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 20:49 on 27 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"

I pulled the Lebanon airstrikes item out, since it's been tagged for POV for more than 24 hours. A glance at the talk page suggests there's active discussion about multiple POV disputes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The main POV tag has since been removed. There's a POV tag in Background through. Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! Still something that needs to be resolved. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Issue with Passive Voice and Lack of Specificity in Current ITN Blurbs

I’ve noticed two blurbs in the ‘In the News’ (ITN) section that use vague language and passive voice, which obscure important details regarding responsibility for the events. It is unclear if subsequent developments have affected the specificity of these blurbs since they were posted. However, here are the specific issues I identified:

Mali Attack Blurb:

• Current: "At least 77 people are killed and more than 255 others are injured in an Islamist militant attack on Mali's capital, Bamako."
• Issue: The phrase "Islamist militant" is overly broad and does not specify the group responsible for the attack. The group Jama'a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin (JNIM) has claimed responsibility, and this information should be included.
• Suggested Revision: "At least 77 people are killed and more than 255 others are injured in an attack by Jama'a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin (JNIM) in Mali's capital, Bamako."
• Alternative Revision: "At least 77 people are killed and more than 255 others are injured in an Islamist militant attack by the JNIM in Mali's capital, Bamako."

Hezbollah Explosions Blurb:

• Current: "Explosions of electronic devices used by Hezbollah members kill at least 42 people and injure thousands of others in Lebanon and Syria."
• Issue: This blurb fails to specify who tampered with the devices, making it unclear who is responsible for the explosions. The article acknowledges Israel as responsible so this information should be included for transparency and clarity.
• Suggested Revision: "Explosions of electronic devices, modified by Israeli forces, kill at least 42 Hezbollah members and injure thousands of others in Lebanon and Syria."

These revisions are important for upholding Wikipedia’s standards on neutrality, ensuring that readers can clearly understand the key details about who is responsible for these events. Thank you! DMBradbury 19:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The electronic device blurb has now dropped off. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that Sienna Green began playing water polo because she saw it as a combination of basketball and swimming, her favourite sports?. The article reads She began playing water polo at age nine as she saw it as a combination of her two favourite sports, swimming and basketball, which I'll be changing. However, the source reads When Sienna Green realised as a nine-year-old that water polo combined the two sports she loved, she was hooked. “I started playing when I was nine because my parents and older brother played water polo,” she said. “It combined the other sports I played at the time of swimming and basketball and I instantly fell in love. In other words, she started playing because of her brothers; her continuing playing was because of the combination, but her starting to play was unrelated. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(September 27, today)

Monday's FL

(September 30)

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)

This banner is extremely obnoxious and irritating. Please someone get rid of it. This is like some really bad joke... Can't be serious. Genjix (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, the fundraising target was set long before the fundraiser started [1]. Similarly the deadline was I presume set (the fundraisers always seem to end about the same time anyway). Whether or not the current campaign was 'wildly successful' the fact remained the fundraiser was still quite a bit off the target. I presume donations have dropped off as they are liable to do over time so from that POV, as 'wildly successful' as the current campaign allegedly was, there was some urgency since it's possible the target may not have been met. In any case, I'm not aware of many charities with broad purposes who only really try to get as much as 'they need', since most charities can always find something to do with any extra (if they really find they have too much, stopping donations is far easier then getting them). In any case, it's irrelevant for logged in users since the banners have been turned off for them until the final push in January. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The only problem I have with the banner is the word "urgent". I don't think its use is ethical. —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 05:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the word 'urgent' is unethical. I presume from the WMF's POV, it is urgent since they have a target to meet and it's not clear if they will meet it. From a donators POV, it may or may not be urgent. It's up to each donator to decide for themselves whether it's urgent or not. The target and amount collected so far is even shown in the banner itself and I'm pretty sure from the links you can find out why such a target was set and what they intend to do with the money. If people don't think it's urgent, that's up to them, but it's odd to claim that it's unethical to call it urgent (when one presumes the foundation does consider it urgent) just because not everyone agrees, even more so when you've provided the info for people to decide for themselves whether they consider it urgent. Ultimately the banner is primarily intended to convey the impression the foundation has an appeal they consider urgent, not to dictate to other people whether or not they should consider the foundations needs urgent. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I favor having Jimbo's head on a mug as in the banner, but if you pour hot liquid into it, horns and a pitchfork become visible.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If Wikimedia needs to raise funds then so be it, but the photos of Jimmy Wales they are using to help publicise this are, shall we say, unfortunate. They aren't exactly his best, and he looks a little smug in some. Just one of him looking a little less pleased with himself would be much better - but nevermind: Merry Christmas everyone! Hugahoody (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas

So why isn't Christmas the main article on the main page as it is the most celebrated Holiday/Holiday in the Western/English speaking world? Is political correctness creeping its way into wikipedia?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Because Christmas isn't a featured article yet. Perhaps you'd like to help make it an FA so it can appear on the main page next year? Acroterion _(talk) 17:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition to misunderstanding the nature of our Today's featured article section, Degen Earthfast apparently didn't notice today's featured image. —David Levy 23:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You say it's the most celebrated. Do you have a source for that? Wouldn't New Years Eve/Day be more universal? (I don't have a source either.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

instead of a christmas/holiday themed FA we get a preserved bog body, poor choice. LazyMapleSunday (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

A what, sorry? I don't follow. Wikipedia is in UTC, and it's been the 26th for at least sixteen minutes now.  f o x  00:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Our article on Christmas was featured quite prominently at the top of the On This Day section, in the area specifically set aside for holidays. Christmas Eve and Boxing Day have all been featured there over the last 3 days - I can think of no other holiday that we cover not only the day itself, but the days before and after. That seems perfectly sufficient to me. Modest Genius ^talk 00:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas is the most celebrated day in the western/English speaking world, whose wikipedia this is. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Everybody's. Did you read the comments above? If you want it to be a featured article, it needs to get back to featured article status; it hasn't been for four years and has some obvious issues. Feel free to help out. Acroterion _(talk) 14:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the "Whose wikipedia this" is was a statement not a question. It stated that this being the English wikipedia so Christmas should be the Featured article no matter it bureaucratically imposed lack of status..--209.213.220.227 (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if Christmas were to become a Featured Article, it still would only get one appearance on the Main Page. howcheng {chat} 20:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is that? another "bureaucratically imposed" rule?--71.162.161.175 (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you haven't thought this through. To start with, Featured Article status is reserved for the best of the best. It's not bestowed upon just any article for arbitrary reasons. Those that qualify have to be well-researched, well-documented, and well-written. These criteria have been decided by the community as a whole -- it's not a decision that was imposed by any one person or small committee of people. If any article could potentially appear on the Main Page in the TFA section, that would include those that are full of {{citation needed}} or {{unreferenced}} or {{original research}} tags as well, and for Main Page, we like to show off our quality content. As to why each Featured Article only gets one shot at the Main Page, well there are (as of right now) 1,343 articles that haven't appeared yet. Each one of those is the result of a lot of effort by one or more editors. Are YOU going to tell them, you'll just have to wait a bit longer because Christmas is always going to appear on the Main Page on Dec 25, leaving only 364 days when other articles get to appear? And actually, why limit it to this one holiday? Why not New Year's Day, Valentine's Day, St Patrick's Day, etc. And then if you open it to major holidays celebrated in English-speaking countries, that's still the US, UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and India (apologies if I've missed anyone), so the available slots open to non-holiday ones is getting limited. And now that you've opened the floodgates, is there any reason why Pearl Harbor Day, 9/11, 3/11, Armistice Day, or any other day that's significant to people shouldn't get the same treatment? So if by "bureaucratically imposed", you mean, "Do you guys have a good reason why this rule exists", then yes, I would say that is true. howcheng {chat} 04:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Today (26.12.2010) the Western Christian Churches (incl. the Catholic Church) DO NOT celebrate St. Stephen's Day, because the feast of the Holy Family takes precedence. It should be corrected... Second, it's just a thought, but puzzling: Many Christian feast days have the modifier "Christianity" or "Eastern/Western Christianity" added in brackets. But Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Easter do not have. I fail to see the difference. Granted, many atheists/agnostics now say they celebrate Christmas (what they actually do is not that important), but would they do so without the Western Christian heritage? Very likely no. Jancikotuc (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Very likely yes, but perhaps with a different name. Family and community feast days at or near the Winter solstice have been very common from way before Christianity. Should it be the featured article? HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Why very likely? Yes I know about celebrating winter solstice in pre-Christian times, but do we globally celebrate summer solstice these days? Why should we suppose that winter solstice celebrations would have survived, if summer solstice celebrations have not? Anyway, Christmas would never have reached global popularity without presents-giving (which was not common until the 1940s). And until that time, the "western" world was still predominantly Christian. Jancikotuc (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Again Vietnam?

there are so many otd about vietnam again. nice there are many FA's about that but they shouldn't appear otd 3 times a month. there should be a rule prohibiting users from pushing there articles too much even if they are good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.61.19.99 (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles in On this day are not FAs, and one story about Vietnam is hardly too many.  f o x  22:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

We get like three of those weekly so... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You realize that US and UK have 1+ items appearing in OTD daily, right? So you're going to complain about Vietnam showing up a few times a month?? Seems a little out-of-whack there. howcheng {chat} 01:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Going to beat HTD to the "but at least they speak English" punch here. Not getting why a little extra knowledge on Vietnamese history is hurting anyone.  ƒox  01:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I remembered several months ago, all of the OTD entries were U.S.-related, then they can't find anything good enough that is not U.S. related, so they got an anime item. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a problem recently involving huge numbers 1960s Vietnamese politics stories showing up. However, this item was entirely unrelated Vietnamese history from the 1920s, which seems rather reasonable in comparison to the other possibilities for that day. Modest Genius ^talk 17:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

More than 1,000,000 articles

Since both French and German Wikipedia now have more than 1,000,000 articles, why not add an appropriate line in the list of other Wikipedias.--Wetman (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed a lot. I can't remember the reasons for not doing it, but the consensus is not to at this moment (I believe they're waiting for more to reach 1m). I for one would also favor creating a new group for those above a million. DC 07:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Quoth the instructions at the top of the page, "if your question is related to the Main Page, please search the archives first to make sure it hasn't been answered before."

• Talk:Main Page/Archive 147#More than 1,000,000 articles: Deutsch
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 148#Wikipedia Languages
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 149#German Wikipedia over 1 million articles
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 150#Wikipedia Language
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 151#1,000,000 articles
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 153#Sister Project: German Wikipedia
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 153#Over one million articles
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 154#Proposal: Add million-article level to Wikipedia Languages section
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 155#1,000,000 +

This excludes numerous earlier discussions in which the community rejected proposals to add a new tier for a small number of Wikipedias (based upon whatever arbitrary milestone had been reached at the time). —David Levy 17:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler to just make a new category for Wikipedias with more than 1,000,000 articles, rather than have this discussion over and over again? 87.114.184.255 (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Simpler yes, but every one of those discussions has concluded that it would be a bad idea. Simpler != better. Modest Genius ^talk 19:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Besides, it is 'one of the (ten) standard Main Page talk page discussions' (the others including over-representation of the US, of sport, of wildlife, topics which annoy various filters, those which annoy Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells...' (Any further suggestions?) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You forgot "Picture X/Article Q" will hurt the children. DC 04:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What the 'L

Lemur, Lindow Man, Lincoln cent, Lince, Laurence of Canterbury Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector. Maybe it's just apophenia, but it's an amusing coincidence all the same (especially since, other than Lemur, the TFAs reverse alphabetically): I'm not in screaming "bias" or anything, just thought that maybe someone should pay attention to Raul's requests for more activity on the Requests page - I think he's getting bored. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 02:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)