Talk:Main Page

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 16:44 on 25 July 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 the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 26, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(July 29)

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

Capital p for Palaearctic please; the same as for continents, countries, etc. Thanks. JMCHutchinson (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the lowercase version is correct in this instance: it's being used as an adjective, not a proper noun. Equivalent to the Alps vs an alpine habitat. Modest Genius ^talk 13:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That's wrong. In English (unlike German and French) we use a capital for adjectives to do with geography: for instance, French fries, not french fries. If you are describing the location of a village in the Swiss Alps, it would be Alpine. The small-a alpine is a description of the environment, so you might apply it to a ski resort in the Rockies as well as to one in the Alps. The same goes for Mediterranean (to do with that specific sea) and mediterranean (to do with a climate, anywhere in the world). Palaearctic only has one meaning, referring to the northern part of the Western Hemisphere Eurasia and Africa, so always with a capital, whether used as a noun or an adjective. For instance, our article Palaearctic realm has "The Palaearctic realm" in the second paragraph. JMCHutchinson (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Main Page Design

Isn't it time the main page is revamped. It could look quite a bit more professional.--Billy (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should it look more professional? Only some people know that it is here. Do you mean that we sould have a coloured background? Or some other astheatic effect? Dreamy ^§ 23:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

more professional? what's wrong with it now? freenaulij 00:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean as in content or layout. Other wikipedia pages (for example portals) seem to have better aesthetics. What about some icons or something. Its merely a suggestion. There is nothing wrong with the main page.--Billy (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh... You mean the actual main page, not the discussion... Well, it should look good, it is the most viewed page... Dreamy ^§ 00:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I've said and read things about this so many times, you've got my support if it goes to discussion but to be honest I don't see it happening, soon someone's gonna say "if it ain't broken don't fix it" (which is my pet peeve by the way) and the conversation will go downhill from there. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 02:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Change it for certain days like Holidays

Since Wikipedia is for English people, we should have the British Monarch's birthday and the US independence day on 4 July as two holidays that can be changed to blue. This works because all English speaking countries are either US territories or part of the Commonwealth!!! Also, I know that Christmass is a religious holiday but in the Commonwealth and in the US it is very much a secular holiday. Or say Halloween, where the background can be changed to orange (for pumpkins) and for christmass it could be green red and white (for snow and for mistle toe). Tourskin (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And st patricks day!! make it all green!! for realTourskin (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

While it would be good, the problem is holidays are not always international. Let me break it down:

• The Queen's actual birthday is nowhere as big, nor is the equivelant, of the US's Indepedence Day. Yes, there is a "Queen's Birthday" public holiday, but a) it is not actually the Queen's real birthday b) different places celebrate it at different times c) not all places in the Commonwealth do have a Queen's Birthday day. Each country usually has its own national day, so like how the US has Independance Day... Australia has Australia Day and New Zealand has Waitangi Day for example.
• Halloween is mainly an American thing, and would be very unprofessional.
• Christmas could work, even though in the Southern hemisphere Christmas is in summer (as you are suggesting wintery imagery, though the association of Christmas and Winter does exist here in Australia due to American influences).
• St Patricks Day is an American thing, really

I take serious offence to my country being labelled either a US territory or part of the Commonwealth, and St. Patrick's Day is not an American thing. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol sorry I forgot about Ireland having a large number of English speakers but yeah theres something for everyone in my list. Theres nothing else British. And Halloween is not an American thing only. Tourskin (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Halloween did actually originate in Ireland as well, its an old Celtic feast. So if we do change the page on Holidays, Ireland will be featuring quite a bit.... if I have anything to say about it. :D Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 14:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Halloween did not originate in Ireland. The 'end of summer' festival on October 31, ie what we now call Halloween, has been celebrated throughout much of Europe since pre-christian times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.205.12 (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC):(

Sorry mate, I had known that St Patrick's Day has its roots in Ireland but I was under the impression that it was mainly celebrated in America (we don't celebrate it here in Australia, and I've only heard of it mentioned in American TV shows). Turns out I was wrong though, according to St Patrick's Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.99.82.107 (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No worrys man, I'm a fan of your idea, as I am with most new ideas that are brought to Wikipedia because I think the place is stagnating slightly, but having said that, innovation must be done right, or not at all, so the holidays must be at there historic roots as well as there more popular ones (only both could be considered encyclopaedic) if we were to decorate the main page with them. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 16:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Another way to approach it would be to consider different designs for days other than holidays, something more international in flavor anyway. I have no idea what this would entail, just a thought. 67.173.131.28 (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So what, specifically, do you all want to do to the main page on these days? I agree in principle, but I would like to see reasonably subtle changes (like google) rather than complete reskins (like, say, uncyclopedia). If people don't like the idea of changing the main page, maybe there could be some kind of preference thingy to govern it (it could be either on or off by default)? Bistromathic (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What about all of the Chinese people who speak English? There are almost as many English speakers in China as there are in the USA. And according to England's PM, Chinese English-speakers will outnumber all others combined in twenty years. Cigarette (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree Way too cumbersome the main page would change everyday of the year and even conflict some days... Just because it is the "English" Wikipedia doesn't mean other non-"English" cultures cannot be reflected in the main page. You have all kinds of things during the year in all countries around the world and how do you rationalise a holiday's importance? E.g. Guy Fawkes Day is recognized in some English speaking countries but not others. Also India is an English speaking country and they among a few Caribbean countries celebrate Diwali/Divali and that is a *very* important time in India but it is days-- long. Also Emancipation Day in the British Empire is celebrated on different days by different countries how do you choose??? And lets not talk about British practice of a) holiday, b) bank holiday and so on... Or if a Holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday etc... etc... CaribDigita (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that it could be simple recolourings to reflect the holiday (if that holiday has specific colours associated with it), and perhaps have a related featured article if one exists (which is something we pretty much do anyway), and perhaps to use the google example above, we could change the wikipedia logo appropriatly aswell. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 23:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys are still talking about this? Fine, add colors for Chinese new year. Tourskin (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not something sutble like a logo change such as what Google does? (See here) TheGreatZorko (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Lung cancer picture

The lung cancer photo looks a lot like an overdone jacket potato with cheese. I know it isn't this. Simply south (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Its Thanksgiving week and the cancerous lung picture looks like a cooked turkey, coincidence or planned?--Coasttocoast (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, do we have to choose an actual close-up picture of lung cancer. I mean is there a more moderate picture to use on the main page? Janus8463 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've switched to an image of the cells through a microscope. The tumor was a really tasteless choice for an image.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But now young children won't be scared out of smoking! THINK OF THE CHILDREN Gracenotes^T § 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I was finishing my lunch when I opened wikipedia and almost threw up all over my desk. Many thanks to those who changed the picture. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. That was definitely the right thing to do. --Masamage ♫ 03:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah geez. Tourskin (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, wait. I'm not saying that the picture shouldn't be on wikipedia. I'm just saying its not the first thing I want to see when I sit down at my computer (wikipedia's main page is my IE home page). I'm all for lung cancer being the feature article, but there has to be a more appropriate picture (one that has less shock value) for the main page. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. The tumour image can be IN the article, but is a bit too much being ON the main page.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I guess so. I suppose someone got carried away with that pic. Tourskin (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with HisSpaceResearch's conclusion and thanks to the people who changed the images.Janus8463 (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you so much for changing that picture. I've been wikisurfing all evening and have resorted to covering that nasty and grotesque picture up with my hand as I type in my searches. I'm glad to know it's not just 'cos my old man died of lung cancer less than a year ago and I was being an overdramatic weenie! Great job as usual guys. 24.166.178.235 (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing that image, admins. I seriously lost my appetite upon seeing it. Sick. I actually changed my home page from Wikipedia (it's been my home page for almost 1 and a half) to Google to avoid seeing it again. Knowitall (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You could just use Special:Search to search... Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It really wasn't that disgusting if you think it's not lung cancer. --Howard the Duck 11:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like the image was reverted back to the original one... Do I sense an upcoming edit war here? (actually it would be more of a wheel war since only admins can edit the template) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol the revert edit summary is Revert. That is the best main page image ever.. Jackaranga (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was switched back again with the edit summary, "This image has more scientific merit and is not just up there for the shock factor". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Technicaly not a whell war since commons admins who have a different sets of permissions could join in too (don't worry no chance of that actualy happpening).Geni (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In this particular situation, I don't see how a commons admin effectively "could join in too". The only thing that a commons admin can do is protect/unprotect the images in question. Most of the edit warring and reverting is on the TFA template here on Wikipedia. Also these images can be "{{c-uploaded}}", essentially blocking any effects by commons admins. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Commons admins can upload over the top.Genisock2 (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Over the top" of a "{{C-uploaded}}" image? Such a Commons admin would probably have to be an admin in English Wikipedia as well, I'm afraid. --PFHLai (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am gravely concerned that admins were removing a picture for being "gross." Consensus has clearly been against those complaining about pictures they find unpleasant appearing on the main page. Atropos (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be too, but in this case, the new image was at least as good, perhaps better, than the one there before. I would tend to agree with IronGargoyle's edit summary; the first image was more shock factor than educational merit.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have to strongly disagree. The second image has little merit for the uneducated viewer (I.E. our audience). Perhaps for a doctor or biologist it does but not so much for the average reader/viewer. It looks just like a bunch of purple round things. The original image is much more meaningful to the average reader. Yet it may seem disgusting to some but if anything, that just shows readers can see there is something seriously wrong with the cancerous cells unlike with the replacement. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So, let's see. A "gross" medical image gets removed, but when an objection was raised to the phrase "Lick Me in the Ass" on the main page, cries of attempted censorship were raised and the phrase stayed where it was. Huh. The main page has become, at least partially, a tool for demonstrating how edgy and envelope-pushing Wikipedia can be. This is disappointing. HiramShadraski (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

When it offends me, then removing it is of course not censorship. How can you not understand that? Danthemankhan 23:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the donation banner encouraging vandalisim?

Since the banner went up, I believe I have seen vandalisim rise a bit. Your thoughts. Marlith ^T/C 00:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought: This has nothing to do with the Main Page Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 01:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I shall move it to a different talk page. Marlith ^T/C 01:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, The Village Pump would be best. --Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 02:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Newest articles links

The top one has links to content that could be harmful to children viewing the encyclopedia for school work or research.

Shouldn't the main page have censored content due to the traffic coming to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.130.174 (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia is not censored. The article in bold font should be safe to read in school, though. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Better they should learn here than on the streets. —Nricardo (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm not sure how many streets would teach people about mammals displaying homosexual behaviour. :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately? Your opinion, guy. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of knowledge. Some things may be controversial, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Death, drugs, sex, violence etc are very real things. Its not up to us what children should or shouldn't see or read - that's for their parents, tutors and teachers. --Soetermans (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

November 22 - On this day

Just a suggestion: Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to put John F. Kennedy's death on the front page's "On this day" section? I saw it had his assassination on other languages' homepages (like Spanish Wikipedia), and I believe that it's fitting to do the same to English's Wikipedia. Cuyler91093 (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's already (well not really) in the Featured Picture section. --Howard the Duck 09:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Implied pretty much I guess. Jmlk17 10:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if an anniversary is mentioned or implied in either Today's featured article or Today's featured article, it usually does not appear in the On this day section because it would be redundant on the Main Page. But rest assured, John F. Kennedy's assassination will be back in 2008 (unless the John F. Kennedy assassination article is selected as the featured article for November 22, 2008). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to add "Today's featured list" to the main page

See Wikipedia:Today's featured list.

The Transhumanist    09:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Log In process @ Wiki projects (pedia, meta, quote)

Seems multiple login are required across the project platforms. Is this desirable? Wished to place Well in Quote with link, but can't without a 2nd login. Greg065874.139.161.183 (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not really desirable, but it's what happens with current programming. There's a long term project m:SUL designed to make it possible to use one account on multiple projects sometime in the future, though. --ais523 19:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

Is it just me or does the placement of a quesiton mark after each article statement both look confusing and seem unnecessary? Halogenated (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't find it confusing. I mean, it is need to make the sentence grammatically correct.
Did you know...that ______________________________________?
I find the question mark vital in this case (because it is a question). However, being a non-native speaker of English, I can't really tell what is confusing, and what is not. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It makes grammatical sense overall, but for some reason whenever I look at the article snippets all I see is the question mark and it throws me off. Probably just me and my myopic reading. Halogenated (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing here on Pakistan getting suspended from the Commonwealth?

Wow. That's a shocker. There's nothing here about Pakistan becoming suspended from the Commonwealth of Nations.

• Pakistan suspended from Commonwealth
• Pakistan barred from Commonwealth
• Pakistan suspended from Commonwealth
• Commonwealth suspends Pakistan
• Suspension from the Commonwealth: What it means

CaribDigita (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because, wow, you haven't posted at WP:ITN/C. Anyway, it's posted now. --Howard the Duck 02:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for that tone. Not everyone knows about WP:ITN/C. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The tone of my reply deserves the tone of the original poster. Ask nicely and be answered nicely. At least it's not a personal attack. --Howard the Duck 15:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the rules and ways of the Commonwealth, but is it such a big deal? Pakistan's been suspended three times before. --Soetermans (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it's a big deal since it's reported everywhere. --Howard the Duck 15:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't a tone to the response, was there? I didn't notice one it was just a straight forward response to my question. CaribDigita (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this isn't the right place for this recommendation ... but, I think the link on the main page (titled 'Commonwealth of Nations') should take you to the Suspension section on the Commonwealth of Nations page. That's where the current event is discussed. Wikidsoup _[talk] 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, whomever did that. Wikidsoup _[talk] 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys. I have no idea how this site works but I nominate the chess resources on wikipedia as outstanding. Virtually every opening variant and game notable as a theoretical examplar is covered. Incredible!