let alone FA-quality standards; these links are presented at the top of the lead when the reader clicks to the FA, where they are less exposed in terms of our legal and intellectual obligations and our public reputation. Back to the blurb on Zanzibar Revolution: those links on arcane local political parties go to articles like this—great advertisements for the project; but you wouldn't mind it in the FA itself, of course.

There is a case that the only link in a blurb should be to the FA, which in turn functions as the primary conduit to secondary links. (If every blurb and hook on the main page linked only to the article fussed over in one of the forums (OK, perhaps more than one for OTD and POTD) the main page would still contain 20 to 30 links every day, rather than about 100 as now.) That's what I'd do, but I appreciate that many editors would find it too radical, so I'm not proposing it. However, I put it to you that TFAs generally contain too many secondary links, given a TFA’s role as representing the FA over any old article; why the big deal about FAC and the TFA queue if readers are beckoned to divert to lots of non-FAs of unknown quality? Then I say, rhetorically, let's ditch the FA idea and let editors apply to have any article, FA or not, in the slot. Tony (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Its not an exact science, but I think the net result of both of your edits comes close to reflecting consensus. There were widely understood linked phrases before Tony touched the blurb, obscure but highly relevant unlinked phrases after, and I think the current balance is more or less right. —WFC— 17:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think Tony's strongest argument here is that the link we should be wanting readers to follow is the main one, to the article. Some people argue that it is important to link other terms so that readers are aware that we have articles on those terms, but if you look at the main page as a whole, there are more than enough links there to make readers realise that we have lots of articles on lots of topics. I would support a time-limited (maybe one week) experiment where the only link in the TFA (today's featured article) blurb is to the featured article. The idea would be to monitor for two effects: (1) increased traffic to the featured article (using the page view stats); and (2) to see if readers dislike this and register their annoyance in the form of editing to make a complaint, demanding that links be put back in. If no complaints (or not very many) materialise and page views of the featured article increase, then clearly Tony is right. If there are complaints, then this will in turn demonstrate what some readers want. In there any initial support here for such a trial? If there was, I would be happy to put together (some time next week) a formal proposal for an RfC to be conducted here, for a strictly time-limited one-week trial to see how much linking really affects things in this part of the main page. If this yields useful data, the same could be tried in other areas of the main page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea! One week seems a little short. Howz about two? ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your sarcasm in the fifth point is utterly misplaced, Tony. The use of a link like Umma_Party_(Zanzibar) in that article's TFA blurb is potentially a great advertisement for the project. Namely, that the project is not done and that we require interested people to expand articles. The entire push of having everything on the main page be perfect is both short sighted and misguided. We are a work in progress, and there is no shame in pointing that out, even on the TFA blurb. Resolute 03:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

To me, explaining that Umma Party as best we can at present, is more important than advertising our alleged completeness. Art LaPella (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have occasionally suggested a clearer identification of less than obvious terms on the TFA blurb, and the response has been that "the link is there is people don't know what it means". If that is no longer to be the case, then TFA will, on occasion, have to be much more clearly phrased. There are shortcuts and assumptions that one can get away with when links are available or the article goes on to explain: these will have to be avoided. Kevin McE (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I, and another user removed (twice) the "A non personal appeal from the document foundation" content from the Zanzibar Revolution page. It does not seem to belong:

• Too much text occupying too much of the page.
• Not bordered as normal Wikimedia Foundation appeals are done.
• Change made by anonymous user from IP address. Special:Contributions/190.175.204.140

Titaniumlegs (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That was obvious spam. I doubt the person involved even has any real connection to the LibreOffice as it is unlikely they will approve of people spamming on wikipedia or other unconnected projects. Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

REM splitting up In the News for three days?

I thought it was somewhat distasteful for a rock band's amicable breakup to occupy space next to monumental achievements, disasters, tragedies, and the like the first time I saw it. But for three days now?!? How about replacing it with the faster than light neutrinos, or Palestinian statehood bid, or something which has a nonzero chance of actually making a difference in someone's life? 69.171.160.21 (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Once something gets into the In The News box, it stays there until other stories bump it off the bottom. It isn't that the REM breakup has been considered particularly worthy of inclusion for three days in a row. --FormerIP (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it should be obvious that it wasn't newsworthy to begin with. Everyone knows that Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are the English-speaking world's only truly noteworthy artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.170.4 (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm also wondering why probably faster-than-light neutrinos aren't in the news (in the main page). --Belchman (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. The discussion is there (and quite lengthy). Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Finally! Speedy neutrinos kicked REM out. --Belchman (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Listing Tomorrow's OTD on WP:ERRORS

WP:ERRORS invites us to scrutinise/copycheck the current and next Main Pages, to that, hopefully, we can ensure that plenty of eyes check that what appears is of as high a standard as we can. But the link to Tomorrow's OTD links to a set of hooks of which typically only about half are actually used. Is there any way that the selection could be made 2 days in advance, so that the set that we see as "Tomorrow's OTD" actually are to be "tomorrow's OTD" Kevin McE (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

When is "tommorow's OTD" usually ready? --174.93.81.243 (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sports

Yet again, I must suggest that any sports related news item is not true news, however sports news. Currently two of the four items of ITN are sports related. Like the REM split last week, this is yet again inapporiate use of the "news".Cosprings (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

whats your definition of "news"? -- Ashish-g55 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

We do "final results of x" frequently, and the world marathon record...is quite unusual, it's not as though it happens every year. To your point, if you look at WP:ITNC, very few things are proposed, and I say about 30% are voted down, and another 20% languish and get stale because the article isn't updated enough to warrant its posting. So if you want the sports off, update some of the current ITN candidates so they can get posted. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What dragon says. Although regardless, it would appear that more than one person disagrees with you. Your best bet of getting the appropriate people to pay attention would probably be here. —WFC— 23:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sports news is still news. Resolute 23:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As Cosprings's universe has no music and no sports, I feel sorry for Cosprings. --174.93.81.243 (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Though the only sport that interests me is chess, I'd argue sports news is a subcategory of "true" news. Otherwise, the vote to right right to vote in Saudi Arabia is "just civil rights news" while the death of Maathai is "just Kenyan news". Then we couldn't have anything at ITN. The current events are important, their articles are in decent shape. Period. Puchiko (Talk-email) 08:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)