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 13:14 on 30 June 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 "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Hamad City

... that Hamad City in Gaza was largely destroyed within minutes?

This supposed fact is not clearly stated in the article. The nomination indicates that it's referring to airstrikes in December 2023. It appears that about 5 apartment blocks were destroyed on that occasion but the complex had about 50 and so was not "largely destroyed". Most of it must have remained because there was a subsequent Battle of Hamad in which 100 buildings were cleared and that took two weeks. A source from that article has photos which seem to show intact apartment blocks still standing at that time – March 2024. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: This should be pulled immediately. Spreading disinformation about the Israel-Hamas war is not a good look. It appears that the nominator Havradim noticed the mistake and offered a corrected hook [1], but Lightburst rejected this and approved the original. I wouldn't recommend a hasty swapping out of hooks though; ALT0a should get a proper review before being used. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that the nominator effectively identified the issue as they proposed a modification to the hook based on a "closer reading". That modification was rejected and it is surprising that the unmodified hook was then run as it was clearly erroneous. (edit conflict) Andrew🐉(talk) 07:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Pulled. Yes, this seems to have been a basic fact checking error, the article text (and the source) don't say what the hook says at all. The reviewer noted that there was a slight inaccuracy between the five airstrikes reported, and the five buildings mentioned in ALT0a, but then went back and approved ALT0, which the nominator had already noted did not match the sourcing, after reviewing again. I'd think as Soujourner says, maybe a modified version of ALT0a matching the wording used in the article would be best here. If this doesn't get reinstated today, I'd suggest giving the nom another chance another day, as I don't think the nominator was at fault for this. Also pinging @SL93 and Z1720: too, as promoter and admin. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging my efforts to get everything right. How about if we simply edit the hook to read "... that Hamad City in Gaza was largely destroyed within minutes during the Israel–Hamas war?" It's not as if there exists any doubt that the neighbourhood was in fact largely destroyed, correct? If anyone is really not sure about this, I encourage them to watch the embedded videos in this link. Maha Thaer, a resident of Hamad who is quoted in the article, said that "We don't have a city any more, only rubble. There is absolutely nothing left ... There were no walls or windows. Most of the towers were completely blown up." [2] Havradim leaf a message 10:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not a definite fact. The reporting in March has a quote "This neighborhood looks nice..." There was then more fighting and devastation but now it appears that residents like Maha Thaer are returning and taking stock. The war is still ongoing and so we don't have a conclusion yet. Viewing videos to form a provisional conclusion would be original research from primary sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, Thaer did say that most of the towers were completely blown up. But if we cannot take her word for it, how about – "... that Hamad City was turned into ruins as a result of the Israel–Hamas war?" Quote: "Hamas senior officials and their families moved into this new and opulent neighborhood, which then turned into ruins after the IDF entered as part of the ground operation to dismantle Hamas terror infrastructure in the area." [3] (added to the article) Havradim leaf a message 12:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

David Marchese

Doesn't the David Marchese hook break WP:DYKBLP? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say no considering David Marchese was open about that during an interview. SL93 (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

While I don't doubt that it is sourced, WP:DYKBLP is a higher criterion than regular WP:BLP: Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. (emphasis not mine) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's "unduly" when the subject doesn't make anything of it. Pinging nominator Spaghettifier, reviewer UndercoverClassicist, promoter Sohom Datta, and prep to queue mover Z1720. SL93 (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think it's undue nor does it really reflect negatively on Marchese. It's a lighthearted mistake from long ago that he volunteered in good humor for a podcast segment devoted to mistakes. It's not like the hook accuses him of committing malpractice. Spaghettifier (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts, the podcast very much gives of the vibes of a humorous anecdote rather than a "I don't want to talk about this ever again". Also, the hook makes it very clear that this incident was a accident and not a intentional act, making it hard to misinterpret as a deliberate negative action. Sohom (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There's consensus that this is not an error. Schwede66 05:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

In the second hook, why not put the appropriate quotes around "Lunch"? It would have the added benefit of making the hook funny. Primergrey (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@PSA, Launchballer, Sohom Datta, and Ganesha811: thoughts on this hook suggestion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection if the nominator approves. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Same here :) Sohom (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me.--Launchballer 03:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• 1985 – Ryan White, a poster child for HIV/AIDS in the U.S., was denied re-admission to his school, having developed the disease due to treatment for hemophilia.
  This seem doubly badly worded to me. I have no idea what "poster child for HIV/AIDS in the U.S." means and "due to" sounds like the wrong word choice as well. "Through"? Srnec (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Ryan White, a famous HIV/AIDS patient in the U.S., was denied re-admission to his school as he had contracted the disease from hemophilia treatments"? Does that work? Bremps... 05:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd replaced "as he had" with "after he", but yes, it works. Srnec (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

   Done – Schwede66 05:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Famous is POV, removed that. Stephen 11:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• 1934 – Adolf – German chancellor Adolf Hitler began a purge ... — As a formal title preceding the name without intervening punct., "Chancellor" should be capped. – Sca (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 5)

Monday's FL

(July 1, tomorrow)

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

Request for comments on the Main Page

The 2013 main page redesign proposal is a holding a Request for comments on the Main Page, in order to design an alternative main page based on what the community asks for. Please leave feedback regarding any aspects of the Main Page you like or dislike, and discuss the Main Page's purposes and aims.

Evad37 (talk) (on behalf of the 2013 main page redesign proposal team) 00:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The Labourers of Herakles

While I don't mind the article, the author or anything in general about this topic, was it really necessary to use vulgar language (even if it IS a quotation) to have 'shock value' on the Main Page? Yes, it may be a correct quotation, but entirely unnecessary. It's like selecting the most vulgar snippet out of an entire speech just to get people to read it. Seems very juvenile and amateurish. And, considering how much I esteem Wikipedia, it is also disappointing. 19:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me?

It seems to me that Bach's cantatas show up more regularly than any other subject in the "Did You Know" section. (OK, this is perhaps a slight exaggeration.) Is it just me, or does somebody in power have an absolute passion for them? :-) All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It's probably more that someone with a lot of time and energy has such a passion and channels it into developing these articles. :) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right. Let us hope that this someone has a few deadlines coming. A break from the cantatas would be welcome. Not that I don't respect Bach, but he does replace something else every time one of his works is included. Just for the fun of it: In my youth, a television programme started with a movement from one of the Brandenburg Concertos. (I can't remember which - I've avoided the concertos ever since.) This was Sunday evenings, and the boy, who I was at the time, was dreading the beginning of school next day. I've never been able to listen to that movement since without a flashback. :-) All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"he does replace something else every time one of his works is included" - I'm not sure this is entirely true.

Or at least, if you write one hundred new DYK-qualified articles per month on a wide variety of topics that are not Bach, then the Bach topics will appear considerably less often because they'll have to wait their turn. Thus, nothing is being denied a place in DYK, but rather, DYK has to use the material that's supplied. If three per cent of the material that's supplied is about Bach, then roughly that proportion of DYK will be about Bach.

To take a totally different view, maybe you're just imagining all these appearances of Bach-related material on the main page. A "reliable source" repeatedly insists that "topics rarely appear more than once" on DYK. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, they haven't noticed Indonesia then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• The answer is 1) Everything that's meets the requirements and gets nominated ends up getting posted at DYK, and 2) the sources of articles for DYK are constrained by who writes the articles and who nominates them. This is a fairly limited pool of editors, and as noted, if people are very interested in niche topics, we get a LOT of similar nominations from those same topics, not because people are deliberately ignoring other topics, but because that's all we have to work with. This is the exact same reason why we end up with so many bird pictures on the main page: There's a prolific bird photographer who's very good at what he does that contributes a lot of pictures to Wikipedia. There's a limited supply of other topics, because no one has created really good pics in other fields, so we get a lot of bird pictures. We could demand that people stop making Wikipedia better and more complete with their good articles about Bach or their really good pictures of birds, but really, the better solution is to provide your own articles about other topics, or your own non-bird pictures, because I'm not really comfortable asking dedicated editors to stop making Wikipedia better. --Jayron32 18:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I had noticed the birds as well - Australian more often than not. :-) 85.220.22.139 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm quite a fan of Bach (and I know German), I can see where the frequent blurbs on Bach cantata texts as DYK items may seem repetitive and tedious to general English-language readers. It would be great to see DYK notes about a broad spectrum of composers, related to historical context. Many of them had such interesting lives! Sca (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a general English-language reader. English was my third language, German my fourth and I'm equally fluent (or not) in both of them. I'd welcome a treatment of other German composers - Germany has produced a lot of them. How about Beethoven - the greatest of them all according to some? Or how about other peoples, Donizetti, Tschaikowski etc. You're right, the Bach entries get repetitive and dull. All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Chopin. Sca (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I love Chopin. Today we have yet another cantata. But according to Wikipedia, there are only 209 of them, so the material has to run out sometime this decade. :-) All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Featured picture

The following discussion 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.

---

The loose letters spilling from the placed "bananagrams" receptacle contain the letters "DO ME" in a identifiable sequence, which may be misconstrued as obscene -- is there any certainty that this is not obscene content? Is there a procedure by which such a high-publicity photo may be peer-reviewed for 'latent obscene'ness? -Anaceus.

Wikipedia is not censored. The website does not screen content for obscenity. 72.28.82.250 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Or is it "dome"? I also see "red" and "road" and "dot". Anyway, it really is more "domre" since the "r" is in there. I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Chris857 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's somebody who looks for evil and debauchery and finds it. Somebody please think of the children! Also, it is clearly 'Domre,' if it is anything.72.28.82.250 (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I see "sad" and "pour" and "sap". Maybe I should treat myself to pancakes? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Another example of the fiendish pro-flapjack bias latent on this website. 75.156.70.207 (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not as bad as the pro-bacon bias (for instance ... this) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow Bananagrams look really neat! Hours of wholesome fun for the entire family! I'm going to buy myself one immediately! Are you?122.167.168.194 (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Available at The Wikimedia Shop for the low, low price of $10.99 USD! FallingGravity (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• And if you order now, you'll get a transit of Venus for the low, low, low price of cryogenic freezing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I see "ur mother" which could also be misconstrued as offensive. I demand... um... attention? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, well I'll give you some... I see "Dear mother", which is so much better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• I see Apophenia. --Jayron32 13:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Could be worse. You could be seeing "London" or "France". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That's nothing. I see "Europe" and "doom." Obviously, this is a message from the fourth dimension that Europe is doomed! Sca (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2013 (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.

D-Day doesn't make the cut?

Really? On this day...not one of the most important military invasions in world history? Eightball (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not every article is included every year. D-Day is simply out of rotation for this year. —howcheng {chat} 04:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

D-Day should always make the cut. period

I agree... Even if it is on rotation, it should ALWAYS be included every year... posty (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but no article is guaranteed a spot. —howcheng {chat} 16:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question: Where's is D-Day? Something this historically significant shouldn't be "out of rotation". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As explained at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries and on each date's subpage, the section isn't intended to function as a list of the date's most historically significant events.

If you disagree with the longstanding criteria, it would be more constructive to propose that they be changed than it is to complain when they're applied. —David Levy 17:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised not to see D-Day either, but if you click on the More anniversaries link for June 6 at the bottome of the "On This Day" section you will see D-Day listed for 1944.g.randolph196.3.39.10 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

History of Gibraltar has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article on 13 July to mark the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Utrecht. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. Bencherlite^Talk 10:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So? I don't think that's a controversial nomination at all. Modest Genius ^talk 10:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone thinks it is uncontroversial. As a TFA delegate, I rarely advertise specific TFA nominations, but with this one (if selected) I don't want people to say "Why weren't we told about this in advance given the whole "Gibraltar – Main Page" thing?" or something similar. If consensus is clear (in either direction) and the discussion has been well-advertised, then that helps me. The same notice has been left at the village pump, WP:AN and WT:FAC, so that should cover a number of bases. Bencherlite^Talk 10:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sadly there are a couple of dead-enders who are obsessed with this issue and continuing to stir up controversy where none should exist. That's mainly why Bencherlite is having to be cautious here. Prioryman (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think that's overly cautious, but better safe than sorry. Modest Genius ^talk 13:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• In my experience, there is no such thing as being overly cautious when it comes to potentially contentious material on the main page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's only contentious because of bullshit Wikipedia politics. No one who is unaware of the whole Gibraltarpedia silliness would find the article controversial in the slightest. Unless there is clear evidence that the article itself is of substandard quality and doesn't deserve to be a featured article in its own right (which it does; it's a fine article) there's nothing at all controversial about the article or its making it to the main page. --Jayron32 17:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Where?

The DYK brief on Kuiu Wilderness and Tebenkof Bay Wilderness should include "in Alaska." (Ever hear of the five Ws?) Sca (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)