Talk:Main Page

Main Page error report

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 15:07 on 8 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

Capital Bicycle Club

• ... that residents reported the first cycling club in Washington, D.C. (uniform pictured), to the police over concerns that bicycles posed a danger to pedestrians?

The article does not say or claim that this was "the first cycling club in Washington", just that it was "early".

Also, the source doesn't seem to mention pedestrians specifically – just of the "dangerous potential for accidents". Perhaps a concern was the risk of collisions with horses and/or people and property in general?

Note that the hook wasn't checked in the nomination even though it included a first. It was just waved through as AGF.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I added the "first" claim to the article, citing the same source. Pinging Generalissima and BeanieFan11 to consider the other issues. Beanie, we strongly suggest additional scrutiny for "first" hooks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to take some of the blame here, since I promoted the queue. It's especially embarrassing since ranting about "first" hooks is one of the top ways I make myself annoying at WT:DYK. The unfortunate truth is that when I'm processing queues, I don't have time to read every article in full. I generally just read the hook and then search for keywords in the text to verify the facts. Looking back at the article, I suspect I found "the first such club in the country" and didn't notice this was immediately preceded by "Boston Bicycle Club".

I know this has been said before, but Andrew, you have a keen eye for detail and critical reading. These are valuable skills and in great demand at DYK, so thank you for the much-needed quality control. But it would be even more useful if it was done on the #Next DYK and #Next-but-one DYK sections, so we could catch these problems before they hit the main page. RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Different point: the comma after the "(uniform pictured)" should instead come before. So, " ... Washington, D.C., (uniform pictured) to the police". JMCHutchinson (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Emmanuella Atora

• ... that Olympic taekwondo practitioner Emmanuella Atora described her career as "I hit people for a living"?

According to the source, what she actually said was "Je tape les gens pour vivre". This was not translated by the source and it's not clear what she meant by it as Taekwondo is not usually a professional sport while she appears to have a career as an aspiring professional model. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Also, the line was a meme already, having been used by MMA fighter Francis Ngannou a year earlier [1]. Black Kite (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well spotted. Francis Ngannou is a successful professional fighter and so the boast works better for him. There's merchandise too... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Albert Stanley is also today's FA. Should he be replaced? Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed I've swapped him for someone else. Schwede66 05:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 9, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(August 12)

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

Request for comments on the Main Page

The 2013 main page redesign proposal is a holding a Request for comments on the Main Page, in order to design an alternative main page based on what the community asks for. Please leave feedback regarding any aspects of the Main Page you like or dislike, and discuss the Main Page's purposes and aims.

Evad37 (talk) (on behalf of the 2013 main page redesign proposal team) 00:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

US-BIAS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are too many pages related tothe USA on this website.

The articles pertaining to India should also be better written.

India ia a beautiful country, this website does not capture the beauty and wisdom of this country. The people are very nice and it has a very ancient culture. I think there should be more to do with India on the main page. Indian music is very good and tyhe archetect ure is very pretty. And the movies are the most popular in the world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.1.61.129 (talk • contribs) 23:06, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

The DYK section routinely includes information related to India. Usually you will find these postings in the 00:00 and 08:00 (UTC) updates (the times of day when most people in India are awake). The update at this time of day, which runs from 16:00 to 23:59, is usually dominated by information related to those parts of the world currently awake (Europe, Africa, and the Americas). The practice of featuring postings with geographical affinity during daylight hours at the related location is done because most people tend to be more interested in items closers to them then those on the other side of the globe. --Allen3 ^talk 23:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

People all around the world should see the importance and interesting things to do with India. India already knows about India. Maybe people in USA should be enlightened about this country. 1/3 of the worlds population is from India descent, I think many people in USA are from India.

(Following the unsigned remark) Don't complain - get an 'India on WP development group' going so more India-related articles appear on the Main Page. (Ditto for any other under-represented topic on the MP/Wikipedia in general.) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Or try doing a lot on your own. Most of the Indonesia-related articles which have reached the main page were done by one editor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• As I recall, the main page had plenty India related topics on 3 May. 1, 2 and 3. Robvanvee 11:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

On the site overall, there aren't too many articles about the USA; there are just too few about India. But it's a work in progress, so don't despair! AlexTiefling (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I like how it suddenly became about India. Being frank as ya'll can be I'd say the front page is mostly even. --82.8.226.105 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think India is a beautiful country and its the origin of world civilization I think India should be in a prime spotlight on this website.

• The people in Gibraltar are very nice too, and indeed there's some interesting architecture there as well. If these are the criteria, we should probably have more material about Gibraltar on the front page as well as just India. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Gibralter is not an important country. 1/3 of the population of the world is originally from India, can Gibralter say so much? India is also the origin of all civilization and of languages of Europe. many important minds acknowledge that India is the source of much of human civilzation, People from Europe and USA actually migrated from India. Gibralter did not contribute so much.

• Considering the comment this was in response to, that was actually quite a measured response. Most mentions of Gibraltar now lead to insufferable bickering. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More than one million articles

The Russian Wikipedia reached today one millionth articles. Please add it to the correct line on the Main Page.Porbóllett (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Edokter. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Edokter. Porbóllett (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"Plurality"

When is the English WP Main Page going to stop this pedantic and ridiculous use of plurality to mean relative majority? Show me one serious news outlet that uses the term. Contact Basemetal here 11:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

How about three from the 24 hours: The Miami Herald, BBC News, and The Globe and Mail. --Allen3 ^talk 12:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I happen to favour this usage, and I don't think 'relative majority' is at all clear; but in all honesty, the BBC article is not an example of the contested usage. The man quoted is not referring to vote results, but the a broad characterisation of the council's mandate. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to post the BBC News link, but noted Alex's observation, so here's another. 129.234.252.65 (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My reaction was to the sentence regarding the Bulgarian elections. I should have excluded things like "a plurality of people think/favor/do X" (Miami Herald and second BBC examples) which sound less pedantic. As to the first BBC example, as pointed out, plurality is used as a synonym for diversity. So only the Globe and Mail example is one of "winning/having won a plurality in an election", but ok, the Globe and Mail is a serious news outlet, and I suppose you could find other examples. I still don't like it, but you have convinced me WP is not alone. Contact Basemetal here 13:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it sticks in the craw, it's certainly meaningless to people from the UK, but hey, it means something to most other English speakers so it's good to go... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's never used in Australia either. Must be an American thing. (Does it mean anything to Indian folk? An awful lot of them speak English.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The term "plurality", in the US sense, is in my view very well understood by many people in the UK, though it is true that it is not used routinely. It is most certainly not "meaningless". The term "relative majority", however, is almost never used, and is certainly not well understood. UK old-timer = Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't English wonderful? The real issue here is not who is right, but how do we write our articles so that ALL English readers can easily understand them. I'm a native born English speaker, been watching elections for 50 years, and the only place I've ever seen plurality used is here on Wikipedia. (Yes, it IS educational!) But we really must make an effort to not just impose one country's usage on the rest of the unfortunate, linguistically mixed up world, but to try to find words that work for all of us. Plurality, on it's own, doesn't. As an Australian I have to consciously avoid some very common (to me) words when I write here. So should we all. How can we write plurality so EVERYBODY will understand? HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As an Irishman (I admit we make up only a small fraction of worldwide English-speakers) I'm more than familiar with the term "plurality" in the sense it's being used here. I could be wrong as I'm speaking anecdotally, but I believe one of the major newspapers here uses it when it's appropriate, although voting systems up north (and in the whole UK, which I believe it where the issue might lie) don't use a system when "a plurality of votes" matters, but a plurality in terms of elected legislators does come up—I'm 99% sure that The Guardian used the term when discussing the possibilities for coalition government versus hung parliament after the last UK general election, though again I could be wrong. Though, in all fairness, it doesn't take a lot of extrapolation to assume what the word means, especially in the context it's being given. GRAPPLE X 00:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The flip can also be argued - how many "serious news outlets" use the phrase "relative majority"? I don't believe I've ever run across it before. A quick search of Google news shows only four results, only two of which are clearly talking about elections/poll type situations. In contrast, searching for plurality shows a large number of hits (well over 300), and at least six of the first ten are clearly talking about election/poll type results.-- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Today the BBC website BBC News has this title Gerb party in Bulgaria, which won biggest share of vote in Sunday's election, seeks cancellation of poll due to 'violations'. So no "relative majority" but "biggest share of vote". Doesn't "won biggest share of vote" sound better to you, less pedantic, less technical, clearer, than "won plurality"? And also better than "won relative majority" incidentally. It does to me. Just a matter of preference then. In any case I again admit I was wrong in believing that only WP used the term. That was indeed incorrect. I don't know why, I had never noticed it except on WP. Contact Basemetal here 13:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Pakistani elections?

I nominate Pakistani general election, 2013 to be a featured current event. This is big, folks, bigger than the verdict in Guatemala. --Smack (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As stated on the big box at the top of the page, check out WP:ITN/C for the reason for hold-up. –HTD 14:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The nom is stalled I think pending official results. --IP98 (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've asked a non-involved admin to follow this up. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear all citizens from the world of freedom

It is not the purpose of the English Wikipedia to right great wrongs. Concerns should be taken up with the Wikimedia Foundation, not on the main page talk of the English wiki. --WaltCip (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am here to told you a horrible story about Chinese wikipedia registered users removing "unwanted" contents systematically such as "the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" and "Tank Man" from the related articles, for example "Type 59 tank". In these articles they remove everything about Tiananmen or tank man, including links, pictures, or even just text, they won't let any wordings (such as "1989" or 64 which represnts "June 4") survive in these articles. Any content about June 4 had been removed recent years, and it seems no one would dare to change the condition. In some cases, they even request for deleting the whole articles. For example, in the talk page of "Tank man" Chinese version, you can even see how they attempted to delete the whole article. Here are just some of the notable examples. Recently they even tried to remove an article about Masanjia Labor Camp by laying "there is no report by western media." Then a guy added some links such as Huffington Post, Daily Mail and CNN. A user from China then questioned if The Huffington Post and Daily Mail of British "reliable sources of news". That Chinese user kept on saying "you should not write such article just after reading those bias reports" and "those are not reliable sources of News". That guy keep on blaming and another user from China also join. They also talk of removing links about june four protect. They consider those adding or talking about june 4 as bad guys damaging the Chinese wikipedia. Sorry for the inconvenient I caused, as all links I post are all Chinese only. I just hope to raised the attentions. There is no inconvenience. Your warning is very useful and everyone should thank you. This is very serious. What other places on the English WP can this be posted in order to raise the attention level? In such cases on the English WP such articles would be made protected articles. But what is the situation on the Chinese WP? Have those registered users who do those things, stooges of the Chinese government apparently, also succeeded in infiltrating the admin ranks? If that is the case then it will be difficult to protect articles since admins can override protections. That might not be a problem that is specific of the Chinese WP but maybe the Chinese WP is the largest WP with such problems. If nothing is done and governments see that it is easy to censor a WP then watch out for the Russian WP next, an even larger one. Contact Basemetal here 13:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on TFA images

Readers of this talk page may be interested in a discussion that I've started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Request for comment - images in TFA blurbs. All views welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 16:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations to Square Enix

For maintaining their record of a Main Page ad every six months. [2] We exist to serve their company, which is one of the 180 most important topics in the whole wide world. Wnt (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And your point is? Next up you'll be moaning about the number of bird images or Gibraltar topics on the main page. Perhaps you should get involved in helping decide what goes on the main page rather than sitting back and just moaning about it! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the article was nominated at WP:TFAR on on 8th April and remained there under discussion until 10th May, when I scheduled it with unanimous support. Wnt, would you mind explaining what I'm meant to do in such circumstances as a TFA scheduler? Please come along to WP:TFAR (a page you have never edited, I notice) and join in the discussions in future, rather than complain after the event. I see that I made the same comment to you last time as well, without success... Bencherlite^Talk 09:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Try 'creative and allowable vote-rigging' - creating, developing or improving articles sufficietly for them to appear on the MP. Jackiespeel (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of that, or are you just assuming foul play is afoot because you don't much care for video games? I don't much care for roads, battleships or tropical storms, but I'm yet to assume that the writers of those articles are acting in bad faith. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

On the Internet, no one recognizes sarcasm. Jackiespeel referred to 'creative and allowable vote-rigging'. That wasn't an accusation of bad faith, but suggestion to create, develop, or improve articles, such as the article on a video game that is now the featured article. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As previous postings on this thread were to do with influencing what appears on the main page ('getting involved', 'helping decide') my comment was along the lines of what RM said (and my explanation makes clear). Jackiespeel (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see, sorry. I read it as an accusation that Square Enix had been creating content and then rigging votes... J Milburn (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(reset) I have made variants on the suggestion on previous occasions: and others have suggested 'don't complain, do something about it yourself.'

If things can be possibly misunderstood they will be (especially when computers are involved). :) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Western culture bias

This site is too biased to the values of western culture. I think there should be more content about India.