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 21:18 on 13 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)

Today's FA

• ” The flag is not frequently displayed due to its association with extreme nationalism. For nations occupied by Japan, the flag is considered to be a symbol of aggression and imperialism. Despite negative connotations, Western and Japanese sources claim that the flag is an enduring symbol to the Japanese.”

This all may be true, but I’m not seeing it cited in the article. In particular: neither “extreme,” “nationalism” nor “aggression” appears in the article, and “Western” seems very poorly cited if a 1940 article is the only source. Am I missing something paraphrased from? Otherwise please trim the blurb to avoid OR. Thanks. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Reading through the article, I think Hameltion is basically right, the blurb doesn't reflect the current contents of the article. Things like this can happen, it's understandable; a writer might have in mind an earlier version of the article, or things they read in sources, and it's hard to keep checking to make sure everything's in sync. But everything isn't in sync; comparing it against the current article, the blurb comes off as OR. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Pinging Zscout370, who was the FAC nominator in 2010 and is still active (Zscout, you're under no obligation but feel free to jump in here.) I've also emailed the TFA coords asking for general advice. - Dank (push to talk) 18:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Gog the mild has rewritten it and I've inserted it on his behalf.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, it looks as if the responsible coordinator, me, dropped the ball on this one. Hopefully a lesson has been learned. If anyone would like to help us avoid future such embarrassments, consider looking in on each month's TFA page where draft blurbs are listed four or five weeks in advance, and the talk page where they are reviewed, copy edited, checked and commented on. So this month's blurbs are located here - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2024 - and several have been discussed here - Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2024. All thoughts, opinions or fact checks welcome. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Possible T. rex coprolite

Poozeum

• ... that the Poozeum holds fossilized dinosaur feces (pictured) which may have come from a T. rex?

There are multiple issues:

• The copyright status of the image is not quite clear and is currently being challenged.
• WP:DYKHOOK specifies that hooks should be a "definite fact". Words like "may have" and "possible" are not definite.
• The sources in the article for the Tyrannosaurus rex connection are not respectable or reliable, being ClickOrlando and Thrillist. For example, Thrillist says that this is the "largest discovered coprolite" but it isn't because it forgot the word "carnivore". That site feels quite unsafe and so we shouldn't be using using it when there are more respectable sources like the BBC. Notice that the BBC also reports the "largest coprolite found that belongs to a carnivore" too but is more careful to not add the T. Rex hype.
• The coprolite is named Barnum. P. T. Barnum didn't actually say "there's a sucker born every minute" but instead that you should "Preserve your integrity".

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gobonobo: pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I trust that the image was uploaded by the copyright owner mostly based on this exchange. The crux of the deletion argument is that it is not similarly marked as CC-BY-SA on the website. To the guideline requiring a definite fact that is unlikely to change, we could say it definitely could be a T. rex coprolite, and that uncertainty is unlikely to change. Truth is, it is notoriously difficult to ascertain the creator of a coprolite. We know it was from a carnivore and that T. rex were found in the same area. I know of no larger coprolites. gobonobo ^{+ c} 10:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Guinness World Records accepts that this is the largest known carnivore coprolite so why don't we just give that well-supported fact? The T. Rex maybe is not needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson I tend to agree. BorgQueen (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Fridge smuggling

• ... that a £142 wine fridge was smuggled into Downing Street on 11 December 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom?

Per smuggling, this is illegal transportation. But the delivery of a refrigerator by an ordinary supplier seems to have been quite open, normal and legal. The word "smuggled" comes from a headline in a British red-top tabloid and this is not an acceptable source for an accusation of crime. See WP:TABLOID, WP:HEADLINES, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• ALT3 ("Wine Time Fridays") is now fine as an alternative, as I've added an extra cite so that it's not just the Mirror. (However said red-top tabloid was the one that broke the Partygate story and I don't believe any of its reporting has been challenged, so it's probably OK anyway). Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• The nomination had a fraught history and was previously pulled by AirshipJungleman29 for violating WP:DYKHOOKBLP. I agree that there are significant WP:BLP issues here. And the page is poor quality as it's not a properly balanced article; just a WP:PROSELINE collection of newspaper headlines. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • That is the typical format of a Wikipedia:Timeline. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"Smuggled" does not have to mean "illegal", just "illicit". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"Illicit" means much the same thing. The point is that having a refrigerator delivered is not and was not any kind of crime or immorality. The tabloid was just trying to milk the story because it had a photo of the delivery. The photo shows that it was quite open and not clandestine in any way. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Illicit does not mean the same thing, because WP:BLPCRIME is not then involved. At the height of the pandemic, when indoor gatherings were banned, the delivery of a wine fridge for use in indoor gatherings was very much immoral, although not in itself illegal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

But who's to say it's immoral? The Paymaster General defended the Downing Street fridges in a formal statement,

Downing Street is a working building, including catering facilities and offices for staff; as is common in workplaces including the House of Commons, refrigerators are provided for general staff use. One refrigerator was purchased in the financial year for a Downing Street meeting room, and one to replace an existing refrigerator that had reached the end of its working operation. Notwithstanding, I can confirm that no such public expenditure was accrued in relation to the matters considered in the investigations by the Second Permanent Secretary or connected with associated media reports on this matter.

So, where's the reliable source establishing that this was illicit or immoral smuggling? All we seem to have is a tabloid headline. 14:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Andrew🐉(talk) 14:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the paymaster just saying there are fridges that they pay for, but the wine fridge was not paid for with public funds? Which means this was an off-book fridge. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that there would be "off-book fridges" in a secure place like Downing Street. If you have some evidence for this which is better than a tabloid headline, please share it. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Environmental impacts of artificial intelligence

• ... that researchers estimated that training the model for ChatGPT used the equivalent energy footprint of "driving 123 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles for a year"?

The word "estimated" immediately tells us that this is not a definite fact, as required by WP:DYKHOOK. So I checked on its origin. This turns out to be a paper in arXiv: Carbon Emissions and Large Neural Network Training.

So far as I can tell, this has not been peer-reviewed, validated or confirmed. arXiv papers are considered unreliable here per WP:RSPS. But, in this case, the paper's estimate was picked up for an essay in The Conversation and that was then reprinted by Scientific American.

And when you look at the detail, you find that, while the original paper presented the estimated energy cost as equivalent to 3 round-trip jet plane flights from NYC to San Francisco, the essay writer chose to present this as 123 "gasoline-powered passenger vehicles driven for one year". Such conversions depend on your choice of jet plane and passenger vehicle, of course. And, literally YMMV!

So, we see that there has been a chain of estimates and conversions which make the computation fuzzier at each stage. And now this fuzzy data is in Wikipedia where it will be used to train the AI models! Is this science or is it churnalism?

Andrew🐉(talk) 14:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

In the fourth hook, "The American Pigeon Museum & Library", The being uppercase appears in only one of the refs, most don't include the word at all let alone capitalise it. Primergrey (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@TCMemoire: pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This was something I struggled to figure out. But per the website's copyright notice and their official Facebook page, "The" is included in the official name, although the branding omits it. – TCMemoire 08:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:THEINST, "the word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized in running text, regardless of the institution's own usage". TSventon (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 16)

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

Simple English Wikipedia

Would it be good to have a clear link to this wikipedia mentioning that it is for people who don't know English very well? Like this: "Another Wiki, called the Simple English Wikipedia, is for people who do not know English very well." Just an idea. I don't see any better place to put this than here --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's at the top of the 'in other languages' sidebar, which seems enough to me. Modest Genius ^talk 15:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it isn't another language!People who don't know English would have a hard time finding it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that they'd have a difficult time finding it: a user for whom the Simple English Wikipedia is likely to be useful will know the word 'languages' and its translation into the mother tongue; a quick look at the left-hand side shows a list of different languages (of which the user is likely to know at least one and therefore realise the function of said menu) and Simple English is at the top. Logical. 79.67.141.104 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If they can't even read the words "Simple English", they probably shouldn't be contributing there, either. But I do agree that it could be a bit more prominently placed, since it is so directly related to this Wikipedia. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The link to simple isn't simply to recruit contributors: it's to advise readers as well. TFOWR 09:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact recruiting contributors should be at best a minor consideration since it's generally accepted the main page is for readers not editors/contributors. Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction. Every reader is a potential contributor; that's the whole point. If you'd prefer, I could have said, "If they can't even read the words 'Simple English', they probably won't be able to get much out of what they read there." But, either way, what does any of that have to do with the topic at hand? We're discussing changing the appearance/location of the link, not what people will do after they follow it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who said it. And there is a distinction. We don't do things on the main page which are primary of interest to contributors, regardless of whether you think they are the same thing. It's a well accepted consensus, which from many discussions I've seen we don't have consensus to change (and I would definitely say 'they're the same thing is an argument that has been made before but never got much traction). There are plenty of people who have no desire to be contributors, regardless of whether they can be, and we have no desire to try and force them to be contributors, or force them to see things which will not interest them just because some people don't think there's a difference. Therefore the primary purpose for the main page is to show off things which may interest readers, things which are only of interest to contributors are generally minimised if shown at all. If someone is arguing to give more prominence to something yet that thing is likely to be of interest to contributors, that proposal usually dies quite quickly. It's an important point, and one that IMHO should always be repeated whenever there is the risk of confusion. Besides that, there are plenty of people who can use the simple English wikipedia (with some difficulty) but likely lack the level of written English that they could make meaningful contributions, even if they're probably not ones who can't read language or simple English. Therefore we shouldn't care too much about potential contributors to the simple English wikipedia, instead what we should consider is potential readers. In this particular case, I don't believe there is an issue but if there is one where potential contributors are unlikely to be fazed, but some potential readers may be, then I see no reason why we should ignore the readers, who should be our focus simply because the potential contributors are unlikely to have any issue. Nil Einne (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be really hung up on this "contributors" thing. It has nothing to do with any of the points anyone is making. A more prominent link to the Simple English Wikipedia would benefit readers just as much as editors; readers who have difficulty understanding this wiki might have better luck understanding that one, so it might be good to help them find it. That's all anyone is saying. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not actually obvious what the "Simple English" link goes to; it actually surprised me when I clicked on it for the first time and I am a native speaker! Also, people are unlikely to search for a link to such a project if they don't know that the project exists already. It's rather less obvious than, e.g., the link for "French" - somebody who wants to look around for the French wikipedia may spot it on the sidebar or may scroll down to the links at the bottom, but will find what they're looking for. Readers for whom the Simple English wikipedia would be preferable are not going to do an equivalent search unless they know that the project exists in the first place. As Chemicalinterest says, it isn't just like the other languages - it is a very special case. TheGrappler (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple English does not need special treatment, god knows what is said on there and on some of the other language wikipedias. People should be encouraged to stay here and use this wikipedia, it is superior to all others. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

For people with limited command of English, Simple is intended to be a more appropriate place for them (I don't know if that works in practice but it's why Simple exists). And Simple is different to all the other wikipedias since it is actually written in the same language as this one. That doesn't necessarily mean it needs special treatment, but it is unique and I'm not sure burying it with the foreign languages helps anybody to find it. TheGrappler (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

But what is to be done? Is there a non-disruptive way to indicate the "Simple" link to readers a little more clearly, so that (a) they know it exists in the first place and (b) they can actually click on it? TheGrappler (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a lot of blank space in the banner at the top, next to the whole "Welcome to Wikipedia" spiel. I have no doubt that technical-minded people will now tell me why that space has to remain blank, but that would be my first choice. Kind of the ultimate disambiguation hatnote. "'English Wikipedia' redirects here. Less advanced English speakers may prefer the Simple English version." :D Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy to oblige : The whitespace is there as a spacer that can expand or contract, depending on how large your window size is. Otherwise the header could break the page and require horizontal scrolling. This is especially important because, since Wikipedia is reference material, it's perfectly natural to browse from portable devices with weird screen dimensions, or from a window that you've made smaller so you can have multiple windows visible at once. (Not to mention people with eyesight problems who use their browser's "zoom" function.) Adding something to the right of the "Welcome to Wikipedia" bit would break that functionality. APL (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So how come the banner can expand and contract, but text within that same space can't? Couldn't you could just have the size of the Simple English notice tied directly to the size of the white space? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture of DYK

I wonder why the DYK picture of the Konzerthaus Dortmund doesn't show in the article Theater Dortmund? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see why it wasn't displaying properly. It seemed to be there at a microscopic size since there was something to click to get to the image page. I've forced it to display at a 250px size for now. It might be a temporary glitch... Bencherlite^Talk 10:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible changes to ITN

There's an ongoing discussion here regarding possible changes to WP:ITN and WP:ITNC. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 18:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

800m

Resolved

 – Moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors meshach (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This may be the wrong place for this comment but if it is, it is. I just thought I'd say that use of the word 'clocking' in the news story about the 800m seems to me rather casual and not up to the standards you would expect of a serious web page like Wikipedia. 92.0.157.58 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

But don't just remove the time, that's the whole point of this bit. Try "...with a time of 1:41.09 at the ISTAF...." Homunq (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As is noted above Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors would be the correct place for the comment and the reply. I have copied the text to the appropriate place. meshach (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A Rating System

I was at the branch of Wikipedia Wikibooks, and I noticed they now have a rating system for feedback and looking into the page a little more, and I was thinking, would the main Wikipedia be helped by this too? I mean, it's nowhere near necissary but it would be something to be looked at and voted on, and by Wikipedia users only. So, what do you guys think?--Mr. High School Student 22:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: The feature that User: Mr. High school student is referring to is the Reader Feedback extension. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Apart from making almost no sense, this request is misplaced. Somewhere like the village pump would be a better place to propose this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Persian Wikipedia

Hello,Persian wikipedia has been reached 100,000 articles today please change position of this wiki at list of wikis from +40,000 to +100,0000.Thanks a lot:)Ladsgroup^بحث 06:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please take this request to Template talk:Wikipedialang where it will be evaluated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

ITN rather morbid

If you read from the bottom of ITN, it looks like someone breaking the 800 meter world record set off what appears to be the sort of events that would immediately precede some sort of zombie attack or apocalypse or global economic collapse. What I guess I'm trying to say is, our news section makes the world seem so bleak. Could we maybe think of some good news or try to rephrase the news items in such a way that it doesn't seem like the world is coming to an end? Antimatter--talk-- 06:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest? "China celebrates becoming the world's second-largest economy with an enormous traffic jam"? There's not really a positive spin that can be put on a plane crash or a madman shooting eight people. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we still have the Miss Universe pending to get on ITN... With a photo, if possible. Does it make it any better? --Tone 06:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Error in the layout regarding Persian

I noticed that on the front page of Wikipedia.org (where you choose a language) the list of translations for "search" does not include the Persian translation, even though the Persian Wikipedia has already reached 100,000 articles. Is it possible to add this? Thanks! CoverMyIP (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)