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 10:37 on 12 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 the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 15)

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.

---

General discussion

Notability

What makes [1] more notable than [2]? And [3] more notable than [4]? Just systemic bias?·Maunus·ƛ· 19:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the 1973 Chilean coup, it was on OTD, but was removed, presumably due the tag in the external link section. I'm not totally sold on the Medal of Honor winner (apparently Willie Apiata didn't make ITN back when he got the first-ever Victoria Cross for New Zealand) but, to be fair, the fingers story is new to me - I guess the answer to your question is "no one has suggested it at WP:ITNC". TFOWR 19:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Newsworthiness is a notoriously arbitrary selection process. That said, it seems in your selections, you've revealed your own Anti-American bias, haven't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.13.219 (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This selction doesn't exactly seem arbitrary though. And no I haven't revealed anything other than the fact that I also read news from other parts of the world than the one I live in.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You replace one Bias with another, you don't get anywere.--85.211.118.192 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't argued for replacing one set with the other - I merely wonder by what criteria events are selected. The medal for example seems to be only of interest to Americans. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• FWiW, OTD items are chosen based on the quality of their associated article with a view to getting a good spread of dates and locations, rather than comparative significance, which is why the World Trade Center attacks and the Chilean coup aren't on there. As for SSG Giunta, I think being the first recipient of any nation's highest award for valour (equivalent of a VC, MoH), especially the first living recipient in 40-odd years is pretty significant and the consensus at ITN/C seemed to be to post similar such awards from other countries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Main Page

Sorry, if there is another talk page about this somewhere else, but, I have a suggestion.

With the new look of Vector on Wikipedia, I think that the boxes on the Main Page would look better rounded (like the French Wikipedia). I know that the boxes on the Main Page haven't been changed much in the past years, but it could be easily done, and I think that It would look good on the "new Wikipedia". --PiKaPi talk blog 16:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia uses nonstandard code incompatible with Internet Explorer, the most widely used web browser. (As a result, IE users do not see the rounded corners.) In past discussions, the English Wikipedia has rejected this specific change on the basis that we should not intentionally introduce such inconsistencies. —David Levy 19:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The new skin is no justification for adding rounded corners; it doesn't use them anywhere, so adding them for this reason is a non-starter. It might be an idea to update the colours, however it's infeasibly difficult to arrange such a thing. — Pretzels ^Hii! 19:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, please no! I'm not sure what the new Vector skin has to do with rounded corners, since it doesn't seem to use them anywhere else. And not everyone actually uses Vector anyway. Modest Genius ^talk 22:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I just thought it would look good. But wait, IE can't see any type of rounded corners on wikis, I didn't know that. Sorry. --PiKaPi talk blog 20:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think IE9 can, but I guess that still wouldn't change the fact that a lot of people use a browser that can't. But I actually wouldn't mind a colour refresh to fit in (even though I don't use Vector). I, for one, would certainly support and assist with such a proposal. --Dorsal Axe 14:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Front Page is slowly turning to a propaganda leaflet of the US State Department.

This is not the forum for this discussion. Discussion of In the news content belongs at WT:ITN.

It started with the carbon copy of the US Government statement that military combat operations are seizing in Iraq while it's well known - even by Democratic sources in the US - that's just propaganda. The country is occupied. Now the Front Page is filled with elements that only would make sense in the "US english wikipedia". No military is ever mentioned giving medals to its soldiers, yet, the world viewer is supposed to subjected to read and stand in awe for the 'amazing soldiers' of the US. [Maybe you should start posting more how you give 570% more than the second expenditure to the military industry.] Oh, and wait, just in, the "American", film wins an award. Who cares posting the news if it was some damn Frenchy right? --Leladax (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Please see a few sections up, titled "Notability". If you think there is an American bias then take part in WP:ITN, WP:OTD, and wherever else you think there is a bias and express your opinion during nominations/nominate non-American themed articles and events to be featured. §hepTalk 20:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC) And in regards to the movie that won being featured. The movie that won the award last time was from Israel and listed as well see 1. §hepTalk 21:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Take it up with DYK and INT. No one really likes to see someone claiming bias on a page that only has a few dedicated helpers. Perhaps you should find a medal awarded to a military member on another nation and get it on the main page?--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC) To be fair Johnson Beharry was featured on the main page when he was awarded the Victoria Cross, the British equivalent. Hut 8.5 21:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I agree that this is not main page newsworthy - most of the world couldn't care less.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Now the propagandists - apart from trying to censor this discussion about the Front Page - are putting up the 'Beat Turkey' news as an answer to this post. The news were available 2 days before they were posted. You are trolls belonging to stormfront.org. Plain and simple. --Leladax (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Apparently, whenever you see an item about a U.S. entity winning or being awarded something, you blindly assume that it otherwise would have been excluded. Regarding the first living Medal of Honor recipient in 39 years, you claimed that "no military is ever mentioned giving medals to its soldiers," and it was pointed out that we included an item when a British soldier became the first living Victoria Cross recipient in 36 years. You also made such an assertion regarding an American film winning the Golden Lion at the Venice International Film Festival, and it was pointed out that we included last year's Israeli winner. Now you allege that the FIBA World Championship item was added in retaliation for your earlier criticisms, despite the fact that the event appears on our list of recurring items that we routinely include (irrespective of the outcomes), provided that sufficient article updates occur. The item was inserted by a HJ Mitchell (a British administrator) shortly after the tournament concluded (so I don't understand your claim that "the news were available 2 days before they were posted"). —David Levy 17:42/18:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC) This "discussion" should be censored, for at least one reason that has already been established: that this is not the place to discuss selection of in the news articles. Further, for the following reasons: All state departments are propagandists, the U.S.'s is not the exception. Wikipedia is not the place to rail against the U.S. regardless of whether the comments are veiled in a phony disguise of improving the main page. If you want to have a discussion on bias that is civil, non-vitriolic, and non-accusatory that does not have a tendency to make Americans reading it feel condemned and accused, then please do so in the appropriate venue, but this whole discussion was poorly executed from the very beginning which is why it was collapsed in the first place.   Thorncrag  17:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

For 1 (one) day the news about the Medal of Honor is bearable, but the soldier picture's continuous presence is just a reminder that the United States of America is engaged in yet another unpopular war in the other side of the Planet and yes, they once again fail to realize how unpopular its wars really are for the rest of the World. Please change the picture right now. Aldo L (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure WP:ITNC would appreciate your suggestions for new news items, or any help you could provide finding an image for one of the other current news items. TFOWR 21:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason that picture is there is because we don't have any suitable replacements for the newer items. If we did, I'd change it right now, but not because you demanded I do so, rather because it's looking very stale. We do have the Turkish referendum on if it makes you feel any better and any claims of bias can be easily disproved by a look through the history of T:ITN. We try to keep it varied, but it depends on what's "in the news". I believe over Christmas 2009, most of the items on ITN were related to China. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The point isn't really that there is too much US related stuff - its the kind of stuff chosen. This medal was given for fighting against other countries the citizens of which also read wikipedia.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's probably true. Your point?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And I see my suggestion of taking this discussion to WT:ITN, where it belongs, has been followed. Nice. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This topic seems to have attracted a whole cadre who are great at following suggestions. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And please accept my apologies if I was too vehement. Aldo L (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Yet another unpopular war"...I'll be glad when the popular wars begin. Bravo601 (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Julia Gillard

In the News Forgive me, but I thought once was enough to see her face on the main page. What has she done exactly to merit a second appearance?Eugene-elgato (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The item with the picture used beforehand was removed from T:ITN. Ideally we'd use a different picture, and I suspect that that will happen soon enough, but for now it's back to Julia. Pictures are slightly problematic, in that they require work - identifying free pictures, cropping, and then once they hit the main page they need to be protected. All of which requires an admin with clue - which may be lacking at any given time. Right now, for example, I'm in a position to do all this - but I'm an idiot. Image-work - and particularly protecting images - is something I have no experience with, and I'm likely to break something, so I'm putting up with an ancient picture until someone smarter than me comes along. TFOWR 09:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, you mean the guy with the first particular medal since Vietnam? But why not a picture from any of the other news pieces? Even a Turkish flag might be niceEugene-elgato (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

For the reasons I stated above - it's not that trivial to do. It almost certainly will happen - just not immediately. TFOWR 09:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

How about Kimmy Clijsters? Doing. Courcelles 09:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, could you have found a worse picture of her? Honestly? Not trying to get in the middle of the debate on what's news-worthy but that's about the most unfit-to-print picture of someone I have seen in a long time. It looks like it was taken with a camera phone. I have come to expect better of Wikipedia... --144.191.148.3 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to provide a better picture ;-) TFOWR 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You obviously have not seen the glory of File:CourtneyLove.jpg. that image looks like someone took it while drunk. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Norge

Norway twice in one day — wonderful! Sca (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Must be Norwegian bias. Bravo601 (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole front page is becoming a propoganda board for the Norwegian government Chaosandwalls (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We'll be advertising their major exports next. Modest Genius ^talk 21:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)