Talk:Main Page
Welcome! This page is for discussing the contents of the English Wikipedia's Main Page.
For general questions unrelated to the Main Page, please visit the Teahouse or check the links below. To add content to an article, edit that article's page. Irrelevant posts on this page may be removed. Click here to report errors on the Main Page. If you have a question related to the Main Page, please search the talk page archives first to check if it has previously been addressed: For questions about using and contributing to the English Wikipedia:
To suggest content for a Main Page section:
|
![]() | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive. |
---|
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 |
Main Page error report
![]() | Most issues relating to national variations of the English language have already been discussed here at length:
|
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 11:28 on 23 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.
Errors in the summary of the featured article
Errors with "In the news"
Errors in "Did you know ..."
Errors in "On this day"
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Errors in the summary of the featured picture
General discussion
MichiganWolverinesSoftballPedia
Those Wolverines certainly must have one cunning PR person to have got themselves into virtually every set of DYKs for, what, a week? More? Awien (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- DYK is prone to runs of various topics if a motivated editor or two expands a series of articles in rapid succession. I've done it with hockey players myself. We've seen runs of species articles, actors, geography, etc. Resolute 14:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- We had Wolverines Football in POTD a week or two ago, and nobody commented. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not trying to make a big deal of it, just that it was enough to be noticeable. Awien (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Ties in with the 'main page US centricism' discussion immediately above :) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
FRIEND'S/FRIENDS' - note placement of apostrophe
On the Main Page, it says "Friends'". The page to which it links says, "Friend's". Which is correct: FRIEND'S or FRIENDS' ?
- Editors should note that this refers to the "On this day" entry for "Friends' Day in Argentina and other Latin American countries". I'd suggest that consistent use of "Friend's" in the article makes that the correct form. But I don't understand Spanish, so cannot check the sources. Anyone? HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Friends' Day would be Día de Los Amigos. However, the article says it is Día del Amigo. Therefore, it should be Friend's Day.--WaltCip (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Done Fixed. --Jayron32 14:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Day of the friend (friend's) - not, day of the friendS (friends')? CopperSquare 07:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 20 July 2013
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sea of Tranquillity : should be Sea of Tranquility Doprendek (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Done. This kind of request is meant to go to WP:ERRORS. Hut 8.5 23:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 21 July 2013
Could the separate article Belgian National Day be put on the page, rather than the simple "National Day" link, which just provides a list of national days, as at the moment? Many thanks! Brigade Piron (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that it is a stub so it can't be linked prominently (boldfaced) at the Main Page... –HTD 12:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Royalty on the main page
As there 'will be a lot of it about' - don't complain, it will pass in a few days. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- But it's an irresistible urge to complain... --WaltCip (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- If only Americans had royalty... –HTD 17:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- The USA did overthrow a Monarchy. And no, the Kardashians don't count.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm from New Zealand, actually; a Commonwealth nation.--WaltCip (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to you, just the fact that royals+Americans would've been a lethal mix... –HTD 19:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's a boy. Now the paparazzi can take down their ladders.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Americans had royalty, right up to 1776! Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Right up to 1963/68. 87.113.216.108 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- And unsurprisingly, someone bitched about it a few sections up when a Kennedy appeared on the main page. Resolute 21:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Bah. The Kennedy family is much less significant that 19th century pre-Indonesian Chinese literature, because a person automatically loses ten significance points for being American and gains ten for being from an oppressed nation. (But seriously, there's been several items to do with Indonesia on the Main Page this week.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- And another tomorrow, in OTD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Bah. The Kennedy family is much less significant that 19th century pre-Indonesian Chinese literature, because a person automatically loses ten significance points for being American and gains ten for being from an oppressed nation. (But seriously, there's been several items to do with Indonesia on the Main Page this week.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- And unsurprisingly, someone bitched about it a few sections up when a Kennedy appeared on the main page. Resolute 21:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Right up to 1963/68. 87.113.216.108 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Americans had royalty, right up to 1776! Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's a boy. Now the paparazzi can take down their ladders.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to you, just the fact that royals+Americans would've been a lethal mix... –HTD 19:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- If only Americans had royalty... –HTD 17:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
(reset) Trying to be ahead of the discussion - and I was including the Belgian monarchy in my comment (and will refer some of the replies to Emperor Norton). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Just for everyone's amusement, there's now a discussion ranting about UK royalty at WT:ITN#UK country bias and procedure, incidentally by the same person who insists that the US Senate is a parliament in itself. –HTD 13:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- To be honest, both countries get more coverage than they should, but the UK-bias is way odder because its much smaller. By sheer numbers, a certain US-tilt in the most polished articles is predictable and perfectly reasonable. But I quite often come on here and see two or three items somewhere relating to some obscure noble from 200 years ago or some British naval milestone, and I'm not sure how that happens to be.
- "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, gives birth to a son, third in the line of succession to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms."
- "British cyclist Chris Froome wins the Tour de France."
A man rides 2,000 miles through some of the toughest terrain France has to offer, battling 219 of the finest cyclists in the world. After three weeks of pain and suffering, he achieves the unthinkable - a second consecutive yellow jersey victory for a British rider, and a first for an African rider, on the 100th running of one of the greatest sporting events on the planet.
A foetus squeezes itself through a fallopian tube. It gets three times as much space on the front page of Wikipedia. (I know it looks like twice as much above - only twice! - but the picture placing makes it three times on the front page at time of typing.)
For the record, I'm not in any way outraged or pissed off. I think it's hilarious. --81.152.113.134 (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- "A foetus squeezes itself through a fallopian tube." That would be news. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of this fascinating complication of the royal birth. It's probably going to be the first royal in the Guinness Book of World Records!
- I knew my GCSE Biology was probably going to let me down. I was going to use a different part of the reproductive system but was afraid it would have misogynistic overtones :P --81.152.113.134 (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hail Prince George! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Gosh, a stroke of genius, followed by a hearty cheer, in very quick succession there. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC) .. but hastily pressed into abdication, alas.
Prince is born, not duchess gives birth
The subject is the prince, not the Duchess. Now we have his name, the blurb should be the much simpler
"Prince George of Cambridge, third in line to the throne of the Commonwealth realms, is born to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge."
μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, what's wrong with "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, gives birth to a son, Prince George of Cambridge, third in the line of succession to the throne of the Commonwealth realms."? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- That makes it sound like a divine gift from God. -- tariqabjotu 20:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Shucks. And we thought Wikipedia wasn't a news channel. Does the name make him even more notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hodor?
HODOR! --85.210.104.221 (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I object to the bias on the page
I object to the blatant bias that is present on this page. Of course, wikipedia is well known for this bias, but I am still disgusted and surprised. For shame.