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 16:15 on 30 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 with "In the news"

• More than two hundred people are killed in an Islamic militant attack in Barsalogho Department, Burkina Faso should probably be changed to More than two hundred people are killed in an Islamist militant attack in Barsalogho Department, Burkina Faso, without the emphasis of course. wound theology◈ 07:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Islamist" and "Islamic" have the same meaning so what's the difference? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, they do not have the same meaning. wound theology◈ 13:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson: Indeed they do not: Islamism § Relationship between Islam and Islamism. Or, from elsewhere: [1] vs [2]. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  We're talking here about the words "islamic" and "islamist" used as adjectives. Per the OED, which is a reliable source:

• Islamic adjective – Of, relating to, or characteristic of Islam; Muslim; conforming with Muslim practice or tradition. Of a political party, etc.: advocating a society ordered according to Muslim principles.

• Islamist adjective – 1. Of or relating to Islam or Muslims; Islamic, Muslim. 2. Of or relating to Islamic fundamentalism or Islamic fundamentalists; that advocates or supports increasing the influence of Islamic law in politics and society.

There's no significant difference between these. As for that Wikipedia page, that's not a reliable source and is no doubt full of disputation as Islam has numerous sects and schisms. The attacking force seems to have been from the Jama'at Nasr al-Islam wal-Muslimin (Support Group for Islam and Muslims) so we should specify them if we want to be exact. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 30, today)

Monday's FL

(September 2)

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

Ipad DYK

Resolved

 – It got changed NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this for real? How did that get on the front page? That sounds a bit WP:WEASEL. Surely a more interesting fact could have been found than the colour and size, if it should have been on the front page at all. Sounds astroturfy. 129.67.86.189 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, that's spam, pure and simple. It should be removed, and whoever added it should be warned or outright banned. Mokele (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's get rid of that one-line advert! It should not be on Wikipedia's frontpage!--174.93.82.227 (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The user who added it was User:fetchcomms. I can't see that it is *intentionally& spam, but considering the pre-existing discussion on the talk page for the article, this seems like a really bad idea. 129.67.86.189 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Warned. An admin should know better. Mokele (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? I never added that. Please check because unless my account was compromised I never did such a thing. This is ridiculous. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. But if so, you'll have no problem deleting it, as it's obviously promoting a recently-released product. It might as well be a banner ad. Mokele (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Let it be known that a) HJ Mitchell added that into the queue and b) I was about to raise the same issue. Mokele, please do not template me with a useless message that wasn't even supposed to be given to me. I did not nominate the article for DYK, either. Frankly, this rude and assuming-bad-faith experience makes me want to vomit. I will let some other admin take care of the trashy DYK hook while I focus on more important issues in my life. Good day, sir. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, I really don't see how this is advertising for the products. It's thinner than an iphone and comes in black and white. As long as it's an authoritative statement that's sourced in the article, is it really such a problem? Advertising it would be, "Did you know that the all new iPad 2 comes with all-new features, and has been brilliantly engineered by Apple to make a better, and friendlier, user experience for you?" I don't think this is advertising. Nomader ^(Talk) 01:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Pretty clear-cut advertising to me and I've raised it at WP:ERRORS as well. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's advertising, then everything here is advertising. You could say every DYK on the page is advertising for the respective item it talks about, and the Featured article is an advertisement for the book, and the featured picture is an advertisement for NASA, and the in the news is advertising for...... N419BH 01:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you could advertise for dead historical figures, fungi and mathematical theorems. Mokele (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? You honestly don't see how publicly touting added features of a newly-released product can be seen as advertising? That line could have been lifted verbatim from an Apple advert. Mokele (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a vague description of an object that could fit any number of things. That's not advertising by any stretch of the imagination. That said, if anybody wants to make a sensible suggestion for an alternative hook, I'll consider it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Off the top of my head? "...that sidewinding costs a third as many calories as slithering the same distance?" or "...that the peak power output of a Cuban tree frog jump is over 7 times what its muscles can produce?" or "...that a sand lance is a small, eel-like fish which dives into the sand to hide?". I can give you 20 more in short order, just from research done within 5 doors of my office. Mokele (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Try again. None of those appear to qualify for DYK. You may also want to see my comment below Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Mokele, if this were, say, of a certain species of flower, would you raise the same issues? "[Some flower] is shorter than the rose and comes in red and yellow varieties." This seems to have been spurred on by some anti-Apple sentiment, and while I don't disagree that the hook is poorly worded, we should be improving it, not just removing it. Whatever happened to building an encyclopedia, not removing its content? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually own an iPad, so it's not anti-apple, it's that WP is not supposed to be advertising. This is "telling people about" a product that's currently available and engaged in a huge marketing campaign, and specifically telling them about desirable features. Simply informing someone that a given flower is a certain size or color is unlikely to directly promote the interests of any particular corporation, even if it does motivate someone to go to the florist. Mokele (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you have missed the point of my original comment. There is nothing notable or interesting about the colour. I would never have thought that "did you know that cows come in black and white" would have been on the front page. There is no "hook", and no reason for the thing to be on the page, other than that it is a new and shiny toy. 129.67.86.189 (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually own an iPad, so it's not anti-apple, it's that WP is not supposed to be advertising. This is "telling people about" a product that's currently available and engaged in a huge marketing campaign, and specifically telling them about desirable features. Simply informing someone that a given flower is a certain size or color is unlikely to directly promote the interests of any particular corporation, even if it does motivate someone to go to the florist. Mokele (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I just point out that if something as simple as "The iPad 2 is released worldwide by Apple" failed to make it to ITN because of concerns over free advertising, I'm truly dumbfounded that a more promotional line on it made its way to DYK. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Maybe we have to add something to DYK about the google tablet, and the dell tablet, and the microsoft tablet, and all the other tablets including the ones that haven't even been developed yet just to ensure we give equal weight to the entire sector... N419BH 01:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)</sarcasm>

For what it's worth, ITN and DYK are two completely separate processes. N419BH 01:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

<sarcasm>And clearly, as someone who's not contributed to both, I had no idea!</sarcasm> In reality I think this only strengthens the point pushed by some people (no names) in the past that DYK is too lax, although personally I disagree. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the point was to distinguish from the previous iPad and the problems that have plagued the white version of the iPhone. Being offered in both colors is somewhat notable. Anyway, can we work on finding an alternative hook? Maybe something like "Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs personally announced the launch of the iPad 2, despite being on sick leave?" /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a lame entry, no doubt, but "really lame" isn't something that disqualifies a submission, as far as I recall. I haven't looked at the article, but I'm sure something better could have been submitted. Regardless, it most certainly is not so bad as to warrant bad faith warnings against editors, which Mokele has thus far failed to apologize for. Resolute 01:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see the problem. That the iPad 2, essentially a tablet computer, is thinner than a phone made by the same company issurprising (i.e. an interesting fact). That it comes in black and white is just a simple fact (albeit a bit unnecessary with the first fact). The only problem, it seems, is that the iPad 2 is a commercial product. However, I do not think commercial products should be disqualified from DYK and the Main Page. We've had a number of commercial products as Today's Featured Article, and even a couple in In the News, without incident. Its position is DYK is even more innocuous.

And, your templating of Fetchcomms and description of the item as "spam" is ridiculous and insulting -- even before considering Fetchcomms had nothing to do with the DYK hook. -- tariqabjotu 01:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hook changed by Fox (talk · contribs). Agree the templating and subsequent non-apology is bad form. Still, time to move on. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to drag this up still/again. Its not really that different from where we were a minute ago. Two "facts" are now replaced by one weak fact. Why not just pull up something else that was in the list of stuff for today? Can we say its been agreed that it is "lame"? For the record, DYK says that "# The hook should [... (not likely to change, fine)], and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness.", so the number of countries it is to be released to is simply newness. If the Ipad was created by the same guy (this is fictional) who built some notable castle down the road, that would be interesting; this is fluff, 129.67.86.189 (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it really that big of a deal? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

its seen by ~5 million people, so yes! 129.67.86.189 (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on, get over it and move on. The current hook is non-promotional and is fine. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 02:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats just promoting the status quo; we can totally do better than this. I read the article, and it was little thin on the ground (fine, its new), but this page Template:Did_you_know/Queue has lots of stuff which is better; we should be creating the best wiki we can, and we aren't even trying?129.67.86.189 (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I like "... that the Mymensingh Museum in Bangladesh contains Saraswati and Vishnu statues from a Muktagacha zamindar palace, and a huge shade used during hunting from a Gouripur zamindar palace?" 02:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.86.189 (talk)

Don't worry, once it's on the queue, it'll be on the Main Page soon enough. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think it's up to you to decide when Fetchcomms should move on about the templating/bad-faith. Regarding moving on past this thread in general, the question right now is whether the people who thought the original hook was bad are fine with this new one. -- tariqabjotu 01:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that Did you know seems to have articles that have very recently happened? Do you think this should be allowed that is should there be at least a 1 year time period before an artical can make it into DYK. Example from today "that the 2011 Christchurch earthquake broke William Rolleston's (pictured) neck?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.12.148 (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The point of DYK is to promote NEW articles, by featuring them on the front page. F. F. Fjodor (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

New articles and stubs that have been sufficiently updated to be articles. From some of the suggestions in this discussion, I don't think 86 is the only person to be confused by this. I think this somewhat proves my point the other day that it does matter people understand that DYK is not primarily intended to be a collection of interesting facts but instead primarily serves to highlight new content. Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As a final note, failed ITN candidates used to be ineligible for DYK, but it appears that restriction has been removed. howcheng {chat} 16:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If WP had existed a century or so ago - would we be having discussions on whether the fact that {Company X) produces cars in colours other than black, unlike the Ford Model T?'

'New products unveiled' should be added to my list of topics that cause much discussion on the talk page. 16:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiespeel (talk • contribs)

excuse an interruption to your discussion by an occasional dippr-in to wp, but surely the kind of people who use the site are not gooing to read the entry for the i product and rush out and buy one. they will be able to evaluate and digest the information. the important thing must be - is it true, factual. Daiyounger (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Feedback regard page view statistics requested at Village pump

Please, please forgive me if it is inappropriate to bring this subject up here. I posted an idea at the Village pump relating to page view statistics being displayed on article talk pages. Since page view statistics sometimes go hand-in-hand with Main Page appearances (DYK, current events, today's featured content, etc.) I thought Main Page contributors might be able to offer feedback. Any assistance would be appreciated (and again, I apologize if this request does not belong here). --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

{{edit semi-protected}} make info boxes bigger

Which boxes are you referring to? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In the news

Not really accurate to say "Following a series of accidents at Japan's Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant (pictured), engineers work to contain radiation." when workers who are not engineers are putting their lives at risk working on it, too. 67.52.81.242 (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The wording's been slightly modified, but in the future you will get a faster response at WP:ERRORS. Spencer^T♦C 04:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dunno what was changed but the anon's request was probably not satisfied. The blurb could link to Fukushima 50, too. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ITN image

DigitalGlobe (Flickr photostream) have very kindly agreed to release a few of their images of the Fukushima power plant. Could someone who know more about images than I do have a look and see which would look best at 100x100px on the MP? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

They all seem to be released under {{cc-by-nc-nd-2.0}}, which, as the template link demonstrates, is not acceptable on Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could still decide on one image then ask DigitalGlobe if they would be willing to remove the NC stipulation off that one image. Resolute 20:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd very surprised if they were unwilling to do that. -- tariqabjotu 20:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

They're not releasing them on Flickr, but they've sent an email to OTRS (ticket #2011031710013124) allowing use under CC-By-SA. So if they have an image of the plant that's better than the one we've got, my understanding is they'll let us use it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

All of them? -- tariqabjotu 21:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That being said, I don't think any of the images, including the one currently there, are suitable for the Main Page. For the article, they're certainly informative, but for the Main Page, it's hard to tell what's going on at such low resolution. -- tariqabjotu 21:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How about one of these two? The second in particular is clear.--Chaser (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the first, personally. I think it's clearer. I agree it's tricky to get an image that shows what's going on well at 100px. I just thought I'd suggest it in case anyone thought some of the others would be useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes when you start a conversation, it goes in directions you don't expect. ;-) This image starts from a higher resolution, so it might be better to grab crops from. This one dramatically shows the (radioactive?) smoke blowing away from the plants. I'd like to hear others' thoughts, however.--Chaser (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That second one is very dramatic. That would be great if it works at tiny resolution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest? Both pictures are not very good, and are long out-of-date and have the potential to be misleading. I would much prefer people look at such pictures themselves, in context, rather than have them presented (possibly in a misleading context) on Wikipedia. People (including Wikipedians) are making unwarranted presumptions about what is being seen in these pictures. And trying to find the "most dramatic picture" is a step on the slope to sensationalism. Carcharoth (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Search Box Is Tempramental

I don't know what has changed but I'm finding that these days the "Search" word that is filled in in the search box is interfering with the actual search.

So if you quickly click your bookmark for wikipedia, and click straight on the search box and start typeing very other you end up with work "Search" stuck in front of it.

This is very frustrating, and never used to happen... ... what's changed?