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 18:14 on 28 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 in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that Jumbo's became the first white-owned restaurant in Miami to serve and employ black people, beginning in the late 1960s?

That's a big and hard to prove claim. One reference says that most restaurants didn't employ blacks [1]. WLRN says that the ckaim is from the owners [2]. The New York Times also says "The owners say that Jumbo’s, in Miami’s Liberty City neighborhood, was the first white-owned restaurant to employ and serve blacks.". We are saying this in wikivoice! Secretlondon (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Tails Wx, Another Believer, Prince of Erebor, AirshipJungleman29, and Crisco 1492:. Strikes me that the simplest solution is to attribute.--Launchballer 15:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Attributed, with these edits.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's enough, because not only does the article still say it in wikivoice, but the then-owners sold it to a developer in 2014.--Launchballer 15:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Article now says "Owners claimed". I didn't do that part as the article isn't protected. The sale to developer, I think, doesn't really change that the persons voicing the claim were the owners. Unless the developer took the name, too, they aren't the owners of Jumbo's... they're the owner of the site. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The NYT also has a quote "I can’t tell you for sure whether they were the first, second or third to integrate...", so yeah, saying this in wikivoice seems problematic. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and we shouldn't be saying that anything was "claimed" per MOS:CLAIM. It casts doubt on the assertion but also gives it an air of legitimacy that is questionable. Suggest we pull, since there's no way to know whether it's true or not. And the owners claiming it without evidence isn't a DYK-worthy definite fact.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we simply change the hook? Eg DYK that when Jumbo's employed three black people, thirty white people quit? JennyOz (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This ALT works for me, but I haven't yet been able to access the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Verified.  Done. Slightly tweaked to " that when the restaurant Jumbo's hired three black people, thirty white people quit". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It now says "desegregated" which could mean customers rather than staff. Secretlondon (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Gatoclass, would you be ok with "hired three black people" instead of "desegregated"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It's all hearsay from the former owners, but it's better I guess. Secretlondon (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The source puts it in its own voice. I suspect they may just be parroting the owner's claims, but I can't be sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "... that American stage actress Verna Mersereau performed her traditional classical dances before royalty in Calcutta?"

The article only says that she performed the lead role in the play "Rain" before royalty in Calcutta, it says nothing about what she did in that play, what kind of dances she performed (she learned "various dance styles" and I have no idea what "traditional classical dances" are in the first place, are they different from other "classical dances" in some way?). The article doesn't even mention "traditional". I have the impression that the hook is a piece of WP:SYNTH, joining the claim that she performed in "Rain" in Calcutta[3] with the claim that she performed classical dances in "A romance of Old Egypt"[4]. Fram (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll go farther, this just seems like "dancer dances", whether I knew it or not, why should I care? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd support pulling, if another admin gets to it before me (I have to review the procedure). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Pulled and replaced with a hook that ran last month. I looked for guidance on whether it's appropriate to run a new hook after half the day has passed, and couldn't find any. If anyone knows the answer, let me know! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I read "... that on the same day that the members of Heaven's Gate died in a mass suicide, five members of an unrelated group did likewise?" They did likewise what? For my understanding: "die (in a suicide)". I don't believe that dying, even in a suicide, is something you "do". I my be the only one to have a problem, - ignore me if that is so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I didn't have a problem! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Can we get the thumbnail changed to File:Old Viriamo, back view by Walter Knoche, 1911.jpg? If the blurb is about her tattoos, it makes sense to have an illustration of her tattoos...I was wondering where in the image the 'adze' tattoo was. wound theology◈ 11:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  

  • Thoughts on this, Lajmmoore? I can see good arguments for either picture. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  • I think it is better if it is a picture of her face, as that shows who she was as a person, rather than a drawing made by a European explorer. Some of these drawings may have been deliberate exaggerations to demonstrate how "other" indigenous people were.. In terms of the adze, @wound_theology it was on her face (as it states in the article), but the photo and its angle, her age and ink fading, make it difficult to see. Thanks for the ping @Firefangledfeathers- it's good to have discussions like these.

  Lajmmoore (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 1)

Monday's FL

(October 28, today)

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

TFP blurb

I feel that TFP blurb should have description in two parts. One being about the subject of the picture; which we now are doing. But also some info about the picture should be added. For example for today's pic File:Vasily Perov - Портрет Ф.М.Достоевского - Google Art Project.jpg we should add the medium of painting, its size, where its now located, etc. Some key features of the picture, like lighting effect, a particular angel or some technical terminologies of photography which can be demonstrated through it should also be mentioned. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think a short summary would be a sensible suggestion. One short sentence at the end of each blurb with those sort of details would be a useful addition; it could go next to the current author identification. For your example image, it could read something like 'Oil painting on canvas, 99 by 80 cm (39 by 32 in)'. I don't think it should go into too much detail on techniques etc. as these are usually not that notable, and would be mentioned in the blurb already if they were. Modest Genius ^talk 21:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Could we also find room for a (say) "you can hep by uploading your pictures" link, too? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Fully support. An excellent idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Doable, but we already have image description pages that do the same thing. The image description page tells us what it is; the blurb tells us why we should care. That being said, how do you suppose we should have "some info about the picture" for photographs? Camera make? Don't think many would care. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

We could humanise it a little: "Today's picture was taken by Ashjay, a teacher from Mumbai. He's been contributing to Wikipedia for five years, and this is his second featured picture". That would enhance the "I could do that" response. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Crisco: It might not be always possible to put something for every image. But i guess our editors who are regular at FPC can try and put a certain image into some technical aspect. Easy way for non-expert editors would be to read the FPC to see if any reviewer has noted anything such. If not then its scratching one's head. For example for the File:Perth CBD from Mill Point.jpg that will appear on 27 Aug, maybe we can talk about Rule of thirds. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• My students would have enjoyed the look I just shot my monitor. POTD (and En-Wiki's FP) has always been focused on the encyclopedic nature of the images used, and not purely their technical aspects (many runners-up for POTY on Commons were shot down on EN-Wiki for a lack of encyclopedic value). As such, going off on a vector to discuss File:Perth CBD from Mill Point.jpg in relation to the rule of thirds (your example) would be against this tenet: the image is not used on-Wiki in such a fashion, and thus should not be shown on the main page in such a fashion. I agree that a bit about the image itself may be worth including, but as you can see from the Perth image, it has been worked into the blurb and not the credits at the bottom of the page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think adding 'human interest' is a bad idea - this is an encyclopaedia, not a social media site. Limit it to factual content of encyclopaedic interest please. Modest Genius ^talk 11:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about becoming a "social media site"? It's not unencyclopedic to credit contributors, and the main page is our shop window; we can allow ourselves a little leeway to encourage and engender greater participation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Erm, there are several contributors who don't even want to give their real names for photo credits. I don't think a short biography would go over well, and it might turn some people off of contributing for fear of having their privacy violated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't sugegst that we mandate it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• That it would not be formally mandated does not mean that someone could not misinterpret such a shift as being one which they are expected to follow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Humanising it" is a silly idea. Should we also have little biographies of those who have written featured articles? I'm all for more details about paintings (if they're significant in themselves, most of the blurb should be about the painting) but the photographs are not there because they're beautiful works of art, they're there because of what they show- a particular skyline, or a particular species of frog, a particular notable individual. That's what the blurb should focus on, that's what FP is all about. J Milburn (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• +1 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• The images we show here might not be used in the technical photography or painting concept articles that we write in blurbs. But its just a side note. The main content of the blurb will always remain, for example Perth. A subordinate mention at the end should be made about the rule of thirds. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • ... Really now? That's completely random. This is not a "rules of photography" website. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine! Sorry to have wasted your time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Cute, furry mammal bias.

There are currently two prominently located images of cute, furry mammals on the main page. This must stop before someone gets a cuteness overload! Rreagan007 (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right... and now when I see their pictures, I am only filled with RAGE. Thanks. :p –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If you hadn't said furry, I might have gotten confused. I like the FP myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Furry ==>>fury?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't panic. DYKs keep changing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Aaaw! I’ve gone all warm and fuzzy inside. Guess I’ll just spend my time mooning over the furry cuties, and to h**l with fixing mangled spelling, tortured syntax, abused punctuation, and misbegotten neologisms! Gnome no more! I’ll be a pussy cat from here on in! Awien (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you really mean mooning? Modest Genius ^talk 17:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I imagine Awien meant (as NOAD puts it) to "act in a dreamily infatuated manner: Timothy's mooning over her like a schoolboy." :-) Surprisingly, Wiktionary's mooning entry misses this sense of the word entirely currently. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• I should think that mooning over animals can get you arrested. Of course, then you could moon over anything and everything, including the moon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

And if you count the Bison featured picture, that would be three. Of course it's just a skeleton, so not furry any more - but it was furry once! --GRuban (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well! I thought it was showing how manly we were by depicting those with hair on their chests, but that eliminates that possibility.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

[5] looks pretty evil to me. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Four, if you counted Linnea Henriksson's DYK picture. -- 205.175.124.72 (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think we should keep this mainpage.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• MORE CUTE FURRY ANIMALS PLEASE!! 86.146.108.14 (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

On popular demand we have one more for you in DYK. Enjoy! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It shows very bad planning that the olate dogs were not put up until after the Koala had been taken down. Solution: Put the koala back up.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The koala's on a eucalyptus break.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture need captions (or something)

I believe this has been discussed before, but I must point out again the silliness of the random juxtapositions of text items and unrelated pictures. Today we have a photograph of broken buildings in a modern street apparently illustrating the defeat of the Byzantine forces at the Gate of Trajan in 986. Why is this problem never fixed? 86.146.108.14 (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively and the answer is because there is no good solution and there are not enough people who think this is a problem in the first place. —howcheng {chat} 04:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, see this FAQ entry. Modest Genius ^talk 11:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not buy the arguments against captioning. There is plenty of room for meaningful captions in small font. The pictures themselves should be bigger too. Often it is hard to even see what they depict. There is plenty of width on an ordinary monitor to do this, and mobile devices have a different layout anyway. 81.159.111.248 (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

86.146.108.14, it's time you upgrade to a wider computer monitor. --69.157.46.84 (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't understand. 81.159.111.248 (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Even if not captioned, we can arrange the image to be seen much closer to the entry that it is for. Today's last blurb is related to the image which is floating near the 1st blurb. Am talking about OTD. This problem comes only with OTD and ITN where 1st blurb is not necessarily using image. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

We've gone through this before. Because of varying monitor widths, you could very easily end up with the situation where the bottom edge of the image drops below the last line of text, thus leaving unsightly dead space. Various suggestions have been made, but in the end, there aren't enough people who think it's a problem. —howcheng {chat} 23:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I see! That dead space thing did not cross my mind. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"... there are not enough people who think this is a problem in the first place."

Au contraire, mon ami!! Sca (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The simplest solution is simply to always place the illustrated item first, regardless of chronology. --Khajidha (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK

All US/popular culture except one....♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Then it's all your fault for not creating and nominating content for DYK that has different emphases. You have literally no one to blame but yourself, unless you wish other Wikipedia users to stop making Wikipedia better in ways that meet their interests and skills. And you cannot possibly be asking for that, can you? --Jayron32 01:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Erm, no, it's partially the fault of the people who prepared DYK preps as well. If at all possible, they should avoid having such runs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Give them more source material to work with then. You're allowed to do that, you know. --Jayron32 01:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I find it quite ironic that you are saying this to two of the most prolific DYK writers, neither of whom have focused on the US. Let the people who actually know DYK comment, rather than just fall back on "so write articles". We both have: Dr. B. over 1000 and myself over 500. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm... I don't know. Given Dr. Blofeld knows so much about the DYK process, he should know this is not the best place for this complaint. These kinds of "too much X" threads on this talk page invariably (even if unintentionally) become magnets for unproductive accusations of bias. A "can you please be more careful" remark at WT:DYK would have been better. -- tariqabjotu 03:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree on both points (the post below proves your first point even more). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• P.S. I thought Prototime's comment (which s/he has now deleted) was directed at Jayron32 (at least based on indentation), not either one of you two. -- tariqabjotu 05:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I read it as replying to Dr. B, which is patently obvious from my reply (which s/he has also deleted). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• My comment was defending Dr. Blofeld, who clearly is confronting systemic bias by pointing out an instance of it. I thought the intent of my comment was pretty obvious, but I removed it to avert a flame war and because, as Tariqabjotu pointed out, this isn't the appropriate forum to discuss bias in DYK. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hence why including an explicit subject would have been a good idea, particularly as the threading was unclear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

editing of user pages

Can we the people have pages on Wikipedia? Why do you only have to be important to be on a Wikipedia page??— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.21.226 (talk • contribs) 01:09, August 19, 2013 (UTC)

There are two possible meanings to what is meant by "have pages on Wikipedia". I will deal with each individually. The first meaning is for a person to have an article in the main namespace. Articles are part of our encyclopedic content and need to conform to our core content policies (i.e. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). These policies were set in place for a variety of reasons and help Wikipedia in its efforts to be a credible and useful source for information. For an article about a person to satisfy our core content policies requires multiple published sources about the individual to exist, a situation that typically requires a person to, in your words, "be important" in some manner. A summary of what is typically required to satisfy these policies is available at Wikipedia:Notability.

The second possible meaning of having a page refers to a user page. This does not require an individual to satisfy out notability guidelines because the information is not placed in the main (article) namespace. It does however require the individual to create an account. --Allen3 ^talk 01:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it permissible for a Wikipedia contributor to make their user page look like a Wikipedia article about themselves? Rreagan007 (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It is conceivable that a user page could be organized to look like a Wikipedia article. As Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a web hosting service, there is an expectation that any such page have some tangible relation to the user's contribution to the project. This limitation generally prevents user pages that serve primarily a resumes or have no relation to Wikipedia. Information about what is and is not acceptable content for a user page is available at Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages? and Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?. --Allen3 ^talk 09:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Help WP:TAFI choose a format

Please help WP:TAFI choose its future main page format from among 6 proposed formats that are up for a vote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 02:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Featured article milestone

The number of featured articles hit 4,000 a few days ago. Shouldn't there have been some kind of celebratory banner on the main page? Rreagan007 (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Urdu Wikipedia

Please add urdu wikipedia link on main page of english wiki

http://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/صفحہ_اول

The Urdu Wikipedia only has 25,000 articles and doesn't qualify. The current minimum article count is 50,000, with Wikipedias determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders omitted. Requests belong at Template talk:Wikipedia languages. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could find a way to include a line with a selection of actively-maintained, but low-volume, Wikipedias, in rotation (as a sort of "featured Wikipedias of the day")? That would give them some much-needed support and exposure (and at least partially address the systemic bias in only listing the biggest), without filling the main en- main page with a big list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ponies.

Never seen a featured picture on the front page of a Pony/Horse. I believe it is time for one. No neighs pls. 188.29.164.252 (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Close enough. —howcheng {chat} 15:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried here?--WaltCip (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

We've had lots of horses. In addition to Howcheng's image, we've had Template:POTD/2008-02-25, Template:POTD/2009-09-24, Template:POTD/2013-06-23, Template:POTD/2011-10-11, Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 5, 2006 and Template:POTD/2007-09-03. We've got other FPs yet to appear on the MP which feature horses. Horses feature pretty heavily- we've also got a number of featured articles about horses, so they appear a lot on the MP for that reason. J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Then we can be just like the rest of the internet! Zazaban (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)