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 21:11 on 19 October 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

{{subst:dyk admins}} Apologies for the very short notice on this. I just expanded @Jeraxmoira:'s draft of Navin Chawla (judge) and published it. I think "a judge" in "... that a judge is threatening to shut down Wikipedia in India over a defamation lawsuit?" should link to it.--Launchballer 23:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: Fixing ping.--Launchballer 23:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think the link is necessary; people can get there from the bolded article. On another note, does WP:DYKBLP apply? I suppose it's whether you think shutting down Wikipedia is a negative or positve... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• When I remember that even our debates pass the GNG, sometimes I wonder...  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The comments of a judge in an article about a court case are surely covered by "unduly".--Launchballer 00:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm...we could change it to 'a court'? Valereee (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that we need the link. Schwede66 02:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

As this is an actively ongoing case in which the judge's position is interactive, it obviously violates WP:DYKHOOK requirement for "a definite fact that is unlikely to change". As the case involves defamation, it obviously violates WP:DYKBLP too. And as Wikipedia is itself a party, coverage of the matter and posting on the main page is not impartial but comes across as canvassing. And the big violation is WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, "Do not post legal threats on Wikipedia." Legal threats are supposed to be referred to the WMF, which is handling the matter. Has WMF's legal team been consulted about this? Andrew🐉(talk) 06:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The first one is solved by changed "is threatening" to "has threatened", if we have to. The second one is incorrect, there are no DYKBLP problems here as ANI is not a person and the judge's action here isn't implicitly negative. The third one is a pretty cut-and-dry use–mention distinction, unless you're arguing that DYK is making legal threats against the WMF somehow. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No objection to is>has. No objection to judge>court. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Wikipedia isn't actually a party. WMF is a party. The court doesn't really understand that, either. Valereee (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

And now Valeree is claiming to know the law better than a judge. See also WP:NOLEGAL, "Nothing on Wikipedia.org or of any project of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a legal opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of law." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not the law the court doesn't understand. It's the relationship between WMF and Wikipedia. Valereee (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I get the feeling that you've misunderstood who WP:NOLEGAL is aimed at. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should have articles on the front page about current legal cases which wikipedia/the WMF is involved in. Secretlondon (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

"... that the statue of John Stockton was re-positioned by its sculptor about 20 times by using a wrench to adjust ball-and-socket joints on steel rods?"

The solid bronze statue in the article's infobox does not have ball-and-socket joints, as previously mentioned at Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of John Stockton and Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Statue of John Stockton. What seems like the most likely interpretation of this hook is not accurate, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with that concern. Reading the source, it was the clay model or models that had been adjusted. Once it's been cast in bronze, it won't be moving any longer. The hook needs a tweak in my view. Pings to Left guide (nominator), Dr vulpes (reviewer), Rjjiii (who nominated the hook), DimensionalFusion (mover to prep), and Crisco 1492 (mover to queue). Schwede66 03:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The Deseret source and the article prose are pretty clear that these adjustments were made while sculpting in the artist's home basement studio, and that aspect should be made clear in the DYK hook if there's potential ambiguity. Furthermore, the source was published in June 2004 before the statue was ever erected outside the arena in public because it says will eventually stand outside the Delta Center in bronze. Left guide (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Also courtesy ping to @Netherzone: who discussed and worked with me on this article a fair amount, and seems to have some additional specialized expertise about sculptures. Left guide (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but I don't think I nominated anything for this one, just expressed confusion. Also, I agree that the text in the actual article is not confusing (at least to the same degree) because it's placed in a sequence of events. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've changed to "... that, when preparing the statue of John Stockton, its sculptor repositioned the model about 20 times by using a wrench to adjust ball-and-socket joints on steel rods?" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  That resolves my concern. Netherzone, are you good with this wording? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  @RjjThe term "clay statue" is incorrect - the clay version was a full-scale model, not a statue. The finished work after it was cast in bronze is the statue. Netherzone (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Re-ping @Rjj Netherzone (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Rjjiii re-ping again? Netherzone (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I had proposed to change it to read that DYK "the sculptor re-positioned a clay statue of John Stockton about 20 times by using a wrench to adjust ball-and-socket joints on steel rods before making the casts for the bronze version?"Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It's the steel infrastructure of the sculpture that was repositioned via its ball-and-socket joints. The infrastructure was then covered with clay and modeled to look realistic. The bronze statue was then cast from the clay model (probably in pieces that were then reassembled and welded together, chased, finished and patina'ed. Netherzone (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(October 25)

Monday's FL

(October 21)

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.

Tomorrow's POTD

• house sparrow blurb - at "and is the the most widely" pls remove a "the" JennyOz (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. Thank you! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Main Page redesign

The main page has looked the same for over 12 years and I think its overdue for a redesign. The main page is still using == Default Headings == which looks quite ugly and unprofessional for use on the front page. I was thinking of something like the "executive" design (or even the "regal" design), in which everything has the coloured heading and text background.  Nixinova  T  C  07:30, April 8, 2018 (UTC)

@Nixinova: Not to dampen your ideas, but dozens and dozens of people have come before you to propose redesigns of the Main Page. The problem is that while you could probably get consensus that a redesign is needed, you would not get consensus as to what the redesign should be exactly. I wish you luck, but this is a very steep hill for you to climb. You would probably need to start a formal Request for Comment or some form of very broad and publicized discussion, as well. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

You can use the textbox at the top of this page and search for 'redesign' for all the gory details. It took years of discussion to get a picture caption for ITN, so good luck with a redesign. Isa (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

And one could argue the reverse: the present design is the instantly recognisable Wikipedia 'brand' (see any number of contemporary-set TV programs and films where WP is used for research) - and we can all think of several cases where changing the design has been a marketing failure.

When, eventually, it becomes necessary to change the MP design (for whatever reasons) there will be (a) a long discussion involving wailing and teeth-gnashing on all sides on this talk page, (b) people become familiar with the new setting and wonder what all the fuss was about, and (c) several persons will suggest ways of improving the page again (none of the redesigns resembling each other). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:BROKEN.--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Isanae (Isa): I know. But again: is there no support anyway anyhow to make this change? Some 'consensus construct'? How ever could this en:WP be taken hostage? - DePiep (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: What I remember from previous discussions is that there is a consensus that the design is outdated. The problem is what to replace it with. There were various alternate designs, mock ups, etc. that were done, but people have different tastes. My personal conclusion at the time was that unless there's some executive action from the WMF, a redesign won't happen. Still, it can't hurt to talk about it, so have at it. Isa (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"unprofessional", "ugly", and I'd also add drab and dated. It would look great if we were in 2006. Professional websites, especially ones with our readership do not look like an old geocities design. All signs it most definitely is broken. Aiken D 23:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

So do you support Nixinova's "executive design"? To repeat: "The problem is that while you could probably get consensus that a redesign is needed, you would not get consensus as to what the redesign should be exactly." Everyone expects everyone else to support their own particular redesign. Nothing will change unless enough people endorse someone else's. Art LaPella (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No I don’t as they are too similar to the current design. I’d overhaul completely and probably get rid of in the news and anniversaries and make it more like Google’s homepage. But as you say, just my opinion and as it’s so open to variation it’s going to be very difficult to change. Some people still think it’s fine and will oppose any change. Aiken D 10:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right about less on the Main Page. Editors want to be read, but readers come here for the search box to choose what they want to read about. If they wanted someone else to choose, they could go to any other website. Mainly it makes the search box harder to find. Art LaPella (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You mean like this? Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at that lately! Looks good, but of course a version customized for English Wikipedia and versions for the alternatives would be better. Art LaPella (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment see Design by committee. The only way the MP gets changed is if the foundation decrees it. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Every redesign I've seen is at least as ugly as what we have now. And the 2 the original poster mentioned are especially hideous. My question iz, if you know about the alternatjve pages (as the OP obviously does) and like one of them, why not just set that as your home pasge? Or make your own and use that? That's what I do. --Khajidha (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

But - the main problem with ITN seems to be only 'why have we had image X/Y's ghastly face up for Z days now?' and for OTD 'Why was anniversary X missed out' - and one of the functions of the MP #is# to lead the reader to topics they did not know they wished to know more about.

Anyone care to design a 'customise your WP MP viewer experience' widget so anybody who does not care for the current design can change it to taste (on signing in)? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I think something like the executive is good. Something fresh yet familiar. ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 15:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

But it's almost identical. There'd be no point in changing it to something so similar. I'll have to see if there's a suitable design from the alternatives or make my own. Aiken D 15:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the several sections could be made slightly more distinct?

If there was a grand poll of WP users on redesigning the MP there would (a) be only a fractional component responding, (b) a number who state that they are reasonably happy with the layout/want only minor rearrangements, and (c) a very large number of completely different alternative versions (many of which will be impractical to set up). There will be much discussion and disagreement (possibly enough to fill several archives pages) and we will be left with the MP as is/with minor tweaks, followed within a few months by the next proposal for reform. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, we’re stuck with it forever. Aiken D 18:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It might be possible to have subtle changes over time so that people get used to them.

To what extent does the WP main page-as-is and its venerable age (in webpage design terms) provide part of WP's brand image? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason I chose the executive one is because it is similar to the current page and I thought it wouldn't need as much discussion as a complete overhaul.  Nixinova  T  C  20:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If the request for comments at the village pump about a proposal to end the system of portals goes through, that might be a good time to do a full main page redesign. See also section below on this ('Portals links on the main page'). Carcharoth (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I changed the Main Page! It can be done. . Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• I am creating a mockup here (It is constantly getting changed) but have not received a good response up-till now. I am just linking it here so that it can catalyze other people to have better ideas. One of the major advantages should be that it does not use tables but one of its drawbacks is that it mimics the current page too closely. — FR⁺ 11:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I find this new design largely inferior to the present one. In fact it is less a design than a list. I don't see how one could improve the present design in the first place, and changing for the sake of changing is irrational activism. But beside that you proposition seems to me to be a real worsening, with too much place assigned to any banality: here for example "in the news" and "on this day" are screaming for half so much width each. And when tables are the more flexible and powerful instrument for designing layouts so we should be using tables whatever our dear html5 fetishists could say. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

@FR30799386: I really, really like your design, although I would like the headers to be emphasized for easier navigation. Other than that I love it. ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 10:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

But it's so similar to the current design, there'd be no point in changing it. Aiken D 10:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Itsquietuptown:-Ill try to do it . I am currently working out a way to make the design responsive but am finding it difficult to implement it — FR⁺ 06:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't reinvent the wheel. The 2016 exercise, sadly abandoned, included a responsive layout without touching the visual design. It was excellent. I can't remember, offhand, who did the hard work on that; perhaps someone else can? Bazza (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Eureka! Done. Thanks for all the feedback@Bazza 7:-His name was User:Edokter as far as I can make out from the archives. Btw thanks for the inspiration.@Itsquietuptown:-I bolded the headers as per your advice — FR⁺ 11:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to confirm: let's not grave-dance this. Isa (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm still alive. And I occasinally check in. For the record: I'd be thrilled if anything form my design, styled or not, was incorporated to any redesign. The responsive layout is the biggest change. The problem was no-one had any idea for the styling, despite my continued calls for input. The whole plan fell apart not because of the design, but because of insistence on process, only ensuring that nothing would ever change. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Portals links on the main page

A request for comments at the village pump concerns a proposal to end the system of portals and this would require the removal of the links currently on the main page (possibly including the community portal, which also has a deletion notice, though the inclusion of this in the proposal is unclear). The consequence for the main page would be the need for a redesign, and serendipitously I see that one the perennial redesign proposals is currently active on this page! So I'll leave a note there as well. What to do with the space on the main page relating to portal links probably needs to be discussed here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• (Well this ties in well with the redesign doesn't it?)  Nixinova  T  C  20:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Miloš Forman

He has died yesterday; pls add to the "recent deaths" section. Litwin Gorliwy (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Litwin Gorliwy Hello, recent deaths are not added automatically, they must first be nominated at WP:ITNC to evaluate the quality of the article and update. I invite you to do so. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

same article that appeared on the same day in 2012

Why did you put the same article on main page that was in 2012 Abote2 (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It was decided last year that Featured articles may appear on the Main page more than once, provided that at least five years have lapsed since their last appearance (see this RFC). Today is the anniversary of sinking of the Titanic. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Damascus Bombing link on In the News

Currently only "strike" is linked to the 2018 Damascus/Homs Bombing article. To make more people aware, why isn't "strike multiple government targets" all linked to the article? Ultimograph5 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like house style to me, we don't need to add more and more bold text "to make more people aware", I think that its prominence on the main page is doing that just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

a suspected chemical weapons attack

I don't know who wrote this nonsense abour 'suspected'. There WAS a chemical weapons attack. There may be doubt only about who was responsible. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you supply us with reliable sources which state definitively that this was a chemical attack please? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The main page reflects what reliable sources say, and currently all of the reliable sources say "suspected" and "alleged". Pretty straightforward, really.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)