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 22:42 on 1 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 in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that Yang Pao'an refused to forsake the Chinese Communist Party, reportedly even after a telephone call with Chiang Kai-shek?

The word "reportedly" is a red flag per MOS:WEASEL and MOS:DOUBT. The article's version of the story starts, "According to the People's Daily..." That's a clearer attribution but People's Daily is an official organ of the CCP and so is not reliable on the subject of its martyrs and Chiang Kai-Shek. See the similar WP:XINHUA which explains that "For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately..."

Note also that the People's Daily story was not a contemporary account but was published in 2021, ninety years after the event.

So, this doesn't seem to be a definite fact as required by WP:DYKHOOK.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Just going to mention that, at the very least, the telephone call has been reported since at least 1981.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's still 50 years after the event. What's the historical source for the story? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Tomorrow's OTD

• 'F-13' Superfortress — The F-13 was simply a photo-recon version of the ubiquitous B-29, and only a few were produced. Suggest change to "B-29 photo variant." – Sca (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 1, today)

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

F****d up

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.

---

The main page is the first place people see when they come to Wikipedia. It should not have profanity. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.197.226 (talk • contribs)

For reference, this is about the last DYK hook:

• ... that in the Moving Pictures webcomic, World War II is used solely as a backdrop to tell a "fucked up love story"?.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. There are no absolute standards of offensiveness. We can't base of content decisions on what any one reader may or may not be bothered by. --Jayron32 19:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I very much agree that profanity should be avoided on the front page: WP:CENSORMAIN. That particular DYK hook could presumably have been phrased in such a way as to avoid that expression, without the front page being any the worse for it; there is no need to introduce profanity where unnecessary. Dionysodorus (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree with User:Jayron32 that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and that 129.176.197.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) view is only one reader. Further the IP has ignored repeated requests to sign their contributions and to add their comments to this Talk page, rather than my own Talk page. This IP has "edited" before, so should be aware of Wikipedia conventions. David J Johnson (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the profanity could have been avoided here, because it is a direct quote. I do think the fact that we are talking about the Main Page here should factor into how we deal with profanity on the Main Page (which many children would see upon their arrival here) and we can use a bit of common sense but I don't think direct quotes should be censored. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Observation: WP:CENSORMAIN is an essay, whereas WP:NOTCENSORED is policy. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED applies to articles, but the Main Page is not an article. WP:CENSORMAIN may be an essay, but it's one we've observed for a long time. I can't remember ever seeing "fucked" on the Main Page, and I'm not at all surprised it got a negative response. I hope we don't see this again. Jonathunder (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It's just another example of the people who write hooks being intentionally offensive then hiding behind the "no censorship" caveat. "We can't base of content decisions on what any one reader may or may not be bothered by." is a presumption that because only one reader commented that only one was offended.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You must not be aware of Fuck (film) which appeared as the TFA on March 1, 2014. NOTCENSORED is a policy, and it pertains to everywhere. --Majora (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And this justifies the continued of vulgarity how?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The word "fuck" isn't vulgar. freshacconci talk to me 01:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was in response to Jonathunder's comment that they couldn't remember ever seeing the word "fucked" on the Main Page. But since you asked, it justifies it because Wikipedia is not censored. Period. End of story. If you have a problem with that or if you wish to change policy to exclude the main page from the policy please start a RfC on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Or you can get involved in the decisions on main page content at the relevant talk pages (Template talk:Did you know). DYK is pretty much maintained by a small group of volunteers and can always use fresh eyes. --Majora (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is Gropecunt Lane was a TFA. End of fucking story.--WaltCip (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between censorship and editorial judgement to make the first page most people(including children) see welcoming and pleasant. NOTCENSORED discusses articles but doesn't mention other pages or discuss the subject generally. I don't believe direct quotes such as the one in this case should be censored,(or even the film) but I also don't think the Main Page should be unnecessarily offensive. There's got to be a happy medium. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Also worth bringing up is WP:NOBODYCARES , a single complaint amonst annoyed groans is not enough to change something thats only there for 24 hours. --BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2016 (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.

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.

---

I don't have a particular opinion on the topic at hand, but I disagree with the closure of the discussion. While the item in question is indeed off the main page, and it is true the general topic of censorship on Wikipedia is best discussed elsewhere, a substantial portion of the discussion above was about "censorship" on the Main Page - particularly, if the Main Page should or should not have a different standard of "self-censorship"/"editorial judgement" than Wikipedia as a whole. Closure of the discussion strikes me as premature. As WP:CENSORMAIN and WP:NOTCENSORED apparently conflict (?) and there are a number of users in the thread that support CENSORMAIN (and those who apparently oppose it), it appears that there isn't a consensus on how "censorship"/"editorial judgement" should be treated on the Main Page. Closing the discussion at this point thus appears to have the effect of quashing whatever consensus building was being attempted. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not quashing it, but merely redirecting it away from where it is no longer relevant. The talk pages for WP:CENSORMAIN/WP:NOTCENSORED (and, again, the latter is policy, the former is not) are more suitable venues for perennial discussions, while the main page's talk page is more germane to the current main page. GRAPPLE ^X 17:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As a participant of the discussion I did not object to its closure, as Jayron was quite correct about what they said. 331dot (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. Talk:Main Page is not the appropriate place to discuss the policies of the Main Page. (Or errors on the Main Page. Or the content choices for the Main Page. Or the formatting of the Main Page.) - The appropriate place to establish binding consensus for Main Page policies is on the talk page of an arbitrary essay. Understood. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This issue isn't just about the Main Page, but about a Wikipedia-wide policy. It needs discussion from all users, not just those that see this page. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that the essay page is not the best place to discuss the issue this page is not the right place either since while censhorsphip was an issue when the text was on the page it is far less relevant now since the text in question is no longer here. Far more relevant is the policy page WP:NOT where WP:NOT CENSORED links to since that is were the rule originated. This is different than main page errors (which no one other than the IP suggested not discussing here) since that is far more relevant to the page overall and that is not directly linked to policy page.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2016 (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.