Talk:Main Page

Main Page error report

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 22:33 on 10 October 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"

• Found this on the ITN/C page: looks like someone had a complaint about the Chemistry Nobel. Not sure if this is an important change we care about. Natg 19 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is awarded jointly to Demis Hassabis and John M. Jumper for their work on protein structure prediction and David Baker for his work on computational protein design." should be "The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is awarded to David Baker for his work on computational protein design and jointly to Demis Hassabis and John M. Jumper for their work on protein structure prediction." (David Baker should come first as per the official award announcement: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2024/press-release/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:54A0:6E01:766:542F:EF4C:9956 (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I know that David Baker is listed first in the official announcement but I decided to but Hassabis and Jumper first because that one has a smoother flow and it needs to be listed first that the award was awarded jointly and it is not that clear when it is mentioned in the middle of the sentence. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 16:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume there are no bad intensions but this grossly misrepresents the relative importance of the recipients of the prize. Even more so now that a photo of D.H. has been added. The most important recipient is D.B., please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:54A0:6E01:766:542F:EF4C:9956 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source indicating that the ordering of the Nobel Prize press release indicates relative importance and not, say, alphabetical order of surnames. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Do reliable sources read any intentional emphasis in Nobel's ordering of awardees? I'm in agreement with PoP that the current order reads clearer. Nobel is not consistent about order (see this article for example). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that the lyric video for an Olivia Rodrigo song included a teaser that she would tour in support of her album Guts?

Sorry but it is not making sense to me why the interesting part needed to be snipped...? Sources like Billboard magazine clearly document the tour as having been announced on September 13, a whole five days after the lyric video's release. This got rid of the interesting part, which was supposed to be the hinting of the tour in an easter egg before its announcement.--NØ 03:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This issue was addressed a day or two ago on this page, see this diff. Gatoclass (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything interesting here at all. "Musician announces tour" is routine. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't an announcement, it was a "teaser" in a music video, that's the whole point. As it happens, I agree it's not very interesting, but since tour teasers in music videos are not common, it passes the "unusual" test and therefore squeaks through. It will probably get decent views from the fanbase anyhow. The hook was already discussed here, BTW. Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• * In the 7th hook at "in support of her album Guts?", should there be the question mark ({{-?}}) template ? JennyOz (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

   Done, noting it'll need to be undone if the hook is changed to move "Guts" away from the question mark. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Next DYK

• Tornado item: 'four times the helicity reasonable for tornadogenesis' is unintelligible, and the helicity was measured for the parent storm not the tornado itself. I suggest changing to 'was produced by a storm that had hydrodynamical helicity four times higher than the threshold required for tornado formation'. It's probably also worth adding 'in 2021' to the blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 16:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It comes in at 174 chars, substantially mnore than the current offering, but well within the limit, and, hey, it's orthographically fautless. SerialNumber54129 17:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This had a long thread on WT:DYK. I suggest pulling it rather than trying to do a last-minute fix in place. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw that discussion, funnily enough, but when I realised that it mostly comprised absolutely serious arguments about whether the suburbs of Chicago were/n't actually part of Chicago (and that the rest of the world cares about adminstrative boundaries in an article about tornadoes!), I went off and read Alice in Wonderland instead.

I think you're right about pulling it though—seconded. SerialNumber54129 17:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait, what? You hang out at FAC and you thought that discussion was weird? RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Classic :D fair point. I will return immediately to the land of arguing about colons or—ssh!—semi-colons... SerialNumber54129 18:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That thread seems to be entirely about how the location is phrased, which my suggested wording leaves unchanged. Modest Genius ^talk 18:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

• ... that cyclist Daniela Larreal competed in five Olympic games for a country that exiled her?

No, she competed in five Olympic games for a country that would later exile her, per the article. I guess the wording isn't technically incorrect since they're both in past tense, but the heavy implication is that Larreal competed from exile. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Done RoySmith (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Tomorrow's OTD

• 1968 – Apollo 7 - pls remove italics, not used on missions. JennyOz (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(October 11, tomorrow)

• The bolded link should be more than a single word: I suggest bold-linking "discography of the Linda Lindas" in full. Also, the caption is too long for Main Page use; "The Linda Lindas performing in 2022" should be enough. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 20:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• At "with the Los Angeles-based label", pls swap hyphen to a suffix dash. JennyOz (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• "was released on October 11, 2024" - is it okay/normal to use past tense here? ('is due to be', 'will be', 'is being'?) JennyOz (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Monday's FL

(October 14)

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

Moving on

Enough of Obama's mug! can we see Justin Welby please. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Justin-Welby.jpg Robvanvee (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Since that photo was a copyright violation, the answer would be no. —howcheng {chat} 21:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops...my bad. At least we have moved on...Robvanvee (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your butthurtness is not a valid point for taking the photo down. There is currently no photo up, and there needs to be one. If a photo of Obama is the only photo available that is relevant to the news stories, it needs to go back up. Though I think one of the photos of the Guatemala earthquake would also be a choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.188.176 (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't 'need to be one'. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion perhaps. Robvanvee (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Not just NULL's opinion. Images are enhancements to the text, not a necessity. --Khajidha (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not a necessity, but it does enhance an article. When an event happens on a Tuesday, and a photo related to that story is still up on the Sunday, it does beg for replacement or at the very least, removal. But hey, thats just my opinion...Robvanvee (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Bring back Lugo!

Miss you!

Since that has left ITN imageless for the first time in a while, why don't we just bring back Lugo? Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I propose that Lugo become a sort of placeholder image to be displayed wherever an image isn't currently displayed on the Main Page but might be, due to his obvious encyclopaedic value and dashing good looks. Lugo's relevance in any particular situation can be derived like so: Obama is currently on ITN; Obama -> politican -> Lugo. Q.E.D. Thoughts? (e • nn • en!) 17:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I know it's been proposed before, but "Lugo is still alive" could accompany the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• There is precedent for it. GRAPPLE X 23:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Lugo! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That mic! Bring back the Mic!--85.210.106.83 (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't continue to abuse my personal data.

I wrote an article, and at the end i was asked if i had founded, what i was looking for. I did. I clicked. I had no improvment to add. My IP is printed on the feedback list without my permission.

I don't like that. I would appreciate to get my data back. Cause where I live i own my personal data. And you are using it whitout my permisson, like I said, by publishing it (the IP not the improvement text that I wrote itself - or to be more concrete the link between the IP and the usage of it).

Please don't do that again.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsfg80 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I read the article. I didn't wrote the article. Sorry for the confusion. I inserted this after the responses below. -Dsfg80 (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

All unregistered contributions to wikipedia are attached to the IP address from which they were made; mostly through page histories. This isn't a new development, so although you can request your contribution be deleted (providing the page in question might be helpful), asking that it not be done again isn't going to happen. The ability to post without revealing your IP is one of the benefits of creating an account, which is quick and free anyway, so it's not something that is difficult to avoid. GRAPPLE X 21:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reply. When you write sth. down in the edit frame, there is a warning that your ip will be published. That is ok, because you have my permisson when i give you my permission. There is no warning in the feedback feature. That is not good. Dsfg80 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Dsfg80 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)-minor edited-

I have left a message about your complaint at Wikipedia talk:Article feedback. Bencherlite^Talk 22:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have left a message there. I agree wholeheartedly with the original poster. The article feedback tool is intended to reach out to readers beyond the Wikipedian community, who have no idea about the norms of "anonymous" editing on Wikipedia, and who do not expect their private, personal data to be published online. It is absolutely unfair to describe it as "easy to avoid". The "just get an account, then you'll be more truly anonymous" line works when addressing editors, particularly given the warnings they receive on the edit page. But you can't get an account retrospectively, and it's not easy to be psychic and realise you needed one, when you didn't get any advanced warning from the feedback tool of what is about to happen to your data. In fact unless you look for it, you can't even see that your personal details have been published online - I am sure a lot there would be a lot more complaints if feedbackers realised the way their data had been treated. ManyQuestionsFewAnswers (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You are also free to use whichever computers you have access to without signing in. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC) feel free to browse wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.238.33 (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh no! Next. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to the above person's issue, rather than suggesting a general policy for Wikipedians. (And we have all probably made a few IP-asigned changes for whatever reasons)

As a further comment - an IP address can apply to a number of computers, so things are not always obvious. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey?

Who it's it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaakeli (talk • contribs) 18:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata and Wikivoyage

I assume once Wikivoyage is better established it will be joining the list of sister projects at the bottom of the Main Page. What about Wikidata? Will that also be considered a sister project? I see that Meta is listing both as "content projects"... - dcljr (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Operation Pillar of Defense

Shouldn't Operation Pillar of Defense be showcased in the News section? It is not every day that Israel rids a top terrorist figure (Ahmed Jabari) and have the entirety of Hamas declare the first war to have been declared online (by means of twitter.