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 19:52 on 2 November 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 with "In the news"

The "pictured" line for the World Series was not removed when the picture was swapped (pinging User:Schwede66).:Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. Just noticed that, too. Schwede66 19:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• Add "Victory Day in the Maldives" near "Culture Day in Japan". MAL MALDIVE (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 8)

Monday's FL

(November 4)

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

In the description of the featured picture for Diwali, we should wikilink the mythical city Ayodhya (Ramayana) instead of the actual city Ayodhya. The reason is explained in the second paragraph of the article Ayodhya (Ramayana):

“ The historicity of this legendary city is of concern to the Ayodhya dispute. According to one theory, it is same as the present-day Ayodhya city. According to another theory, it is a fictional city, and the present-day Ayodhya (originally called Saketa) was renamed after it around the 4th or 5th century, during the Gupta period. ”

Also see the section Ayodhya_(Ramayana)#Historicity. --Lekhak93 (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Royalty on the main page

As there 'will be a lot of it about' - don't complain, it will pass in a few days. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

But it's an irresistible urge to complain... --WaltCip (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If only Americans had royalty... –HTD 17:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• The USA did overthrow a Monarchy. And no, the Kardashians don't count.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm from New Zealand, actually; a Commonwealth nation.--WaltCip (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you, just the fact that royals+Americans would've been a lethal mix... –HTD 19:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a boy. Now the paparazzi can take down their ladders.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Americans had royalty, right up to 1776! Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Right up to 1963/68. 87.113.216.108 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

And unsurprisingly, someone bitched about it a few sections up when a Kennedy appeared on the main page. Resolute 21:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Bah. The Kennedy family is much less significant that 19th century pre-Indonesian Chinese literature, because a person automatically loses ten significance points for being American and gains ten for being from an oppressed nation. (But seriously, there's been several items to do with Indonesia on the Main Page this week.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• And another tomorrow, in OTD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

(reset) Trying to be ahead of the discussion - and I was including the Belgian monarchy in my comment (and will refer some of the replies to Emperor Norton). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Just for everyone's amusement, there's now a discussion ranting about UK royalty at WT:ITN#UK country bias and procedure, incidentally by the same person who insists that the US Senate is a parliament in itself. –HTD 13:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, both countries get more coverage than they should, but the UK-bias is way odder because its much smaller. By sheer numbers, a certain US-tilt in the most polished articles is predictable and perfectly reasonable. But I quite often come on here and see two or three items somewhere relating to some obscure noble from 200 years ago or some British naval milestone, and I'm not sure how that happens to be.

• "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, gives birth to a son, third in the line of succession to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms."
• "British cyclist Chris Froome wins the Tour de France."

A man rides 2,000 miles through some of the toughest terrain France has to offer, battling 219 of the finest cyclists in the world. After three weeks of pain and suffering, he achieves the unthinkable - a second consecutive yellow jersey victory for a British rider, and a first for an African rider, on the 100th running of one of the greatest sporting events on the planet.

A foetus squeezes itself through a fallopian tube. It gets three times as much space on the front page of Wikipedia. (I know it looks like twice as much above - only twice! - but the picture placing makes it three times on the front page at time of typing.)

For the record, I'm not in any way outraged or pissed off. I think it's hilarious. --81.152.113.134 (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"A foetus squeezes itself through a fallopian tube." That would be news. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this fascinating complication of the royal birth. It's probably going to be the first royal in the Guinness Book of World Records!

I knew my GCSE Biology was probably going to let me down. I was going to use a different part of the reproductive system but was afraid it would have misogynistic overtones :P --81.152.113.134 (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The talk page tells us that ".. he hasn't done anything apart from come out of a famous woman's vagina" (at least as far as North Somerset is concerned). Surely, that's all the biological detail we need? But, I feel, even this achievement was probably bit of a cooperative enterprise. Martinevans123 (talk)

Hail Prince George! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, a stroke of genius, followed by a hearty cheer, in very quick succession there. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC) .. but hastily pressed into abdication, alas.

Prince is born, not duchess gives birth

The subject is the prince, not the Duchess. Now we have his name, the blurb should be the much simpler

"Prince George of Cambridge, third in line to the throne of the Commonwealth realms, is born to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge."

μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what's wrong with "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, gives birth to a son, Prince George of Cambridge, third in the line of succession to the throne of the Commonwealth realms."? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That makes it sound like a divine gift from God. -- tariqabjotu 20:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Shucks. And we thought Wikipedia wasn't a news channel. Does the name make him even more notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Should we change the ITN blurb? Gives birth to a son is redundant, given we know his name is prince george. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 08:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that Catherine is the one who actually did something, I feel that the blurb should be maintained as is. Of course, I also feel that the little wriggler should not have a page of his own as he hasn't done anything yet. In and of himself, he does not seem notable to me. His parents are notable, he isn't. --Khajidha (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Seeing double

DYK and OTD seem to be doubling up on Mussolini's fall. Sca (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed from DYK. —howcheng {chat} 17:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Royals

There are four items on the main page today relating to royals. What's up with that? 72.28.82.250 (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)