Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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 20:00 on 17 August 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 "On this day"

Today's OTD

• 1876 – Götterdämmerung premiered, the last opera in the Ring cycle by Richard Wagner (pictured).

  That is not an error, and I am delighted to see it mentioned on the Main page! However, I think it could still be improved. Take what you like or ignore me.

  1. The image of Wagner is well-known and not related to the bolded work, and the work's lead image is more eye-catching: File:Max Brückner - Otto Henning - Richard Wagner - Final scene of Götterdämmerung - crop.jpg. It' not any depiction but by one of the stage designers for that original production. It also translates the German title, sort of.
  2. Ring cycle is an Easter egg, - cycle should also be in the pipe: Ring cycle.
  3. The given name of Wagner doesn't need to be repeated, if we retain his image, - it could be simply: Wagner's Ring cycle.
  4. Wagner would turn in his grave if he saw the piece described as an opera, while he carefully labelled it: "3. Tag des Bühnenfestspiels" (3rd day of the stage festival), which the article calls a cycle "four epic music dramas". Today we often are sloppy and say opera, but this information is about the first performance.

  My suggestion is not to tell readers that Götterdämmerung is the third part of whatever (which the first sentence of the lead gives them if they don't know it already), but get "festival" in differently:

  • 1876 – The premiere of Wagner's Götterdämmerung (final scene depicted) closed the first Bayreuth Festival.

  or (with the composer shown)

  • 1876 – The premiere of Götterdämmerung by Richard Wagner (pictured) closed the first Bayreuth Festival. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've actioned that and picked the second suggestion just because I'm going to bed now and don't want to have to wait around until the other image is protected. Note, Gerda, that I've copy-edited your hooks ever so slightly just in case somebody else would want to use the other hook – the parentheses are supposed to be italicised as well. Schwede66 09:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Pleased, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 23)

Monday's FL

(August 19)

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

Battle of Stamford Bridge

You learn something new every day. I always thought "The Battle of Stamford Bridge" was what took place after every home fixture ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You share this confusion with a sat nav. A posh English gel (Di's niece) caught a taxi to Stamford Bridge from Althorp last year to watch the footie. But the cabbie only went and took her to the village in Yorkshire, not the football ground.[1] Ericoides (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody translate this into American? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't you merkins have your own version of wikipedia?--89.241.135.21 (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

German federal election, in the news

Why is the German federal election (see Portal:Current_events/2009_September_27) not yet on the main page? It's today. If this had been the U.S. election, it had been on the main page hours ago. It seems any obscure U.S. event gets on the main page, while equally or more important European events are ignored. Urban XII (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, US election was put on the main page when the result was known. So it will be in this case. Patience ;-) --Tone 15:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the guideline for posting elections on the Main Page is to wait until there are at least some preliminary results. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

To quote WP:ITNR, the guideline is to post "The results of all general elections..." (my emphasis added). We still haven't listed the Afghan elections either, since the results haven't been announced yet. Modest Genius ^talk 16:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's now clear Angela Merkel and the liberals won the election. The SPD and Frank Steinmeier have conceded defeat[2]. The main page needs to be updated now. I suggest:

• The Christian Democrats and the Liberals win the German federal election, 2009 and announce their intention to form a new government with Angela Merkel as Chancellor. The Social Democrats concede defeat.

Urban XII (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"Barrack Obama (pictured) elected President of the United States, according to projections"[3]

I think the projections are equally clear in this case. The comparison of Europe's largest country with some Afghan election is just plain ridiculous. Urban XII (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions should be made at WP:ITN/C. For what it's worth, we normally just state which party won the most seats (and the number thereof) rather than coalition partners, which are still not certain. Modest Genius ^talk 18:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That did not seem to be the case when Barack Obama was elected President. Technically, he was only elected a long time after, but since everybody knew that in reality he was elected President on November 4, there was no reason to ignore that fact. Similarly, it's clear that Germany will get a new government. We do indeed know who will be the governing parties and the head of government because the parties have announced this. Their opponent have publicly acknowledged defeat. Like the Barack Obama situation, we are only waiting for technicalities. Urban XII (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it shouldn't go up, I'm just saying it should just state the winning party and leader. That's just my opinion though, not stated in a policy or guideline. Modest Genius ^talk 22:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The main result is that a new government gets formed because Christian Democrats and Liberals got a majority together. "Winning party and leader" is just meaningless, what does "winning" mean? Urban XII (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, maybe your definition of government is different from mine, but the US government was only "formed" once, in 1787 --Rockstone (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Edit: nevermind- I misinterpreted your question. --Rockstone (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

By 'winning' party I meant the party that gains a plurality of seats, as is posted in ITN for every other election (that I can remember right now). However, I again direct you to WP:ITN/C where the wording and when to post are being discussed. Modest Genius ^talk 23:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's basically irrelevant which party that gets a plurality, what matters is which government alternative (in this case three parties) that gets a majority. A proposal has been on WP:ITN/C for hours, but I think my initial point that "any obscure U.S. event gets on the main page, while equally or more important European events are ignored" is now thoroughly proved. Urban XII (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 

Told ya Obama's election was only covered by ONLY left-wing mainstream media... –Howard the Duck 02:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a reason for US events reaching the main page more often than European events. For one, there are more US citizens on the wiki, and two, the 2008 US election was a much more hyped and popular election than most. --Rockstone (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, more European events get into ITN. It's just everytime a U.S. event is nominated there, an admin will add it no matter what the "consensus" there is, which is normally not to add it (for "diversity"). Check out WP:ITN2009 for the archive. –Howard the Duck 03:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that Urban XII has been bitching about this here but hasn't commented the discussion on WP:ITN/C. –Howard the Duck 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Several election items are good to go at ITN: this, the Portuguese and the Aruban one in which the election results were released 3 days ago (I don't think European elections wait for that long if the results are released quickly). –Howard the Duck 04:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no "renewed" plurality for the CDU/CSU. There was a CDU/CSU/SPD plurality before, there is a CDU/CSU/FDP plurality now. Goodbye, SPD! Merkel's coalition will shift from a centre-left government to a centre-right government. 78.53.45.126 (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly mistaken. The CDU/CSU has a plurality before as they had more seats then any other party. The CDU/CSU have a plurality now as they still have more seats then any other party. The CDU/CSU/SPD had a majority before the same as the CDU/CSU/FDP have a majority now. (The CDU/CSU/SPD also still have a majority but the CDU/CSU prefer a different coalition partner) Nil Einne (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Updating design

Has Jimbo still not considered updating the design of the main page? For an encyclopedia "cover" it looks way less classy than it could be, the web design looks so 1996. Himalayan 14:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to Jimbo. What happened to the redesign page with all the different proposals? I do agree that the main page needs a huge makeover - not just colour-wise or whatever, but the content that's included there. Majorly talk 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The last major redesign discussion is archived at Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. The discussion actually lasted for several months from July 2008 to February 2009, with many users submitting different designs, but ultimately no consensus was achieved, so the 2006 design remains. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, I created the proposal. The problem I can see immediately with those designs is that they are not that different from what we have now. What we need is something completely different. If I had my way, I'd abolish Did You Know or convert it to a "these articles need your help" section. I'd remove the news section, remove the featured picture, and have more than one featured article per day. I'd also introduce good articles to the main page, and make the sister project links more prominent. I'd also emphasise more on the community aspect of Wikipedia. That's just what I'd do. When I watched the designs coming in, in my humble opinion most of them were as drab and dated-looking as the current design. If we're going to change, it needs to be a big change, not just a change of font or colours. Majorly talk 15:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Granted Majorly, its needs a major improvement. I have no idea how a consensus was formed in 2006 as so many people have different ideas that is would seem difficult for everyone to agree. My main concerns is the ordering and the pastel colors which make it look weak. I can imagine the argument was something like "the simpler the better" but it is surely the page that gets most views on wikipedia so we have an obligation to at least make it look modern. I know tons of much less popular sites that in terms of design and layout put us to shame. Himalayan 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, IMO, any future proposal to remove a Main Page section may be close to impossible to pass through because it would literally create an outrage among those who either maintain or regularly contribute to that section. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, which is why we're stuck with this design forever. Majorly talk 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, we don't have a news section on the main page and there's no consensus to include one. If you think ITN is a news section your mistaken and this is an important distinction since if you propose to remove a section, you should actually know what the section is and does Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"In the news" with current news stories in the form of "encyclopedia articles" is definitely a news section. Majorly talk 17:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to get it out of the way, Majorly is completely right on this particular point. "In the news" is a news section. Currently, there are six items in "in the news". Five out of six are recently created articles that soley focus on a recent event, and two thirds of them actually have "2009" in their titles. The only article that doesn't solely focus on a recent event, and can be truly said to be an encyclopaedia article that just happens to have been recently updated regarding a current event, is Persecution of albinos. --86.170.66.48 (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the above disagreement is primarily semantic in nature.

If one defines a "news section" as a section whose intended purpose is to report news blurbs, ITN isn't a news section. If one defines a "news section" as a section whose content pertains to news stories, ITN is a news section.

And of course, ITN is commonly perceived as a news section (by either definition), often in contexts that many of us view as problematic. —David Levy 20:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you are free to your view and I see no point debating this frequently discussed issue again here. I will say what I said above and below. If you want to have any hope with any future proposal it is imperative you understand why many people do not consider ITN a news section (and a whole bunch of other things). If you dismiss these views or don't bother to try to understand them frankly I don't think you have any hope reforming the main page and it wouldn't be primarily the fault of any other editor. As with DL, I do not deny you are acting in good faith but having seen your attitude here I'm not surprised your attempts to redesign the main page failed. Just to be clear, I'm not saying I would be any better nor do I write this to put you down instead my hope is you and anyone else intending to reform the main page will take this criticism to heart and handle any future proposals better. N.B. A number of articles, even if covering 2009 only are created long before they appear on ITN. This is the case for many election articles (those which weren't probably should have been) and for many sporting events. Note that many articles do focus solely certain things, it's a natural part of wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the redesign page with all the different proposals?

What happened? Chaos ensued, and the entire thing fell apart. You know, precisely what I attempted to warn you about (prompting you to belittle me and opine that I should "leave the discussion").

To be clear, I'm not gloating. I wanted very much for consensus to develop. I just hope that we can be mindful of the pitfalls the next time around. —David Levy 16:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, I don't think you'll ever have consensus for a editor-centric feature like "These articles need help" feature on the main-page.

On a similar topic, I enjoy linking to this image. APL (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know there will never be consensus, which is why we'll have to stick with this dated design forever. Majorly talk 17:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I meant that, an "articles that need help" feature, specifically, was a radical departure from the current intent of the main page. APL (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) In more general terms of the previous redesign attempt, I think there's a lot there to learn on better ways to organise a redesign in the future. That proposal seemed a bit too chaotic to me. We ended up with a large number designs, some looking very similar to each other, some with seemingly major issues that many editors picked up. For example, while there was no consensus either way on the 640x480 issue, there was consensus that 800x600 should be supported but despite that there were designs with major problems at 800x600. Some designs just seemed, for lack of a better word ugly or never likely to work. While wikipedia works on the idea anyone can contribute I think this is one case when it was ideal that people making designs had some experience and understanding of designing web pages since people are put off when they come across a proposal for a redesign of the main page (or any very major major page of a very major website) with many obvious problems. Commonly people appeared to be working on their own design with little collaboration. Goals etc were only really discussed after the proposal had been going for a long while. IIRC this isn't surprising since the proposal was originally organised as a competition and in fact many people picked up early on that this was likely to be a problem Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal/Archive 1. Removing a section would definitely be quite difficult but I wouldn't say impossible but it would definitely require something substantially better without major issues and a good explanation for why you are proposing and a good understanding of how and why things are the way they currently are and how they work and it would definitely be a very long process likely with some rather hot debates. It would be important IMHO in such a situation editors consider all aspects. For example, if you propose to emphasise the community aspects of wikipedia, is this going to work against the policy that the main page is for readers not editors? Are you proposing we change that long established policy? Do you understand why you have that policy? Et al. If an editor (or group of editors) is proposing such an extremely major change and hasn't understood those issues I don't think they will have much success. (Ditto with the ITN section issue). This doesn't mean one editor has to slog thorough the whole process but a group of editors will need to work in an organised fashion for a substantial period of time IMHO. The previous successful Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page redesign attempt is probably a better example then the 2008 redesign proposal IMHO (although it will be a lot harder then 2006 I'm sure). Perhaps something can also be learnt from the template box redesign in 2007 Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes/Archive 1). As things currently go, there probably should be some collaboration with the usability initiative if anyone wants to make a new proposal at the moment. Nil Einne (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it could have been prepared better. It didn't help when people like David Levy showed up just to say "This isn't going to happen". An attitude like that makes it certain it won't happen, and it didn't. A little help and guidance would have been appreciated, rather than a "told you so" person nitpicking at everything. It could be done with careful planning and better collaboration. Majorly talk 17:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to warn you that your approach was likely to fail (as it had in the past), you dismissed my advice and proceeded with your plan, and now you're blaming the proposal's failure on "people like [me]," claiming that we actually caused said failure by criticising the unsuccessful strategy. Wow.

I never said "this isn't going to happen" or anything of the sort. I did my best to provide help and guidance, and you told me that because I disagreed with you, I should "leave the discussion."

And again, I'm not gloating. I'm trying to convince you (and anyone else who might embark on such an endeavor) to not ignore history next time. —David Levy 17:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing no such thing, but you're free to believe whatever you like. Fact is you were totally unhelpful in the discussion. I asked you to leave it because of that precise reason. I don't care if people disagree with ideas. I do care if people try to shoot down good faith proposals with the awful excuse of "it didn't work once so now it never will". In the end I was so tired of your agenda to prevent the proposal from going anywhere, I stopped watching the page. Majorly talk 17:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I didn't seek to "shoot down" the proposal. I pointed out that you were proceeding in the same manner that almost derailed the previous main page redesign proposal, and I urged you to adopt the approach that subsequently proved successful instead of repeating the past mistakes. Unfortunately, you interpreted any and all criticism of your strategy as "unhelpful," explicitly stating that you didn't care about what had happened during the previous proposal and wanted it to not even be mentioned.

After you abandoned the proposal, I did my best to pick up the pieces and get it back on track, but most of the participants had already departed (long after I'd taken a break, incidentally).

One thing that I never questioned was that you were acting in good faith, and I'm truly disappointed by your accusation that I had an "agenda to prevent the proposal from going anywhere." —David Levy 18:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith on all parts. The fact remains that the main page looks so 1996. For a front cover of an encyclopedia it seems very weak to me. I understand how people may want it to look simplified but the very design and those pastel color combinations make it look inherently amateurish. I doubt people will form a consensus on anything updated so we will be stuck with wikipedia layed out like an early web site into the future. In 2030 it will still be looking like it is 1996 at this rate... Himalayan 16:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the current design looks outdated. It certainly could be made flashier, but it's essential that we not sacrifice accessibility (and the use of non-free technologies also is out of the question). —David Levy 17:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with DL here. The main page was last redesigned in 2006. Wikipedia didn't even exist in 1996. It seems unlikely therefore that most of the people designing it we thinking of a 1996 design. And at least wikipedia avoids the use of Flash and other highly problematic things which makes the website inaccessible to a number of people. And as someone who actually used the internet in 1996, I can say most web designs were a lot crappier in 1996. You don't have to take my word for it however. Let's look at The (US) Whitehouse, Microsoft, Netscape, CERN, CNET and in the spirit of APL's reply Yahoo. Some of these may not be archived perfectly and may be missing images etc. However you should be able to get a general idea. If you feel that the main page looks like it's from 1996 that's up to you I guess but from both memory and a refresh of my memory from these pages I don't and suspect many independent observers will agree. As for your comments on pastel colours, my memory is that many websites of that era (as a small minority do now) were in fact rather bright and garish (often with flashing colours and text etc, and sometimes some crappy MIDI playing in the background although perhaps that all came a bit later). Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Random featured article

Can we have a link "Random featured article" in the main page? - Rajesh, Sydney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.253.126 (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think that function exists. You'll just have to click on a random link from Wikipedia:Featured articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:GregU wrote a piece of javascript to do something like this. See the instructions here (disclaimer: any results from monkeying around with your monobook.js page are on your head alone.) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If memory serves Portal:Featured content is randomly generated.  GARDEN  22:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed, but randomises once per day using the code on Portal:Featured content/SetDate oops, it actually randomises every time Portal:Featured content/SetDate is purged. Modest Genius ^talk 22:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this should be on the main page, but I'd like to point out I wrote a script on the toolserver for random Featured Articles a while ago (and one for random Good Articles as well). --dapete 15:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki does exactly this on the main page, under "Random Featured Article", so it's definitely supported by MediaWiki. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support putting a link like this on the main page, perhaps in place of the FA by email link? Modest Genius ^talk 22:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is actually mw:Extension:DynamicPageList (third-party). I don't know if this is installed here or not. howcheng {chat} 02:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviousness

"The Byzantine navy comprised the naval forces of the Byzantine Empire."

Well, you can't argue with that. 04:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's obvious, it's intended to be. Anyone not familiar with the Byzantine Empire might, in theory, assume that we're talking about a complex navy. There's nothing wrong with clearly establishing the topic of the article in the first sentence. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps. It just seems so tautological to me. And while I concede that you may have a point with the Byzantine part, the navy/naval part doesn't offer any clarification at all. It isn't so much stating the obvious as much as restating the same thing. At times, restatements can be be helpful, but I doubt that this is one of those times. 08:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)