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 06:49 on 15 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

Chinese characters

• Just putting a notice here that the image of oracle bone script used in the Chinese characters DYK is not the one used in the article itself. I think each are a better fit for their respective position, and the one in the article has actually been on the Main Page before. Since they serve the same function, I hope this is okay with everyone. If it's a problem, please feel free to replace the image in the article with the one in the DYK. Thanks! Remsense诉 00:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It is DYKCRITERIA that the image used must be in the article WP:DYKIMG. Bruxton (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That's why I'm posting this—I hate to invoke this, but this seems like a potential WP:IAR case, as I think it's the best presentation. Would you like me to swap out the image in the article for today, then? Remsense诉 00:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that shouldn't have happened. I've replaced it with the infobox image. RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith I put the DYK image in the article for the time being. Can you please revert? Remsense诉 00:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "in the article for today". RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The image for the hook is now in the article. Remsense诉 01:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, but what I'm getting at is, when you say things like "I put the DYK image in the article for the time being", that sounds like, "and as soon as its off the main page, I'm going to change it again". Am I interpreting that correctly? RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That's what I'm going to do, because it's not the best image for the article: it's too tall. Remsense诉 01:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I figured. Nah, I'm not going to play that game, sorry. RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I've come off like I'm trying to game something; I just wanted to weave an ideal outcome from an initial mistake that I made. I know you're not going to do this either, but I would genuinely prefer my hook be removed from the front page if the image can't be changed. Remsense诉 01:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Pulling a hook is a bit of work. Pulling the lead hook with the image is a lot of work, and introduces substantial risk on its own because unlike other hooks, it has to be replaced (as opposed to just running with one less hook for the rest of the day) and replaced immediately, so we'd need to review a new hook and image as a rush job. There's got to be something seriously wrong to justify that. I don't know where things went off the rails (did we make a mistake reviewing it, or did the article change after the review was completed?) but at this point, it's all about risk management, not worrying about whether this is the optimal image. RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I made a mistake picking an image that wasn't in the article. It was missed, but it's my fault for only bringing it up now. This was all my best attempt to fix that in the best way for both the article and the main page. Remsense诉 01:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith I've already bothered you enough, but can I get a quick confirmation that the image won't be changed, so I can put the other oracle bone photo in the article? Sorry. Remsense诉 01:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If some other admin wants to do this, that's their prerogative, but I've done what I needed to do to fix the immediate problem so, no, I'm not making any more changes. RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: why did you not permit IAR here? Levivich (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done The image on the main page matches the article image. All is good; no error is present. Schwede66 01:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would strongly prefer the original image, but I've already created too much trouble for people. Remsense诉 01:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  If an admin decides to put the original image back, please also restore this revision of the page. I don't want to have the worse version of both the article and the main page stuck there the entire day. Remsense诉 02:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Radio Yerevan jokes

... that the Armenian Radio jokes are neither about radio nor are they Armenian?

What the article actually says is "They are not really related to Armenian culture, nor do they have much in common with radio specifically." This uses the weasels "not really" and "much" and so this is not a definite fact as required by WP:DYKHOOK. Having read the article, the hook might equally be turned about and presented in the opposite way:

... that Radio Yerevan jokes are presented in the style of provincial radio and Armenian stereotypes are often the butt of the joke?

Note also that the title of the article is plural contrary to WP:PLURAL. See Joke, Ethnic joke, Hindu joke, Polish joke, riddle joke, etc.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 21)

Monday's FL

(June 17)

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

Non-English script

Today the lead DYK reads:

... that hōchōdō (庖丁道, the way of the cleaver) is a traditional Japanese culinary art form of filleting a fish or fowl without touching it with one's hands (demonstration pictured)?

Why was the non-English script so important to be presented on the main page? This after all in English Wikipedia, right? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Japanophiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.68.21 (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please post the same argument about the Dutch on ja.wp's FA blurb, then we'll talk. PhnomPencil (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Telling a person who asks a question to post the question in Wikipedia in another language is a cheap shot. If you have a reason, give it; if you don't, fix it.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What's more curious is why you're so bothered by Japanese script that you felt the need to complain here about it. Seriously? --Samuel Peoples (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The OP's question hasn't been answered. Why is the non-English script there? HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Relevant guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Modified letters

Note that I don't know whether it's been applied properly in this instance. —David Levy 02:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the OP was complaining about 'hōchōdō'. My belief is the main complaint was about '庖丁道'. Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you're probably right. And I'm inclined to agree that its inclusion was superfluous. —David Levy 03:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It is there because it was in the hook that the person who proposed the DYK wrote, and no one objected to it. Prodego ^talk 02:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Surely you realise that just leads to another question. Why was it there in the hook? HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A more visually appealing sister projects template

IMO the design used for the sister projects list on Commons, commons:Template:Sisterprojects-en, is more visually appealing than the one used on en.wp today. It nicely wraps the projects under the Wikimedia logo, and de-emphasizes the project descriptions. How would people feel about using the same template here?--Eloquence* 09:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Compare with our current Template:Wikipedia's sister projects (permalink).

I agree there is much to be preferred about the Commons version. My only worries would be: (1) color-contrast for the descriptions (does that meet the minimum? #767676 squeezes into AA compliance.), and (2) whether 3x4 or 4x3 is better (I suspect our 3x4 layout is preferable for dynamic sizing). –Quiddity (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks nice, but it would be strange to just drop it into our current design (in which we pointedly use one style of heading for dynamic content and one style for static content).

Moving the section back to the bottom of the page might be a viable solution. We swapped its location with that of Wikipedia languages to enable the latter to be any length without pushing down the former, but subsequent consensus has been to minimize the quantity of Wikipedias listed anyway. —David Levy 09:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There are some elements that are an improvement; shorter descriptions and the 4x3 layout. Even better would be a dynamic layout that reduces the number of columns automatically (and lose the table in the process). — Edokter (talk) — 12:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

See here for another proposal and some discussion... Although I like the Commons version better... Thanks, Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 20:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What next?

Two toxic critters on the main page.

Comment not complaint. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Why, three strange hens and four golly birds, of course! And a dropbear in a peach tree. ♫ -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

'Obscure Wikipedia games' numbers X and X + 1: getting several items in a (slightly obscure topic) on the MP on the same day - and/or a sequence of stories on a theme over several days. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And after that, five olden things, six donkeys braying, seven sharks a-swimming, and a dropbear in a peach tree! ♪ -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

... the nine lords a-leaping would be suitable for this version (and possibly 12 doctors hoovering tardily). 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That frog is EVIL! 86.176.211.137 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Easy Jet

How come there is a picture of him in the article but not on the main page. Yugenftf (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's because the picture is still in copyright, and not published under a free license. We can therefore justify using it on the article about the horse; but not on the main page. Other Wikipedias have slightly different rules; thus for example the German language Wikipedia would not be able to use that image on the article about the horse either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:FAQ/Main_Page#Why_is_a_Main_Page_section_missing_an_illustrative_image.3F CaptRik (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Münchsmünster Abbey — Now that's obscure! Sca (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Help please

I need to know how to create a Wikipedia page or submit one Bobbybeefburger (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Starting an article. However, this is not the right place to ask - see the box at the top of this page about using and contributing to wikipedia. Richerman (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Super Mario

Super Mario is the day's showcase. Who cares? Was there no other article to showcase? Just another thing that proves Wikipedia isn't a serious academic source, because the main editors are all teenagers who only care about video games and girls' breasts. Disappointing. Carrots Sucker (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

We have plenty of serious topics at TFA, and this is the only video game for December. Looking ahead, we have a plant, Jesus, a football game, an album, a cricket admin, a general, a tank, and a king. We have this article today because editors have put the effort in to write a quality article, and it was chosen to provide topic diversity. Chris857 (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just biased as a former member of the WP:CVG, but why do video game article seem to always catch heat for being TFA? Nothing else generates this kind of controversy. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken the last two or three video game articles that have been on the main page have not gotten these types of complaints. It seems that on the whole the complaints have been going down and it appears that most of the complainers have moved on which I see as a good thing since it was getting old.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Who says that video games are not a serious academic subject? It isn't the subject matter, but rather its treatment, that makes something academic, and the Wikipedia article in question is quite well researched and written, and based on sources that are themselves scrupulous. I'm at a total loss why someone would not want to highlight such an article. And if you think only teenagers play video games, you really haven't been paying attention for the past 20 years. Please consider reliable sources such as this, which shows, among other things, that 1) The average age of video game players is 30, over 1/3 of all video game players is over 36, and less than 1/3 of all video game players is under 18. In fact, 31% of video game players are women over 18, compared to only 19% who are boys 17 and under. People who have grown up with video games keep playing them well into adulthood, and the video game industry now rivals other media (music, film, etc.) in terms of sales, money spent, etc. From the source above, video game sales peaked in 2010 with 16.9 billion dollars in sales. By comparison, music sales in 2009 was 6.9 billion dollars: [1] and in 2010, the movie industry made 10.4 billion dollars: [2]. If you do the math, the video game industry is essential as large as movies and music COMBINED. It simply isn't a niche industry for teenage boys anymore, and it's simply baffling that any person who is paying attention would think so. You should be careful when speaking about subjects you have little knowledge of, because it makes you appear foolish. --Jayron32 04:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that Super Mario is a major pop cultural icon, familiar even to people who have never picked up a controller. 75.156.68.21 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)