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 12:08 on 30 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

Hamad City

... that Hamad City in Gaza was largely destroyed within minutes?

This supposed fact is not clearly stated in the article. The nomination indicates that it's referring to airstrikes in December 2023. It appears that about 5 apartment blocks were destroyed on that occasion but the complex had about 50 and so was not "largely destroyed". Most of it must have remained because there was a subsequent Battle of Hamad in which 100 buildings were cleared and that took two weeks. A source from that article has photos which seem to show intact apartment blocks still standing at that time – March 2024. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: This should be pulled immediately. Spreading disinformation about the Israel-Hamas war is not a good look. It appears that the nominator Havradim noticed the mistake and offered a corrected hook [1], but Lightburst rejected this and approved the original. I wouldn't recommend a hasty swapping out of hooks though; ALT0a should get a proper review before being used. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that the nominator effectively identified the issue as they proposed a modification to the hook based on a "closer reading". That modification was rejected and it is surprising that the unmodified hook was then run as it was clearly erroneous. (edit conflict) Andrew🐉(talk) 07:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Pulled. Yes, this seems to have been a basic fact checking error, the article text (and the source) don't say what the hook says at all. The reviewer noted that there was a slight inaccuracy between the five airstrikes reported, and the five buildings mentioned in ALT0a, but then went back and approved ALT0, which the nominator had already noted did not match the sourcing, after reviewing again. I'd think as Soujourner says, maybe a modified version of ALT0a matching the wording used in the article would be best here. If this doesn't get reinstated today, I'd suggest giving the nom another chance another day, as I don't think the nominator was at fault for this. Also pinging @SL93 and Z1720: too, as promoter and admin. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging my efforts to get everything right. How about if we simply edit the hook to read "... that Hamad City in Gaza was largely destroyed within minutes during the Israel–Hamas war?" It's not as if there exists any doubt that the neighbourhood was in fact largely destroyed, correct? If anyone is really not sure about this, I encourage them to watch the embedded videos in this link. Maha Thaer, a resident of Hamad who is quoted in the article, said that "We don't have a city any more, only rubble. There is absolutely nothing left ... There were no walls or windows. Most of the towers were completely blown up." [2] Havradim leaf a message 10:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not a definite fact. The reporting in March has a quote "This neighborhood looks nice..." There was then more fighting and devastation but now it appears that residents like Maha Thaer are returning and taking stock. The war is still ongoing and so we don't have a conclusion yet. Viewing videos to form a provisional conclusion would be original research from primary sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, Thaer did say that most of the towers were completely blown up. But if we cannot take her word for it, how about – "... that Hamad City was turned into ruins as a result of the Israel–Hamas war?" Quote: "Hamas senior officials and their families moved into this new and opulent neighborhood, which then turned into ruins after the IDF entered as part of the ground operation to dismantle Hamas terror infrastructure in the area." [3] (added to the article) Havradim leaf a message 12:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

David Marchese

Doesn't the David Marchese hook break WP:DYKBLP? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say no considering David Marchese was open about that during an interview. SL93 (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

While I don't doubt that it is sourced, WP:DYKBLP is a higher criterion than regular WP:BLP: Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. (emphasis not mine) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's "unduly" when the subject doesn't make anything of it. Pinging nominator Spaghettifier, reviewer UndercoverClassicist, promoter Sohom Datta, and prep to queue mover Z1720. SL93 (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think it's undue nor does it really reflect negatively on Marchese. It's a lighthearted mistake from long ago that he volunteered in good humor for a podcast segment devoted to mistakes. It's not like the hook accuses him of committing malpractice. Spaghettifier (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts, the podcast very much gives of the vibes of a humorous anecdote rather than a "I don't want to talk about this ever again". Also, the hook makes it very clear that this incident was a accident and not a intentional act, making it hard to misinterpret as a deliberate negative action. Sohom (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There's consensus that this is not an error. Schwede66 05:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

In the second hook, why not put the appropriate quotes around "Lunch"? It would have the added benefit of making the hook funny. Primergrey (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@PSA, Launchballer, Sohom Datta, and Ganesha811: thoughts on this hook suggestion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection if the nominator approves. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Same here :) Sohom (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me.--Launchballer 03:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• 1985 – Ryan White, a poster child for HIV/AIDS in the U.S., was denied re-admission to his school, having developed the disease due to treatment for hemophilia.
  This seem doubly badly worded to me. I have no idea what "poster child for HIV/AIDS in the U.S." means and "due to" sounds like the wrong word choice as well. "Through"? Srnec (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Ryan White, a famous HIV/AIDS patient in the U.S., was denied re-admission to his school as he had contracted the disease from hemophilia treatments"? Does that work? Bremps... 05:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd replaced "as he had" with "after he", but yes, it works. Srnec (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

   Done – Schwede66 05:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Famous is POV, removed that. Stephen 11:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 5)

Monday's FL

(July 1, tomorrow)

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

ITN

¡Lugo!

Shouldn't ITN have been updated by now. Even the most fanatic Biden supporters might be bored by the same picture, day after day. ;D --Hapsala (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To suggest a new picture for ITN, please go to WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Too bad Obama didn't choose Fernando Lugo to be his veep. We haven't seem enough of him lately. :) Lovelac7 02:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I CAN HAZ TEH NEUZ STORIES?

Clearly there has never been a better time to put MAOR KATZ on the main page. ITN could use some cat related news. Ceiling Cat (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, stopgap image of Medvedev is up now. If someone wants to crop a map or something, feel free.-Wafulz (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Katz in china have started sprouting wings. Clearly this event is worth an entry in ITN. Otherwise, it's yet more evidence of Wikipedia's blatant anti-kat bias. Ceiling Cat (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To suggest a new item for ITN, please go to WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

See Winged cat. Anyway, ITN stories need links to the specific event, and that event in China clearly isn't notable enough. --haha169 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize that in the U.S., McCain picking his VP choice is a big deal, but I think the only way this could be seen as important enough to be on the main page is if some mention is made of her (Palin) being only the second woman VP nom after Geraldine Ferraro. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. is a huge country with international influence. Many internet and Wikipedia users are American. VP nominations are some of the biggest single pieces of news durring an election cycle. As the US is going through a major election cycle, I'd say VP nominations are considered news even on an international site like Wikipedia. Sure, it would be interesting if it mentioned that she was only the second after Ferraro, but the story doesn't need to have that to be considered newsworthy. In my opinion, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.82.144 (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To discuss what news items to include on ITN, pls go to WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To repeat yourself in a condescending way, please go to Talk:Main Page, err, oh wait, nevermind, you already found it. --208.82.225.232 (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Condescending"? How? I was just trying to direct traffic here. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Pic/Pick

Hey All,

I don't know if this has been discussed before (probably has), but I think any TFA should have a picture included. Seriously, the page looks awful when the TFA blurb has no pic. It breaks up the symmetry on the page (ITN, OTD, and DYK all have pics) and just looks off because most days there is a picture. Justice America/(5:15) 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Any image appearing on Main Page must be free-to-use, apparently, so TFA has to be imageless if there isn't a free image available. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, but why pick an article without a pic? Justice America/(5:15) 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think all FA's deserve to be showcased on the Main Page. Obviously, an editor's put enough work into it that it shouldn't be stopped by lack of free image. Spencer^T♦C 19:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Free images are not evenly distributed so doing this would reduce the variety in Main Page featured articles, which I think is probably a worthy goal. --Cherry blossom tree 20:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Enlighten me though, what's the difference between having a non-free image on a regular article and having one on the front page? Why? --Kaizer13 (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The fair use cases for images in articles tend to be stronger (but in many cases still pretty poor). Due to the way the main page is presented comeing up with a solid fair use case would be difficult in the vast majority of cases.Geni 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The claims that main page images must be 'free' are completely false. Jimbo once implied that he felt this way in a single edit. That is not sufficient grounds for policy (see WP:AAJ). However, the fair use approval page de-listed the main page during a rephrasing about a year back, and all efforts to reinsert it have been overwhelmed by the copyright brigade. Read into that what you will. For the record, I completely agree with using fair use images on the main page. Modest Genius ^talk 23:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

According to current policy, all main page images must be free. However we got there, it's current policy and there has never been consensus to change with valid arguments on both sides. The idea that this is simply AAJ is ludicrious. Jimbo has tried to make a number of policies which have failed, clearly people are capable of thinking for themselves and the reason why we are here now is because after this independent thought, people agree with him. No wonder this argument gets no where when those opposing current policy show such disrespect for other editors (by calling them names and claiming they can't think for themselves or don't have valid reasons for wanting fair use images to be excluded from the main page). While I'm not claiming the so called 'copyright brigade' is perfect, by and far, those who do the most name calling and refuse to accept the other parties have valid arguments appears to be those supporting fair use images on the main page Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW the term is "non-free", not "fair use"; whatever may or may not be permissible as fair use under US copyright law is immaterial; the non-free content policy is line with the Foundation's goals. howcheng {chat} 05:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is the opposite of a euphemism (does a word for such things exist?) Modest Genius ^talk 15:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Found it myself, the term is dysphemism Modest Genius ^talk 15:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Those of us who support fair use on the Main Page, such as myself, don't appreciate being generalized any more than you do. If you have a problem with what Modest Genius said, then fine, but it is no more okay for you to belittle eveyone that opposes you than it is for him to do so. Dragons flight (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

<shrug> I didn't intend to belittle anyone. It's just that it was quicker to type 'copyright brigade' than 'a number of users who favour a particularly restrictive copyright policy, including opposition to fair use of copyrighted images'. As for the AAJ, I suggest you read Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content_criteria_exemptions. Modest Genius ^talk 15:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Icon

Do you think we could add this code to the main page? I found it on a user page, and thought it look really cool!

<span style="position: absolute; top: -50px; left: -172px; z-index: -1">[[Image:Tireless_Contributor_Barnstar.gif|180px]]</span>

It makes:

Look at the logo! IT IS SO AWESOME!!

TurtleShroom! :) ^†Jesus Loves You and Died for you!^† 00:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that'd be useful on the main page. ffm 00:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a horrible idea. Colinstu (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not really a good idea. Decorating userpages is fine, but I don't think it's appropriate for the main page. J Milburn (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The main page is not a user. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Red links

I swear I saw this page this morning and their were no red links. Something wierd has happened, because someone has changed the links to the wierd symbols which would appear on the URL, but not on the titles. Someone please fix these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you be a little more specific? J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's rather easy to change the place a wikilink points to. As with all vandalism you should report it to the article talk page or simple revert it yourself. Try Wikipedia:Help desk if you have further general questions about how wikipedia works. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What a bunch of delightful links. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

New Look

I think wikipedia's main page deserves a new look now. Some other color scheme and such.. -59.95.107.51 (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. Teemu08 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -59.95.109.148 (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing w/o source

• "the latter announces it will become part of Russia."--Birmaley (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he is talking about the last headline in "In the news", where it says, "Russia officially recognizes the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; the latter announces it will become part of Russia." However, he is incorrect on one of two counts. Firstly, headlines on In the news don't need citations in the actual section. However, the related articles do, as can be evidenced by the article South Ossetia where it's announcement of it becoming a part of Russia is sourced. Deamon138 (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Citizendium

I think Citzendium, 'the world's most trusted encyclopedia and knowledge base', your sister concern, should be mentioned at the top. You should also mention that it is the forum where experts post —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.141.85 (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Citizendium is not affiliated in any way with Wikipedia. It is similar in that it is based on Wiki software (as are many websites), it's an encyclopaedia and it was founded by one of the co-founders of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger. Also please do not remove the automatic signature from after your posts - sign them yourself. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Citzendium can call themselves what they like and claim what they like- we have plenty of experts here, and we're generally more respected by the press. We're nothing to do with them, we simply inspired their project (as we did Veropedia, a target much more worthy of praise, and Conservapedia, one much less worthy of praise) and I do not support advertising them on our main page, as I can't say I support advertising anything on Wikipedia... J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Burn the Traitors! Or is that too strong? Witch trials perhaps? Oh also, the original posters proposal is probably based on the beleif that Citizendum is a sister project like WikiVersity or Wikimedia Commons. However as it is not, it would be spam. Gavin Scott (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is User:59.92.141.85 a sock of User:Larry Sanger? Deamon138 (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation and a quote from [4]:

Second, a lot of Web 2.0 advocates, whose online temples are websites like Wikipedia and YouTube, are philosophically opposed to our [Citizendium's] basic policies. They tend to be radical egalitarians and closet anarchists.

...Actually, I'm just someone who doesn't like being insulted. Since that page was prominently linked on the CZ home page, I must assume that CZ's "basic policies" include attacking Wikipedians. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A 'closet anarchist'? "I want to fight the power, but I don't want to reveal it in case society hates me for it." J Milburn (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop default local language selection at www.wikipedia.org

97,5% of the times i type wikipedia in the url field to search wikipedia, I intend to go to the English version because it is the most complete version.

But recently Norwegian has been the default selection next to the search field and most of the time the search doesn't produce anything. That is because I typed in the search term in English, beliving I was on the "normal" wikipedia, and because the Norwegian wikipedia is very small since there are only about 4,5 million norwegians in the world, while there are billions of english speaking people.

Is the default language selection thing some sort of policy to increase writing of non-english content? If so I think it is policy with too much negative externalities in the form of inconveniencing the users of wikipedia who intend to use the english version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMambo (talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not much we can do about that, I'm afraid. You should ask a developer somewhere on Meta, the site where they co-ordinate these websites. I couldn't tell you for the life of me how to go about that, though. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It moves you towards the Norwegian version because it assumes from your IP address that you are a Norwegian speaker. This is partially for the convenience of the user and partially, as you say, to increase traffic to the smaller Wikipedias. I've gotten into the habit of typing en.wikipedia.org anyway, but if you want to have this changed, you'll have to go elsewhere- I'm honestly not sure who maintains that page. J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia.org page is maintained over at meta-wiki, here. I assume they sort all those shenanigans out. – Toon^(talk) 19:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this discussion is out of place but since there appears to have been some accidental misinformation I think clarification is required. According to the discussion from the page you linked to, it's just following your browser's language preference. So I doubt they will change it. If it had been IP based then they might have changed their minds since it's a bit of a unreliable way of working out who speaks what. But www.wikipedia.org is the universal wikipedia website, not the English one and if you specify you prefer Norwegian in your browser, then it's logicial websites should direct you to their Norwegian version. If you don't want to go to Norwegian websites, either change your browser preference, or type in the website you actually want to visit (i.e. if you want to visit the English wikipedia go to en.wikipedia.org not www.wikipedia.org). The only thing which may change is there may be an option to allow you to specify the default language for www.wikipedia.org. But this would require a cookie. Nil Einne (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Emmy Noether

Wasn't "Leo Ornstein" the FA just a couple days ago? Typical Wiki propaganda... Truth-teller3 (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Pff, yeah right, propaganda of the maths-and-music league. More relevantly, could the image of Emmy Noether be included on the main page? 217.162.207.254 (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! and you might as well remove this now, since "Truth-teller3"'s only other contribution is indicative of his intentions here. 217.162.207.254 (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)