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 22:52 on 6 September 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"

• Not an error as such, but I think the picture caption should clarify that this is the aircraft that crashed, not simply one of the same type. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Moot for now, as I pulled the picture as it wasn't fully protected yet (my bad). Regarding your comment, I never knew how to tell when it is the actual one vs same type.—Bagumba (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Ivan the Terrible movie

Ivan the Terrible (full film)

Part I, which is public domain

• This isn't necessarily an error, but I think it would be a good idea to replace Ivan the Terrible screenshot on DYK with the full film. We have used a full film on DYK before (Night of the Living Dead if I remember correctly). I think it's just more interesting and enticing. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Jaguarnik, thoughts on that idea? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Are we sure that the film is in the public domain in the United States? Schwede66 04:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If it's hosted on Commons, it's good enough for the Main Page, as far as I know... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

We've seen plenty of instances of things being tagged as properly licensed on commons that turned out not to be. And I agree that the goal of DYK is to get people to click through to the article and this would distract from that. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm against it. Our concern is to get our readers to click on the bolded link. Posting a 3-hour film next to it is rather distracting. Once they read the article, they would know where to watch the film. BorgQueen (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against it, but unfortunately we don't have full English subtitles yet for that film (there are partial subtitles but unfortunately there's no time to complete the subtitles before DYK is up). So assuming someone decided to watch the full film and did not know Russian (as most of the readers on ENwiki do not) they would only be able to watch about 16 minutes, so there wouldn't be much of a point for posting the full film. I'll leave it up to consensus though because it's an interesting idea. As for US public domain, the first part would be under public domain under URAA, but I'm not sure that the second part is in public domain, and the video has both parts. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

[...] I'm not sure that the second part is in public domain, and the video has both parts. Right, we can't post it on MP then. BorgQueen (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• We could just post part I (pictured), which we have as a separate file. Its thumbnail looks clearer and more interesting. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Good solution, but would we have to replace the current file in the article with the part 1 file? There's also still the issue that it has no subtitles. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

    Like user Jaguarnik above, I'm against this idea. Let's stick with the thumbnail.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Foxtrot

• I'll See You in C-U-B-A was released in 1919, not 1920. Aydoh8^[contribs] 12:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

   Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Firefangledfeathers @Aydoh8 are you sure? According to the infobox, it was written in 1919 but released in 1920. What's the WP:RS for this? RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  The song itself was written by Irving Berlin but was recorded by Billy Murray in 1920, I guess both dates could be argued but I'm going off when it opened in the Follies which was in 1919. Aydoh8^[contribs] 15:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

" Christopher Columbus set sail from San Sebastián de La Gomera in the Canary Islands on his first voyage across the Atlantic to the Americas." He set sail to find a shortcut towards India . . . . that the two Americas lay in his way was a lucky find, as he would have never been able to navigate the whole of the Atlantic and Pacific. Ciao Pentaclebreaker (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The main problem with the OTD in my opinion is the use of the term "discovered" to describe Columbus's accidental voyage to the Americas. It's rather eurocentric, and should be replaced with "discovering (from the perspective of the Europeans) the Americas." Titan(moon)003 (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Great I accidentally replied to someone rather than creating a new post. (I'm new to Wikipedia, sorry) Titan(moon)003 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

According to Amerigo Vespucci, cartographer Martin Waldseemüller applied the Latinized form "America" to a map showing the New World for the first time in 1507, i.e. 15 years after Columbus's voyage. – Sca (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you perceive an error. "Voyage ... to the Americas" is a normal way to describe where he ended up, not where he intended to go. It would sound stranger if we wrote about Columbus's voyage to India! And of course we use the modern name for the continent. JMCHutchinson (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

As it was his intention to find a shorter way to India (actually to the land that was the source of pepper and other spices) it is definitely misleading to state that he set sail to cross the Atlantic and reach the Americas. With todays lack of elementary education in sciences and crafts some people might interpret the voyage as a given route to a well known land. What it definitely wasn't.

Albeit it was most probably know to Columbus that far to the West across the Atlantic there was another land (he may had access to a source describing the Viking expansion toward Greenland and Newfoundland, and maybe some rumours about ships going to the Southwest to find favourable winds and currents to reach Subsahara Africa (and sight some foreign coast to the west maybe only hints to a coast), he had no knowledge about the lands that later were named "The Americas". He barely had an idea of what he had found and most probably was convicted he found some parts of Asia untill very later in his life. Ciao Pentaclebreaker (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

But the blurb does not say "he set sail to cross the Atlantic and reach the Americas". It says "set sail from ... on his first voyage across the Atlantic to the Americas". I still see no implication in the latter text that the Americas was his goal. JMCHutchinson (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

As the Americas are mentioned in the short, condensed text, it implies that these were kind of knowledge at that time . . . what they weren't at all. Ciao Pentaclebreaker (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ve tweaked the blurb. Happy? Schwede66 18:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes^^. Pentaclebreaker (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD

• 1936 – The last thylacine (pictured)... - in the caption, pls remove the name "Benjamin". The name is a myth. See discussion on talk page and ref 116 "Stop calling the last thylacine Benjamin, Tasmanian tiger researcher says" of Dec 2022, which lists some websites (including WP) for misnaming the animal as "Benjamin". JennyOz (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

   Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• 1778 entry: "before Britain had even learned of the Franco-American alliance". The article says "before British authorities in the Caribbean were aware", which sounds far more plausible. I suggest to change "Britain" to "local British authorities". JMCHutchinson (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I have removed the line altogether. As far as I can tell it appears in the lede but not in the body, and is therefore uncited.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(September 6, today)

Monday's FL

(September 9)

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

Jimmy Wales' Mug

Any chance of losing that bizzare, psycopathic-seeming gaze on the banner?!? It really freaks me out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.77.97 (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Shame, when I read the heading I thought maybe some entrepreneurial soul had begun selling coffee mugs with Jimbo's terrifying stare plastered over it. So he can watch you while you sleep. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I also thought you ment mugs as in tea and coffee mugs; but it Caught your attention didn't it? mission acomplished woudln't you say seeing as it's a fundraising banner? :) --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As someone who's had a hand in fundraising in the past, I'll point out for the sake of argument, that catching people's attention can be a useful aspect of fundraising, but if a line is crossed into irritation, it's not a good thing. Whether the Jimbo banner is irritating or not seems to be the OP's point, not whether it's eye-catching. If I came to an office as a one man band and suddenly began playing, with the aim of prompting donations, I'm sure I'd get noticed, but I'm not sure I'd get much money (or goodwill). --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Me, I found it so irritating that I looked in the source files to find the filename of the Jimbo photo used, and add it to my browser's content filter. Whenever a new image was used, I'd add it to the blocklist. Now that it's no longuer Jimbo, I don't mind as much. Still, they could make the banner not so huge. 76.10.140.44 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I for one enjoy being greeted by his lovely visage while perusing wikipedia. Perhaps him and Andy Shclafay and do a callander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.16.52 (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we all agree that Lilaroja was hot and she should be the official spokesgirl of Wikipedia?184.190.207.21 (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there #should# be official WP mugs (which can be right or left handled - ie which hand you use to hold the mug to see the image).

Would Uncyclopedia have a hot potato? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would much rather have ads on Wikipedia than this desperate cry for donations. Targeted ads would easily raise what Wikimedia needs and would help a lot of businesses reach their potential clients. And yes, the ugly mug is creepy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.210.249 (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This "urgent" appeal is embarrassing. The Wikipedia fundraiser has been wildly successful; it is not good PR to seem desperate to milk every penny out of your users. Wikipedia is not in dire financial straights. --64.53.233.71 (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And it would be better PR to say "please donate but don't feel too obliged to, we've got plenty money either way"? Nah.  f o x  12:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It depends -- are you sending the message that the goal is to get as much money as you can, or to get as much as you need. The former is offensive. 86.26.60.18 (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you know

Could "... that a turning enthusiast built the most elaborate commercial building (pictured) in New Ulm, Minnesota?" be better phrased with "New Ulm's most elaborate commercial building" because otherwise it somehow looks like it features as one of the most elaborate commercial buildings anywhere and that has its own problems of objectivity??Eugene-elgato (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

People have given up on Wikipedia's front page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It's obvious the last couple of years Wikipedia front page lost its appeal to the people (nobody cares to even debate it anymore, with so few visitors about it) because it refuses to allow democratic procedures other than "we'll take into consideration your petty suggestions, peasant". If you want to improve it, stop putting Directors, "Arbitrators" and Know-it-alls in general on any section of the front page sub-themes and start learning from websites like reddit.com. Let people submit whatever and the best news, 'did you know', whatever, even page will go top *by simple visitor 'upvoting'*. Because your Elitism of having "enlightened" or only regular visitors with the process of writing in a wiki format with lengthy reasonings is not justified. You will never replace Democracy with "Enlightened Elites". This was the vision of every fascist regime in the history of the world and it failed. --Leladax (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To submit and vote on "Did you Know" Items, Click Here

To submit and vote on "In the News" items, Click Here

To submit and vote on "Featured Articles" Click Here (To request that they appear on a particular day Click Here.

To submit and vote on "Featured Pictures" click here. (They appear in order, and there's a long queue, so be patient.)

Sorry that the selection process isn't exactly the same as Digg or something, but in most things Wikipedia prefers intelligent debate over mindless voting. So be prepared to back up your opinions with a brief argument.

Ultimately, though, the end result is similar, our users choose and "vote" on the articles that go up on the main page.

The only un-democratic step is the Featured Article selection process. It's moderated by a single editor to avoid unseemly "clumping" of topics, but he's usually pretty open to suggestions and requests. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Leladax's screed above, I've been complaining for almost two weeks that there haven't been enough main page featured article requests. See this thread. I'll give you guys a tip - if there's a featured article you want on the main page, request it in the non-specific date slot. That almost guarantees I'll use it the next time I schedule some featured articles. Raul654 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Leladax, you are aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy, right? Corvus cornix_talk 19:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Have I been in a coma for a few years? When did debate on the main page stop? Nil Einne (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps at the same time pageviews fell from about sixty a second to near-zero? Algebraist 21:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Leladax would care to explain how 4-6 million views a day qualifies as "so few visitors"? Last time I checked, those were pretty big numbers.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Leladax, I remember your last post on this page. It was titled The Front Page is slowly turning to a propaganda leaflet of the US State Department. and you went on to state all of the editors who worked on putting the main page together were "trolls belonging to stormfront.org. --Banana (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You are a propagandist troll. If you don't provide evidence of the lie you just said remove your comment. I never said all wikipedians are fascists because, moron, I'm one of them. --Leladax (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA. I'm sure it's not the first time that page has been pointed out to you. Corvus cornix_talk 20:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision made at 17:33, September 13, 2010 by User:Leladax. Will that do as evidence? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:DFTT. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 11:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's just all move on, shall we? I think the past few comments make it clear nothing will be gained from continuing this particular discussion.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voyager 1 has NOT reached the heliopause

The incorrect "In the news" item should be dropped. WolfmanSF (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As the reference in the article does not confirm this (that Voyager reached heliopause), I have withdrawn that ITN item. I should also remove that line from the article, but am waiting for reaction. Materialscientist (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't a copyvio or anything urgent, so should not have been removed from the template before discussion. The blurb made no mention of it actually reaching it—just states the fact the scientists say it has shown signs of doing so. As there was consensus (albeit with limited discussion) to list it at ITN and the removal was unilateral and without discussion, it should be restored. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 11:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

With pleasure, after a reference is provided for the stated fact. Materialscientist (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

make changes  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.61.70 (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 

Million milestones

Does anyone know which the 3,500,000th article was? We might want to update Wikipedia:Million milestones, for the sake of its completeness. --Theurgist (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Main Page archiving

Many people wonder what the main page looked like on a given day. I suggest archiving the main page daily by getting a bot to use Special:ExpandTemplates on the source and save the result in a dated page. I just created Wikipedia:Main Page history/2010 December 16 as an example. All templates and parser functions are recursively expanded by Special:ExpandTemplates so the result should look almost constant except for some details like sitenotices, deleted or changed images, and design changes in the software. It could also be done every 4 or 6 hours to capture DYK changes but daily seems enough to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that this would better be fleshed out and placed on Wikipedia:Bot requests. You don't need our approval to set this up as it doesn't affect the Main Page itself. - BanyanTree 07:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to hear what people think before going to bot requests. I don't think anything like this has been done before. Is there interest in such an archive which would grow to thousands of pages in a decade? It would make lots of bot generated pages meant to never be edited again. I don't want to watch them all for vandalism or unwanted changes, which would be nearly all changes including corrections. Would it be acceptable to fully protect all of them? Are there license problems if contributors to the substituted templates are hard to track down? And for something affecting the Main Page, should such an archive be linked directly from there or only from the talk page? Without a Main Page link, the archive would have lower profile and there would be less reason to make it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for this kind of debate. Go to WP:VP - and get an advert on WP:CENT (and the Signpost may be interested, too). --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Bottom Section

Haven't you noticed that Korean has passed the 150,000 articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.180.39.164 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have updated {{Wikipedia languages}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Great! - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.180.39.164 (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Today's featured article, The Simpsons Game, has wrong image

Instead of an image of the game itself, it shows a picture of a sign in front of a game studio that makes thousands of games. The article is about the game, not the company that distributed it. Can someone change that? Dream Focus 01:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that was because it is the only non fair use rationale image there was in the article. Fair use images are not allowed on the main page. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It would look better without an image at all. That image is jarringly off-topic. Zagalejo^^^ 07:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. ;) − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. LFaraone 16:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This game is not only made by Electronic Arts, it is about Electronic Arts. The game makes fun of the company consistently throughout the plot and the game's antagonist is Will Wright, who was, at the time, an employee of Electronic Arts. The image is an appropriate one. Neelix (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If the featured article were Electronic Arts, the image would be reasonably illustrative. But for a video game produced by Electronic Arts (and even spoofing it in its story), it was a desperate stretch to include anything remotely relevant to the article's subject, purely for the sake of having an image. I support the image's removal. —David Levy 17:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If the image of the EA sign is not to be readded, surely an image of the game's head writer would be acceptable. Neelix (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

While that would be less bad, it still doesn't strike me as preferable to no image at all. Even the display of a book's author (for which the video game equivalent would be, for example, a photograph of David Crane alongside a blurb about Pitfall!) is less than ideal.

The article isn't about Matt Selman, so it once again comes down to including an image purely for the sake of including an image.

Two questions that are helpful to ask are:

• Will the image's general nature be readily apparent to most readers seeing the blurb (before they read the caption)?
• Would we seriously consider including the image in the article's infobox?

If the answer to both questions is "no," the image probably isn't particularly suitable. —David Levy 17:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Concern of fanaticism on Urdu Wikipedia

Hello, I would like an admin to take a look at some articles on the Urdu wikipedia, especially this one.

They clearly spell hatred for others by extremists, and should be deleted immediately.

Kind Regards.

--184.171.168.202 15:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.171.168.202 (talk)

An administrator on the English Wikipedia cannot assist you there. Perhaps make your request at this page on Meta-Wiki instead. Thanks!  f o x  15:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No love for the Wright Brothers?!?

On Dec. 17th (today) I was surprised to find no mention anywhere -- "Did you know.." "On this day..", Featured article, nor photo -- of the Wright Brothersn historic first flight. Dec. 17, 1903 is generally accepted as the first human flight in a heavier-than-air powered vehicle. Just wondering why such an Earth changing event wasn't highlighted. Sector001 (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Now you can see a relevant item in the "On this day..." column. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I had originally swapped out the Wright Brothers item because they'd been on for several years consecutively and other articles should get their shot on OTD as well. Today also was the 75th anniversary of the Douglas DC-3, and I felt one airplane item was enough. Remember that OTD doesn't highlight every event every year. howcheng {chat} 16:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Coolness. Much thanks for the change and the explanation. Honest, I wasn't trying to be a troublemaker. =) Sector001 (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I do like how the invention of a new ridiculous neologism "earth-changing" was necessary to present your point.  f o x  19:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help Fox. Consider it your Christmas prezzie. Actually, the event was more "sky-changing" than "earth-changing".lol Sector001 (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)