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 19:13 on 11 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 with "In the news"

Olaf Scholz

• The German ruling coalition (Chancellor Olaf Scholz pictured) collapses over disagreements on economic policies.

The word "collapses" seems too strong as the linked article, 2024 German government crisis, does not use it. What it actually says is "...FDP effectively moved into the opposition, rendering the current coalition a two-party minority government." So, there's still a coalition but it has lost one of its members and so will continue as a minority government for now. Scholz is negotiating what happens next and it seems to be too soon to say exactly what that will be. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Indeed, I'm not even sure why this is in ITN given that the government is still very much in place. There will presumably be elections soon and we should post then.

  Also, when I first read this I thought it was Scholz himself who had collapsed. It's a poorly worded hook, given the presence of the photo caption in the middle, making it look like the Chancellor has had a mishap.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, I'm not even sure why this is in ITN ...: Met WP:ITNSIGNIF:

  It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits

  —Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the first two sources at the ITNC nom were "Scholz sets stage for German snap election as government collapses" and "Germany’s Coalition Collapses, Leaving the Government Teetering".—Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are news headlines which, per WP:HEADLINE, tend to use "exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers". And note that those examples are contradictory – one says the "government collapses" while the other says "government teetering". These are metaphors but these can be confusing when we are blurbing actual physical collapses too such as the recent canopy collapse. We should have a more precise description using the encyclopedic language of the article rather than the journalistic hyperbole of the news headlines. In this case, the finance minister was dismissed and his party left the governing coalition. A vote of confidence is now expected but hasn't been scheduled. So, the blurb might be:

* German chancellor Olaf Scholz (pictured) dismisses his finance minister and the resulting resignations leave his coalition without a majority.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to a gross error that will get resolved here. Since it appears to be "major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates" (Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Suggesting_updates), the ITNC nom seems like the best venue to gain consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Ger. Wiki's ITN blurb translates as: "After the failure of the ... coalition, the FDP leaves the German federal government and as a result the cabinet of Chancellor Olaf Scholz is reshuffled." -- Sca (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• Re Teniky, not sure if this is an "error" per se, but "an enigmatic ancient site deep in Madagascar may have been built by Zoroastrians?" seems to be veering dangerously close to "giant lines in Peru may have been landing strips for ancient alien spacecraft?". I'm sure it will get lots of views but at what point do we draw the line about airing dubious hypotheses? Have opened a discussion at Teniky#Pseudoarchaeology?. I T B F 📢 18:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Tomorrow's OTD

• 1932 – "... officially resumed fighting the Emu War after their prior withdrawal". - Emu war appeared as the bold link on November 2 (and nearly again on November 8). JennyOz (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• 1944 – "... sank the German battleship Tirpitz on the ninth attempt..." - I cannot find in either bolded article where Operation Catechism was the "ninth attempt"? And according to the unlinked List of Allied attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz there were many more than nine attempts. Swap piped to simply to 'during Operation Catechism '? JennyOz (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• 1956 – Suez Crisis: During an invasion of Rafah, Israeli soldiers shot and killed almost 111 Palestinian refugees and local inhabitants. - Not sure why "almost"? JennyOz (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 15)

Monday's FL

(November 11, today)

• We can add "(pictured)" after Kublai Khan in the blurb. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Schwede66 14:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

Pls see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry?. Also, if you use a bigger monitor or a smaller font, the smiling Mr. Key would still be next to the corresponding headline about his election victory. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 19:57, 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)

I do not know about readership, (indeed, I do not think it is possible to know), but according to this chart, nearly 48% of the English Wikipedia's contributors come from locations other than the US. I would assume that this largely reflects the readership percentages. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there would be a higher proportion of readers who do not speak English as a first language than there are contributors who do not speak English as a first language, but I admit I am shocked more than half of our contributors are American. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The USA accounts for ~65% of all people who speak English as their first language. Dragons flight (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time I looked at the Alexa rankings, the largest group of visitors came from the US, around 25%. The second largest group was either Germany or Japan, and came in around 10%. I believe the UK comes in around 5th or 6th with only a few percentage points. - auburnpilot talk 19:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

25% hardly qualifies as "most of wikipedia's readers are from america". --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, those stats are for all Wikipedias, not just the English one. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Veterans day is ONLY in US...pretty much entire commonwealth has remembrance day hence a british soldier (seeing at it marks the end of world war 1). I have seen a lot of US related articles that get posted on their related day and yes ppl do complain about US-Bias but it always resorts to fact that wiki will also feature other country's article if one is available. I was actually happy for the fact that finally something other that US gets posted and then i see this conversation. Seriously you guys really make wikipedia look like USpedia sometimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishg55 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 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.

ads

what is the point of wikipedia beoing 'a non-profit project' if it ends up containing ads bigger and moer intrusive then for-profit websites like google or yahoo?