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 07:53 on 15 June 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

Chinese characters

• Just putting a notice here that the image of oracle bone script used in the Chinese characters DYK is not the one used in the article itself. I think each are a better fit for their respective position, and the one in the article has actually been on the Main Page before. Since they serve the same function, I hope this is okay with everyone. If it's a problem, please feel free to replace the image in the article with the one in the DYK. Thanks! Remsense诉 00:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It is DYKCRITERIA that the image used must be in the article WP:DYKIMG. Bruxton (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That's why I'm posting this—I hate to invoke this, but this seems like a potential WP:IAR case, as I think it's the best presentation. Would you like me to swap out the image in the article for today, then? Remsense诉 00:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that shouldn't have happened. I've replaced it with the infobox image. RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith I put the DYK image in the article for the time being. Can you please revert? Remsense诉 00:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "in the article for today". RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The image for the hook is now in the article. Remsense诉 01:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, but what I'm getting at is, when you say things like "I put the DYK image in the article for the time being", that sounds like, "and as soon as its off the main page, I'm going to change it again". Am I interpreting that correctly? RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That's what I'm going to do, because it's not the best image for the article: it's too tall. Remsense诉 01:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I figured. Nah, I'm not going to play that game, sorry. RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I've come off like I'm trying to game something; I just wanted to weave an ideal outcome from an initial mistake that I made. I know you're not going to do this either, but I would genuinely prefer my hook be removed from the front page if the image can't be changed. Remsense诉 01:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Pulling a hook is a bit of work. Pulling the lead hook with the image is a lot of work, and introduces substantial risk on its own because unlike other hooks, it has to be replaced (as opposed to just running with one less hook for the rest of the day) and replaced immediately, so we'd need to review a new hook and image as a rush job. There's got to be something seriously wrong to justify that. I don't know where things went off the rails (did we make a mistake reviewing it, or did the article change after the review was completed?) but at this point, it's all about risk management, not worrying about whether this is the optimal image. RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I made a mistake picking an image that wasn't in the article. It was missed, but it's my fault for only bringing it up now. This was all my best attempt to fix that in the best way for both the article and the main page. Remsense诉 01:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith I've already bothered you enough, but can I get a quick confirmation that the image won't be changed, so I can put the other oracle bone photo in the article? Sorry. Remsense诉 01:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If some other admin wants to do this, that's their prerogative, but I've done what I needed to do to fix the immediate problem so, no, I'm not making any more changes. RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: why did you not permit IAR here? Levivich (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done The image on the main page matches the article image. All is good; no error is present. Schwede66 01:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would strongly prefer the original image, but I've already created too much trouble for people. Remsense诉 01:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  If an admin decides to put the original image back, please also restore this revision of the page. I don't want to have the worse version of both the article and the main page stuck there the entire day. Remsense诉 02:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Radio Yerevan jokes

... that the Armenian Radio jokes are neither about radio nor are they Armenian?

What the article actually says is "They are not really related to Armenian culture, nor do they have much in common with radio specifically." This uses the weasels "not really" and "much" and so this is not a definite fact as required by WP:DYKHOOK. Having read the article, the hook might equally be turned about and presented in the opposite way:

... that Radio Yerevan jokes are presented in the style of provincial radio and Armenian stereotypes are often the butt of the joke?

Note also that the title of the article is plural contrary to WP:PLURAL. See Joke, Ethnic joke, Hindu joke, Polish joke, riddle joke, etc.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, so, WP:WEASEL doesn't mention what you're talking about here. It's a guideline about attribution. Also, reading the source reveals exactly what we mean: they have nothing to do with radio, and were popular among Russians, who were using Armenian riddles as a punching bag source of inspiration. So, they were neither about radio nor Armenian. Perhaps, if you're interested in correcting errors, you could help out by updating the article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to @Szmenderowiecki, Piotrus, and AirshipJungleman29. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

IBM Advanced Computer Systems project

... that although it was never built, Lynn Conway notes that IBM's ACS-1 would have been the premier supercomputer of the era?

"Would have been" is a counter-factual weasel and so this is not a definite fact as required by WP:DYKHOOK. Conway was part of the project and so is not independent. And it's easy to make grandiose claims for projects that were not completed. And what does "premier supercomputer of the era" actually mean? An era suggests a long period but computer technology has advanced rapidly per Moore's law which has a doubling every two years. Even if it had been completed, it would soon have been overtaken by newer models. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to @Maury Markowitz, SL93, AirshipJungleman29, and Amakuru. I also have no idea what "premier" means and don't think such a claim from someone within the project is admissible. pulled as a non-viable hook. If someone wants to come up with and verify another one before this set cycles, they're welcome to, but the article needs to be cleaned up to void the same claim. Or, if it turns out there's no error, we can restore it, but that seems unlikely to me at this time. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 21)

Monday's FL

(June 17)

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

Marred?

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.

---

"In sports car racing, the 24 Hours of Le Mans, won by Tom Kristensen, Allan McNish and Loïc Duval, is marred by the death of Allan Simonsen."

Whether or not the event was "marred" is purely subjective. Some people many have been entertained by it. Sadists may have enjoyed it. Wikipedia is supposed to stay completely objective and only report factual information, not make opinions about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.53.35 (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I was about to write some long winded explanation here, but I think it is more to the point to state the obvious: this is one of the stupidest objections to main page content I have ever seen. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that saying the race was "marred" by a death is a little too much of an understatement? --Khajidha (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know basic human decency was a POV (are sadists covered by WP:FRINGE?). But at any rate, it doesn't violate NPOV to say the event was marred. Collins dictionary gives "'mar (v): to cause harm to; spoil or impair". The race was definitely impaired (since the safety car had to come out), and since the winner and the organizers both expressed their sadness at Simonsen's death, and news media coverage was tempered by the accident, it seems fair to say that the atmosphere of the race was spoiled as well. Smurrayinchester 10:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as objective "basic human decency". Certain Western values hold certain things sacred, but it is by no means universal. We should strive to remember that Western values do not equal universal human values. 97.89.55.148 (talk) 21:56, 24 June 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.

KKK on the front page?

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.

---

...seriously? --85.210.103.168 (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If you ignore it do you think it will go away?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not like they didn't exist. Should we pretend otherwise? 81.129.32.66 (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We have, to my certain knowledge, had at least two Nazis as TFA. We are not a children's encyclopedia with all the naughty bits cut out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We had a racist atrocity as TFA last month and nobody complained about it. There's no obligation for an encyclopedia to cover only nice things. Hut 8.5 14:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course, another way of looking at this issue is that - as has been stated in this brief discussion, the front page has recently featured two Nazis, a leader of the KKK and a racist atrocity, and then to wonder if indeed this is a representative sample of the contents of the enyclopedia. If it's not - then one may indeed wonder why so many racists find their way onto the front page - and if it is, then it seems alarming that the encyclopedia is overwhelminly populated by articles about racists! Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right. Unfortunately, this is sadly reflective of the contents. But then again, at least its not a hurricane.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a few niche interests which represent a large percentage of the articles which make it to featured status, beginning with war. That speaks to the diligence of those with such interests, and is not a reflection on Wikipedia as a whole, other than highlighting the lack of editors willing to work to make featured articles in a broader range of subject matter.--Chimino (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not say recently. One of the articles I was thinking of was Albert Speer, which appeared in 2008, and I recall a Luftwaffe pilot since, but don't recall when or who. I think there's also been an admiral.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

TFA writer here: I went through a period where I read a lot about atrocities and assorted terrible things. So naturally that was what I wrote about then too. This led to the infamous Jesse Washington (NSFL) main page blowup as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not Safe For... Littleones? Libraries? Lookingat? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Life. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, NSFL at Urban Dictionary. It's the lesser-known sibling of NSFW, generally used for gore/death instead of nudity/sex. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If only there were a website to Google such things. -- tariqabjotu 18:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You mean like Google? Or like Urban Dictionary, which the comment just above you mentioned? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoosh. -- tariqabjotu 19:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Inclusion on the main page is not an endorsement of the covered subject, but simply serves to showcase the highest-quality content on Wikipedia's. LFaraone 15:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Here's a random thought: If someone doesn't like seeing articles about the KKK or genocide, I recommend that they try working on articles themselves. Maybe get Unicorn on the front page to outweigh massacres. GamerPro64 17:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I will personally buy a beer to anyone who gets Unicorn to FA status.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevant FA candidate. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I remember User:Montanabw saying something about unicorns once, but I can't remember if it was positive or negative. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I know this discussion is closed, but for the record, I ain't touching either unicorns or Pink Ponies! LOL! :-) Montanabw^(talk) 20:54, 24 June 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.

'Main page entries that cause much heat and light' are a regular phenomenon - but why does the article referred to above come up when doing a browser websearch on en.wikipedia.com? (ie going via the 'search' facility while checking emails). Surely a more recent main page should appear? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

@Montatanbw - My Lidl Pony already made the front page, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Jackiespeel, they likely haven't updated their cache. When tempointeraktif.com went offline, I could still see its articles on Google for some two weeks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Still there today on Yahoo.

'Persistence of text' and following 'changes to Wikipedia articles perculating through to articles elsewhere on the wev' can be an interesting subject of research. Jackiespeel (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't doubt it could be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Berlusconi underage prostitution scandal: is it noteworthy enough to be in the "In the News" section?

I am just wondering if the conviction of Silvio Berlusconi for underage prostitution sounds a bit like tabloid news. It really seems out of place compared to other news stories in the section. What do you guys think? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:ITNC for discussion. The general feeling is that when heads of state/government are sent to jail, it's notable. Calidum Sistere 05:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowden

Okay, ITN is "not a news ticker." Still, it seems odd that Edward Snowden's travels (or lack thereof) don't make In the News. Sca (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Then why not suggest them at WP:ITN/C rather than here? GRAPPLE X 15:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I updated the Snowden entry, but I give up on trying to jump the techie hurdles in the convoluted nomination form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ITN_candidate/doc#Syntax

Why do you have to be a geek to play the game? Sca (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've set up the nomination for you, although I have to be honest and say that I somewhat resent the idea that being able to do so qualifies me as a "geek".--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Geek isn't necessarily pejorative. Per Wiktionary: "An expert in a technical field, particularly one having to do with computers." Sca (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Cricket

There seems to be a discrepancy between those who 'write' and those who read the main page. Perhaps we should vote to how much cricket we want to read about?

As I wrote on 30 May 2013, the Main Page of that day had an overrepresentation of cricket:

Cricket in TFA, ITN, and DYK on the same day Talk:Main_Page/Archive_175#Cricket

Rather than apophenia, I now believe that it has to do with a large supply of cricket-related topics that are proposed for Main-Page use. I came to this conclusion, based on reading other comments over the years of people surprised with the high occurence of cricket as a topic of the Main Page articles:

Why does a Cricket topic appear in every other did you know article? That is the only "sport" that ever appears in the did you know.

Talk:Main_Page/Archive_42#Cricket_anyone.3F

It seems moderately redundant to give the same 1933 cricket event two prime slots on the main page

Talk:Main_Page/Archive_94#No_more_cricket.2C_Please.21.21

It really seems to me that the front page features a disproportionally large number of articles relating to the game of cricket, people who play cricket, and things done by fans of cricket.

Talk:Main_Page/Archive_97#Too_Much_Cricket

It seems like every day there's some trivial bit of cricket-stuff in the DYK list and today there are two.

Talk:Main_Page/Archive_98#Cricket_on_the_DYK

I mean it's all jolly fun and all, but there is a whole lot more to the sporting world than cricket and cricket players, I don't have specifics but I seem to see cricket related articles every other day on the main page.

Talk:Main_Page/Archive_153#Bias_towards_cricket_in_Did_you_know_and_Featured_articles

cricket is way overrated in Wikipedia. Almost every week there's a piece of news in the front page about a cricketer

Talk:Main_Page/Archive_158#Cricket

It seems moderately redundant to give the same 1933 cricket event two prime slots on the main page.

Talk:Main_Page/Archive_173#Too_Much_Cricket

Dvh369 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• You do realize that a) several of these archives are more than five years old; b) we have existing DYKs, FAs, and FPs of other sports (do we even have a cricket FP?); and c) that you can improve articles like Ervin Johnson to push for the main page, right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  a) that's why I wrote over the years: it's an ongoing situation. b) correct, but less so and disproportionately to cricket imho. c) I do improve articles whenever I find omissions or mistakes, just not in sports; why stick to sports anyway? I don't want to push for the main page because i) I tend to not write complete articles, ii) I don't necessarily need to promote my own work, and iii) I don't think it's up to me to push things through, rather let it be up to the community (i.e. those way more active than I). My point being, I guess, that if this community enjoys cricket all the time, this should not dictate that cricket be overrepresented. There are 4,267,100 articles in English today, in this encyclopedia of everything. The readers are not merely cricket lovers. The diversity is practically endless. I would vote to convey that diversity slightly more. Dvh369 (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is one 100% effective way to fix this, all on your own, without having to force other people to stop improving articles about the sport of Cricket. See, all you have to do is improve articles about other topics and nominate those for the various main page sections, and then there will be proportionally less cricket articles. Win-win: people don't have to be asked to stop improving articles they are interested in (in this case cricket) and you get to see more articles on the main page about topics you are interested in! I don't see where that could go wrong... --Jayron32 02:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  I'll tell you where it could go wrong: it relies on people being constructive. GRAPPLE X 02:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  Are you claiming that the OP is not interested in constructing the encyclopedia? Because I never said that. Rather, I assumed that was their goal, which is why I made the suggestion. --Jayron32 03:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  I understand the process, and also that I shouldn't complain (I don't) about people enthousiastic enough to contribute way more than I do. I'm simply putting my two cents in to have the nominators and voters consider the reading public and their interest. So thank you contributors and thank you for highlighting the multitude of Wikipedia articles; I hope that will be done even more. Dvh369 (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  I think you shouldn't look at our FLs then... lots, lots, lots of cricket lists, from four or six editors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for the advice, lol. Although I don't often find features lists on the main page. On a side note, you, as "one of the 1000 most active Wikipedians", are a perfect example of what I referred to as way more active than I. Nothing but respect for that! Dvh369 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I just read on the FAQ/Main_Page the folowing line: Specific examples of groups that have periodically accused the Main Page of blatant bias include Americans who are amazed by the continuous stream of new articles on cricket. ;-) For the record: I am not an American. Nevertheless, that text provides a useful explanation. The most constructive part is the concluding reference to the WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Dvh369 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Countering systemic bias. Love it. But what happens when we end up with too many topics about a previously underrepresented area? A lot of editors couldn't shift gears immediately. Three years ago nobody would have said "Too much Indonesia". Now? 27 FAs and 11 FLs (and, to support your earlier point, many of them the work of a single editor). I doubt I could write an article on, say, Singapore half as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think all sports events should be banned from the main page. There is nothing inherently news worthy about people winning or losing any particular sportsgame. Sports events become news worthy only if combined with something else that is extraordinary or has some kind of broader relevance such as an alien invasion during super bowl, or the president of a country executing the players on the national team after loosing. Stuff like that is notable. That some team or individual won some match in some sport isn't.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

DOMA/California Prop 8 struck down?

This seems pretty historic and noteworthy as current events go - front page mention? Challenger l (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hard to argue with but discuss at WP:ITN/C please.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The discussion is at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#SCOTUS Decision on Defense of Marriage Act (for June 26). PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Overlinked again... (moved from Errors per suggestion)

permalink to items

In ice hockey, the Chicago Blackhawks defeat the Boston Bruins to win the Stanley Cup. – There are currently five links in the blurb. Fifteen words, of which nine are linked. Words not linked include three occurrences of the word "the", one "in", and the verb "to win". We all know there are no prizes for second place. I would suggest changing it to: "In ice hockey, the Chicago Blackhawks win in the 2013 Stanley Cup Finals". – much punchier, and draws the readers attention to the article on the victor and the match.

Similarly, Flooding in Alberta, Canada, results in at least three deaths and the evacuation of thousands. Instead of directly referring to the 2013 Alberta floods, and linking directly, an easter egg was created so that Alberta could also be linked. Facepalm -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So just about every item is a diversionary link that is (I hope) already linked from the proper context within the ITN article, yes? It's as though we're telling visitors to the main page: "Go anywhere but the ITN we've painstakingly prepared and audited for main-page display ... anywhere else. Please. Tony (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I believe this discussion is general enough in scope that it would be better held either at In the News or on Talk:Main Page. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Mating toads on the front page.

...seriously?