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 09:38 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

News lack updating... Again

In the past few days, I've observed that the news are (again) lacking updates, because (again) the picture wasn't changed, the news stayed stuck In the same lines, and Sichuan doesn't disappear. I think that we should really start making a new news section criteria. The need for a change In the In The News section policy is not something we could need In two moths, but it'S something that we need now, and I'm not kidding. Or otherwise, we could just remove the section, because after all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. For the purpose of reading the news, we should reccomend visiting Wikinews. How about a banner with the Wikinews link and logo and a short description of Wikinews? Or At least giving some ideas? I don't really think it'S absolutely neccesary to have a news section In an encyclopedia, because Encarta and Brittanica have never had news sections, and they are (supposedly) prestigious encyclopedias. Hope we can reach a sort of agreement. --J.C. (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are complaining about. The picture represents an event that happened less than forty-eight hours ago and is very much still a developing story. How is that not good enough? There have been a series of significant events over the past week and so this week, of all weeks, has seen an especially high number of ITN updates with the most up-to-date, accurate information. This doesn't seem like the week to suggest that ITN isn't covering what's in the news because, this week, what's in the news is in sync with what's encyclopedic, and so ITN is spot-on. -- tariqabjotu 04:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind ITN not updating. But I agree that it shouldn't be on the Main Page. I think it doesn't do the best job it could with showcasing Wikipedia's best content. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither does did you know?, but both offer articles that the readers may find very interesting. ITN is updating at a fairly good pace at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but in the pasty forty-eight hours a lot of things have happened. In the past week, the news were updating at a rate of 1 picture (and story) per day. Now that we have the same line for forty-eight hours, I've started to think it really is in need of help. Maybe you should take the information from the newspapers, because (unless you live in Antarctica) news headlines are updated every day, not in two days. What I think is that it needs to be (fully) updated every day, changing everything. At least say "earthquake in Sichuan causes more deaths. Reports indicate X people have died as a consequence of the earthquake" At least change a few words (and the picture, fundamentally), but do not become lazy in the editing of a very actual section like the In The News section.--J.C. (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Update daily? No, we should update as things happen, as we do. As you have already pointed out, we are not a newspaper, and fewer stories warrant inclusion in Wikipedia than in a newspaper; only stories with a lasting significance will be included here, and so only stories with a lasting significance should be included on ITN. If so much has happened, then it should have been discussed on WP:ITN/C, and ITN should be updated appropriately. It's quite simple- if you want more to appear, suggest more. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to stick to what you said, but, doesn't lasting significance mean it has to be old? I supposed it did...--J.C. (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No? Alarming as you may find it, things of lasting significance do still happen. Why would things of 'lasting significance' have to be old? J Milburn (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the unfortunate circumstances, not getting ITN updated so often may be a good sign for everyone. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Note the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:In the news 2.0, where a proposal for a major structural change to ITN has gained some traction. However, more input is required. BanyanTree 01:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no way of predicting lasting significance. If it's old, we know it has proven to be of lasting significance. With recent events, we can only guess. These guesses, if made correctly, can be accurate. But sometimes they're totally off and nobody will remember the event in a few years. With older things, we know, with recent ones, we can only guess. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, how about we switch ITN for DYK or OTD? Most user's screens are not that huge, meaning they have to scroll down to see the DYK and OTD. I think that DYK is interesting to more readers because it's updated more frequently. Since it's interesting to more readers, I think it should be at a more prevalent place. And the perfect place for that is right next to the FA, instead of ITN. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is time to remove the news(and picture)about earthquake from the main page. It has remained the same for the last 5 days with the same picture and the same text. The only thing being updated is the death count. When I log on to wikipedia I want to see news that actually happend today, not a week ago. There is far more important news to be updated! Chris18240 (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said the topic is beginning to loss interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platypus929 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want up to date news, check out a news site like wikinews, not wikipedia, which is not a news site Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So why have ITN at all? --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To highlight things that the readers may be interested in, the same as the rest of the main page. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if ITN is fulfilling that purpose. How many readers are interested in something that happened over a week ago? And if they are, they'll read it once, but it remains there for quite some time afterwards. No other Main Page section is updated as slowly as ITN. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You forget that not everyone looks at the main page daily. I was going to show you some data, but I can't find the page view counter- grok.se or something? It's bookmarked on my other laptop... J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

stats.grok.se. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thankyou. Now, let us take the Russian elections, which were on from 13:53, 8 May 2008 to 01:13, 14 May 2008. I chose this article as there was a substantial article there before the event, meaning we have something to compare it to. If you look at the stats you will see that it was viewed the most times on the third day, which pretty clearly shows that the 'change news daily' argument doesn't really hold much water in terms of what people are reading. Although after that the views did begin to drop, (probably because it no longer had pride of place on the ITN section rather than because people didn't care any more) the days in which it was on the main page show a LOT more views than on other days. Even on the last day, when it was only there for an hour, it saw a whopping 3.7k views, compared to the average since (around 2k). Compare this to a DYK- the last batch was up for over seven hours (I'll also take this opportunity to say how much good work BorgQueen does with DYK, but that's by-the-by) but the top article saw practically no views, (at the time of posting, seven today, which includes the time it was on the main page) even though it was accompanied by a picture. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK is viewed so little because it's in a much less prominent place. Most people must scroll down to view it. That's why I suggested (not sure if here or in a different thread) for ITN and DYK to be switched. DYK would get a more prominent place, because it's likely to interest more people (thanks to it being updated more often). The only reason why the ITN articles are more visited now is because they're higher on the page. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(Deliberate un-indent) Yes, but the fact that ITN is still viewed shows that there is no need to start updating it a ridiculous amount, that was my point. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's calling for a "ridiculous amount". We'd just like items not to hang around for two weeks. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

FA May 27

just noting that the juxtaposition of two Vietnam War-era FA's on consecutive days might be a bit disconcerting to some... and might be something better avoided in the future... ( related subject matter as FA on consecutive or nearly consecutive days, that is). 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The F-4 Phantom II is not only used in Vietnam and not only during the Vietnam War era. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotect articles which are linked from the main page

I call for a semiprotection for articles linked from the main page because of the high degree of vandalism they obtain in result that again consumes much valuable time to fight manually. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection for why we don't do this. howcheng {chat} 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Fitzherbert

moved to the article's talk, get it fixed there first. ffm 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Evacuation

At a quick glance, it appears the people in Sichuan are being evacuated on a futuristic craft with retrorockets. Jw6aa (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the appropriate FAQ. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 16:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You've gotta admit that's pretty funny though. I laughed out loud and I've seen these complaints a few dozen times before. Random89 19:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki image content filter?

Is there any simple way to use some kind of content filter (like seen on google images) so that i dont see pornographic content when looking up certain topics on Wikipedia that may be a little sexual but only looked up to learn not view porn... ((ex. images of full frontal nudity or close up of genitals (btw, where is the explicit porn content warning?)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.116.220 (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and this isn't the proper forum. ffm 20:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The warning can be viewed by clicking 'disclaimers' at the bottom of the page, (and I believe that is more than is required by US law, not that I'm a lawyer, or American) but I personally think nudity should be expected in an encyclopedia anyway. This issue has been discussed many times, and, as Firefoxman says, the village pump would be the best place for this discussion. J Milburn (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The only way is to turn off images in your browser (there is a setting for this), when you know you are going to an article that may have sexual images. This would make the page load faster too.--Pharos (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This also has nothing to do with the Main Page. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(Which was what ffm meant I presume, if you didn't know already) Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There was also some technical solution devised for the Mohammed images, that I think involved adding a line in your monobook.css file to not show images on that page. Unfortunately that assumes you know which articles have bad images on them beforehand. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Main Page

I tried to look for an article about main pages, but it keeps redirecting me here. If there is a one, where is it? 88.114.27.91 (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Homepage.--Pharos (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Sometimes I feel myself so little and stupid... 88.114.27.91 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)