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 09:25 on 16 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

It's not easy being green

• ... that ontologists disagree on whether green is real?

This statement does not seem to appear in the article. If the reader looks for it, as I did, they won't find it. It seems to have been invented in the nomination and subsequent discussion rather than being derived from a particular passage in the article. The discussion took place recently but no significant updates were made to the article following it.

Note that WP:DYKHOOK requires that "The wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to who is providing the information". As we don't have clarity about the relevant wording of the article, this is not satisfied. It's also not clear who is supposed to be providing this information as "ontologists" is used in a vague, hand-waving way contrary to WP:WEASEL.

Note also that we have an article green, which is not linked but which tells us lots of things about the concept. To suggest that none of this real seems to make a mockery of our work – crude nihilism. And so this doesn't seem to be a definite fact. As it seems that philosophers can't agree on anything, then they are not reliable sources – just airy opinions.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there appears to be no discussion about whether green, or even color, is "real" in the article. That is problematic, and a new hook probably needs to be found, though finding one for a topic as complex as this could be difficult. Gatoclass (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Universals are general, repeatable entities, like the color green. […] Ontologists disagree about which entities exist on the most basic level. Platonic realism asserts that universals have objective existence. Conceptualism says that universals only exist in the mind while nominalism denies their existence. This looks pretty straightforward to me: ontologists disagree on whether universals are real, and the color green is a universal. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Those quotes are from the lead, which is unsourced. But neither are they adjacent, so the connection between "color" as a universal and universal as a conceptual is anything but obvious. I think the reader is entitled to a plainer discussion than that. Gatoclass (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The nomination page includes the following alt hook:

• ... that ontologists disagree on whether numbers are real?

- the hook was ultimately rejected on the basis that "real" has multiple meanings, but that could be remedied by tweaking it as follows:

• ... that ontologists disagree on whether numbers objectively exist?

There appears to be plenty of discussion in the article about whether or not numbers exist, so it should be fine as a hook (IMO it's a more interesting hook anyhow), so I would suggest substituting it. Thoughts? Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Replaced with a hook from last year, as this fairly unambiguously doesn't comply with the rules and the statement about green being real isn't in the article or sourced.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Morning @Gatoclass:, just wondering where in the article we can verify the definite fact that ontologists disagree on whether numbers objectively exist? There's quite a bit of discussion on that matter, but no definite assertion of a disagreement that I can see. Also, who are these ontologists? Does it mean modern professional ontologists (as would be implied by such a statement in yhe present tense) or does it mean ancient philosophers, who are not necessarily known as *ontologists" per se... I think we'd need some clarity on that and what exactly the hook references in the article before swapping back in your alt... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It was a suggestion made on the fly, which is why I asked for further input. But I agree the article probably doesn't restate the hook with absolute clarity, and I do not have the time right now to come up with another solution. In any case, another stint at the drawing board for this article wouldn't do any harm ... Gatoclass (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Per WP:DYKG, articles that ran last year aren't eligible for DYK? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 22)

Monday's FL

(November 18)

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

Please sync the unprotected page to the protected page to incorporate copyedits by User:jlwoodwa, User:Cowboygilbert, and User:Art LaPella.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. Oops, how'd I let that happen? Nobody really likes the duplicate POTD system because this keeps happening, but nobody who knows how ever fixes it. Art LaPella (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

How to remove the donation notice

If you've already donated, cannot afford to do so, or otherwise would rather hide the notice at the top of every page:

Logged-in users: Go to 'my preferences', select the 'Gadgets' tab, check the box labelled 'Suppress display of the fundraiser site notice', click 'Save', then bypass your browser cache (Ctrl + F5 on Internet Explorer, Ctrl + Shift + R on Firefox) to see changes.

Not logged in: Create an account (this takes very little time, all you have to do is pick a username and password), then follow the above instructions. It is beyond the control of the English language Wikipedia to remove the donation notice for users not logged in.

General discussion

Donate Now sign

I actually find the sign a little distracting, I'm sorry to say, but it's true. I don't find it hideable, contrary to what is said above. A great deal of it remains after one clicks the "hide" option, and tyhe red button catches your eye much more than the article you're trying to read --Maurice45 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The donation sign is freakin' massive. We just suffered through a U.S. election, and we've experienced enough signs asking for support to last a lifetime. I'd rather be gagged with a popsicle stick than stare at a "give me money" banner in the only place that provides temporary sanctuary while I'm working. Digital^Ninja 14:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

check your user prefs.Geni 15:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In particular, in "gadgets", which isn't obvious. --NE2 15:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys --Maurice45 (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section near the top of this page about how to remove the notice, as it seems inevitable that there will otherwise be multiple posts about it here -- Gurch (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's far enough down that I doubt anyone will see it. --NE2 19:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well from my experience, the first few days of the banner there will always be people who don't notice the thousnds of other discussions so it's probably pretty pointless. Heck I suspect if we put another banner under the fundraising banner describing how to get rid of the fundraising banner (and itself of course) we would still have people coming here Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That section claims that it is beyond the control of en.wikipedia to remove the notice entirely. This is not true. Any admin could do it by editing Mediawiki:Common.css. Algebraist 14:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that would be grounds for immediate desysopping maybe even with a ban thrown in. If you don't agree with the foundation, you discuss the matter with them, not overide them. They run the site, they make the decision. It's either directly stated, or strongly implied, that when the foundation put up a fundraising notice without saying you can take it off if you want, you don't bloody well take it off unless you get their permission. So yeah, it is beyond our control. I mean technically yeah, if the FBI don't like Obama they could murder him. But that would clearly be illegal and unacceptable so Obama becoming president is beyond their control Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are always conspiracies and just like the FBI may blame it on terrorists the admins may get Jimbo drunk or something and make him remove it. >.> -- Mentisock 17:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who added the note about it being beyond our control. I think it is, as Nil said, beyond our control (whether by technical restrictions or not). I would like to re-add that sentence to the note, but will not edit-war over it. Consensus? Random89 21:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, wikimedia just ensured I won't be making any donations any time soon. GJ, well played. Modest Genius ^talk 18:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

HI, can someone please tell me how to get rid of the big thermometer with the donations at the top of my welcome page? It is an eye sore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.242.246 (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hit the "Collapse" button in the upper right of the advertisement. APL (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

First you register, then you sign in, then go to your preferences > gadgets > click the box to disable the banner. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Very weird. The banner seems to change every time I load a page. Sometimes there is a period after the word "project", sometimes not. Sometimes there is a big red button, sometimes not. (If not, sometimes there are two dashes before the link, sometimes not.) Very disconcerting to have it look different every time.APL (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm Confused

Things to Ponder over here:

“ Wikipedia is a non-profit project: please donate today. - Jimmy Wales ”

Wiki is a non-profit organization, then Why Jimmy is asking for donation?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.58.47 (talk • contribs)

LOL

You're only confused because you're an idiot. Think about it. How does a non-profit organisation run? Hmm? Do they pull magic money out of their assholes? No. They run from donations. Maybe you don't realise that hosting an incredibly popular website costs money. --Teggles (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree, anon here seems a little 'ill informed' I think the best thing is to just direct him/her to our own article on Non-profit organization. I guess this is going to come as a shock to anon, but charities like for example the WWF, or the Red Cross are not for profits even though they actively seek donations all the time. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

please don't be cruel Don't be cruel and/or mean or nasty to WP:users who have quetions or are confused. This isn't a place to troll. THank you ,. 216.114.210.66 (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's trolling? If anyone's trolling it's the anon. Being 'cruel' may perhaps violate WP:Civil and WP:Don't bite the newbies but it's definitely not trolling. Read the article you linked to if you don't know what trolling is. As it is, the anon above didn't read the notice (this isn't the place to ask such questions and apparently has little knowledge of the world, so I think both responses are fair Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is no need to call someone an idiot for seeking information. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? -Domthedude001 17:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is that the OP doesn't understand the difference between profit and income. We use our income only for paying bills - profit would be money left over after that. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is actually intended as a self help resource, and not really a place for people to ask the most basic of questions. We do have the reference desk, but even there people usually expect a question asker to make an effort to find the answer and if they ask the most basic of questions without any sign of having looked into it themselves, they may not like the responses. There's also the issue of question phrasing. If you don't know something basic, and you are too lazy or whatever to look it up, it's best to at least phrase your question in a way that doesn't make you sound stupid or offend other people. If you start off your question with a false premise based on a complete misunderstanding of the most basic of issues then you should expect people may laugh at you. And if you don't even ask in the right place, despite clear instructions to the contrary, well really you should be glad all you were called is an 'idiot'. Courtesy after all cuts both ways. None of this BTW is unique to wikipedia, you can expect much worse on forums. Nil Einne (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All this may be true but it's irrelevant. We're on Wikipedia here, we have WP:NPA and some other behavioral guidelines. Teggles's attack was biting and gratuitous, so got a warning. Period, Cenarium ^Talk 04:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree but I feel there's no point discussion this further Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you disagreeing with? Do you dispute that WP:NPA applies, or do you believe that it should be rewritten/abolished?

I must say that I'm a bit taken aback by your statement that the editor "should be glad all [he/she was] called [was] an 'idiot'." —David Levy 08:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for bold words on "In the news" section

What is the criteria for bolded words? Right now there are 8 names total in the various headlines combined, but only 4 of them are bolded. Also, certain events are bolded and some aren't ("2008 presidential elections" is in bold but "2008 Formula One Drivers' Championship" is not). Just wondering if it's random or what. NIRVANA2764 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Primary article which carries the news is bold. Other links point to articles which might help understand the news item better. --GPPande talk! 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Usually it is whichever article has the most substantial update, though sometimes admins prefer to bold a more well-developed article at the expense of a slightly larger update. In the Palau entry I'm pretty sure only the elections article should be bolded, since we normally bold only one link in each hook. Random89 20:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the Palau elections one. Spencer^T♦C 16:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:DYK that may be more relevant here

I just posted this and an edit conflict was automatically resolved. However, since I share the view of the preceding editor that we need to be open minded about possible solutions, it may be more appropriate to move the discussion here. Geometry guy 20:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment That DYK discussion was about expanding the Main Page content to include GA articles as part of DYK. -- Suntag ☼ 20:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Commented there, I'd like to encourage all interested in the content of the Main Page to do so as well. Modest Genius ^talk 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is also related discussion at Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal#Featured content. Thanks to OhanaUnited for pointing this out at WT:GA. Geometry guy 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

US bias

Why wasn't the NZ election featured? I remember: "We're not bias, what makes you think we won't do this for other elections?" Ya, well why don't you make good on your word? Sir Stig (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It is now. It usually takes some time to post the news to ITN as only admins can do so. We have few admins who are dedicated to this work. You are encouraged to nominated news at WP:ITN/C. --GPPande talk! 17:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ya, sorry, that came off as angry. I don't even live in NZ, but I'm trying to provide an objective POV. My point is that there wasn't any featured article for the NZ elections like the US ones. Sir Stig (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry - I thought you were pointing to ITN section. Well, is there any article of FA class which is related to this election? If there is one, I know there is some point-based mechanism stating when the FA will be on main page. People with more knowledge can pitch in here. --GPPande talk! 19:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In any case, people write about what they are interested in. FAs are also selected for quality, not relevance. If there was an appropreate FA, I'm sure there would not be a problem getting it on the MP. ffm 20:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The correct word is "biased" not "bias". Argh! 66.231.141.34 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

John Key and Helen Clark are not featured articles, while John McCain and Barack Obama are both featured articles. If the New Zealand candidate articles were brought to featured status, then they would be eligible to be featured on the main page. --Aude (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Although, given the way that the Westminster system works, the more appropriate articles would be New Zealand National Party and New Zealand Labour Party. The position of Prime Minister isn't up for vote, only the seats in the New Zealand House of Representatives. If John Key were to resign (or die), his Party would put forward a new Prime Minister without public ballot, and it wouldn't necessarily be the Deputy Prime Minister (e.g. Gordon Brown assuming Premiership rather than John Prescott in the UK) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture for In the News

Is it possible to move the small picture for In the News to beside the relevant news snippet? When it's at the top, I would instinctively assume it to be related to the first news snippet. This can be perplexing when you get a picture of John Key smiling next to news of deaths on a Russian submarine. 195.243.90.252 (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

featured article

why is some british guy there on veterans day? shouldn't it be something veterans day related? gah 98.15.216.208 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 gets accused of being biased in favor of the United States more often than Adolf Hitler gets accused of being an anti-semite. I guess he wanted a day off from that... or perhaps there were no FA-quality articles that fit the holiday. *shrugs* Happy Veterans Day, everyone, and thanks to Raul654 for always doing a dang good job. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is. Happy Remembrance Day. Maybe you think only Americans fight wars? Dragons flight (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

most of wikipedia's readers are from america anyway. 98.15.216.208 (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you basing that on? J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo on this page. "52-storey" should be "52-story". I would help, but I am only a regular user (and a real noob too) so I can't do anything to help. Jonathan321 (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Storey is correct British English. We allow either British or American spellings. Dragons flight (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it should use Australian English since the article concerned is BankWest Tower which is in Australia. The article itself uses 'story' but the correct Australian English spelling is 'storey' as per MacquarieNet.