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 23:49 on 19 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

{{subst:dyk admins}} Apologies for the very short notice on this. I just expanded @Jeraxmoira:'s draft of Navin Chawla (judge) and published it. I think "a judge" in "... that a judge is threatening to shut down Wikipedia in India over a defamation lawsuit?" should link to it.--Launchballer 23:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: Fixing ping.--Launchballer 23:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think the link is necessary; people can get there from the bolded article. On another note, does WP:DYKBLP apply? I suppose it's whether you think shutting down Wikipedia is a negative or positve... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• When I remember that even our debates pass the GNG, sometimes I wonder...  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The comments of a judge in an article about a court case are surely covered by "unduly".--Launchballer 00:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm...we could change it to 'a court'? Valereee (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that we need the link. Schwede66 02:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

As this is an actively ongoing case in which the judge's position is interactive, it obviously violates WP:DYKHOOK requirement for "a definite fact that is unlikely to change". As the case involves defamation, it obviously violates WP:DYKBLP too. And as Wikipedia is itself a party, coverage of the matter and posting on the main page is not impartial but comes across as canvassing. And the big violation is WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, "Do not post legal threats on Wikipedia." Legal threats are supposed to be referred to the WMF, which is handling the matter. Has WMF's legal team been consulted about this? Andrew🐉(talk) 06:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The first one is solved by changed "is threatening" to "has threatened", if we have to. The second one is incorrect, there are no DYKBLP problems here as ANI is not a person and the judge's action here isn't implicitly negative. The third one is a pretty cut-and-dry use–mention distinction, unless you're arguing that DYK is making legal threats against the WMF somehow. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No objection to is>has. No objection to judge>court. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Wikipedia isn't actually a party. WMF is a party. The court doesn't really understand that, either. Valereee (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

And now Valeree is claiming to know the law better than a judge. See also WP:NOLEGAL, "Nothing on Wikipedia.org or of any project of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a legal opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of law." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not the law the court doesn't understand. It's the relationship between WMF and Wikipedia. Valereee (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I get the feeling that you've misunderstood who WP:NOLEGAL is aimed at. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should have articles on the front page about current legal cases which wikipedia/the WMF is involved in. Secretlondon (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Why not? Wikipedia should be impartial. 2A05:F6C7:9FF:0:8D1B:C6BF:B4C8:2419 (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

"... that the statue of John Stockton was re-positioned by its sculptor about 20 times by using a wrench to adjust ball-and-socket joints on steel rods?"

The solid bronze statue in the article's infobox does not have ball-and-socket joints, as previously mentioned at Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of John Stockton and Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Statue of John Stockton. What seems like the most likely interpretation of this hook is not accurate, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with that concern. Reading the source, it was the clay model or models that had been adjusted. Once it's been cast in bronze, it won't be moving any longer. The hook needs a tweak in my view. Pings to Left guide (nominator), Dr vulpes (reviewer), Rjjiii (who nominated the hook), DimensionalFusion (mover to prep), and Crisco 1492 (mover to queue). Schwede66 03:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The Deseret source and the article prose are pretty clear that these adjustments were made while sculpting in the artist's home basement studio, and that aspect should be made clear in the DYK hook if there's potential ambiguity. Furthermore, the source was published in June 2004 before the statue was ever erected outside the arena in public because it says will eventually stand outside the Delta Center in bronze. Left guide (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Also courtesy ping to @Netherzone: who discussed and worked with me on this article a fair amount, and seems to have some additional specialized expertise about sculptures. Left guide (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but I don't think I nominated anything for this one, just expressed confusion. Also, I agree that the text in the actual article is not confusing (at least to the same degree) because it's placed in a sequence of events. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've changed to "... that, when preparing the statue of John Stockton, its sculptor repositioned the model about 20 times by using a wrench to adjust ball-and-socket joints on steel rods?" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  That resolves my concern. Netherzone, are you good with this wording? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  @RjjThe term "clay statue" is incorrect - the clay version was a full-scale model, not a statue. The finished work after it was cast in bronze is the statue. Netherzone (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Re-ping @Rjj Netherzone (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Rjjiii re-ping again? Netherzone (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Netherzone Right now it says, "... that, when preparing the statue of John Stockton, its sculptor repositioned the model about 20 times by using a wrench to adjust ball-and-socket joints on steel rods?"[1] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I had proposed to change it to read that DYK "the sculptor re-positioned a clay statue of John Stockton about 20 times by using a wrench to adjust ball-and-socket joints on steel rods before making the casts for the bronze version?"Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It's the steel infrastructure of the sculpture that was repositioned via its ball-and-socket joints. The infrastructure was then covered with clay and modeled to look realistic. The bronze statue was then cast from the clay model (probably in pieces that were then reassembled and welded together, chased, finished and patina'ed. Netherzone (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(October 25)

Monday's FL

(October 21)

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.

Tomorrow's POTD

• house sparrow blurb - at "and is the the most widely" pls remove a "the" JennyOz (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. Thank you! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

US-related things on the front page today.

3/5 images are of Americans today. 5/7 of Did you know items are on US-centric things. Today's Featured article is on an American. Amazingly, only one piece of On this day... is American. They still got the picture though. --85.210.107.124 (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I conclude from this that we should all redouble our efforts to create or improve articles that are not about American topics, and to take photographs or create images of things that are not American. Start today! What do you have to lose? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I picked the Ambrose Burnside picture because of his awesome facial hair. :) —howcheng {chat} 21:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Chen Guangbiao is hardly American

• Neither is POTD (Which was deliberately selected for Australia Day). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

There's this one day in OTD this year that had 3 US and 2 UK and 0 ROTW blurbs. –HTD 03:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There's actually one day that has all US-related blurbs (because everything else is ineligible). —howcheng {chat} 04:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not even a British or Irish topic? For shame! :P –HTD 15:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Watch the "Featured Article" and "In This Day in News". Those a predominately neutral topics, set on European events on the first page. All I hear is European unrest and cricket/football stats. I have yet to see any American topics covered on this shitboard.Dirt290 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well then, get "INVOLVED!" WP:ITN/C is desperate for volunteers, as is WP:OTD!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck (film) has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. Bencherlite^Talk 12:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A battle took place

Not sure if this appropriate, but I was almost looking for the article title to be "A battle took place", but somehow I'm thinking that the article title should actually be in the intro paragraph...could someone update that? Hires an editor (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't easy to integrate the article title; usually, per MOS:BOLDTITLE, this isn't exactly best practice as done here, and I believe there is precedent for not bolding the article title/link in TFA blurbs not too long ago. Maybe poke a TFA delegate about this? Cloudchased (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of examples for not precisely using the article title in the TFA blurb: 1, 2 examples from last month alone. It seemed the least stilted way of introducing it on the main page, which is why I wrote the blurb like this in the first place. Bencherlite^Talk 08:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Luis Aragonés

His death should really be mentioned, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkinsonProject (talk • contribs)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates. Edgepedia (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Five pictures of five white males on the main page today

no other pics to choose from? where are the birdies and old churches when we need them? --76.64.180.9 (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Five pictures of five white males? Most of these seem to be individual portraits. *serious answer* The last DYK set had a car, and tomorrow's POTD is a French commune. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Not to mention, I don't think there's a single MENTION of a woman on the entire page (unless you count the angel embracing the boy scout... Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Li Na is in ITN, but you're correct that it's a very male MP right now. The next DYK set will have a woman riding a horse as the picture, and Pamela L. Gay as a hook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • If people want to help rebalance the main page, they can nominate new articles from yesterday's #ArtAndFeminism event for the Did You Know section Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Best New Artist?

Why was Daft Punk mentioned predominately when Macklemore was clearly the most influential artist at the Grammys? I hate pop culture, but obviously, some sort of favoritism is going on.Dirt290 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"clearly the most influential"? Who won Album of the Year and Record of the Year? Not Macklemore. --76.64.180.9 (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you know?

" Did you know...that a cup (pictured) is a small container for drinks?" Was that supposed to be some sort of joke?JDiala (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's an accurate and non-misleading fact from an article which qualified for DYK selection. Har har? GRAPPLE X 02:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's an awful lot like the very first DYK, which was "Did you know that a pencil sharpener "is a device for sharpening a pencil's point by shaving the end of the pencil"? Well, OK, you probably did." Chris857 (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• See the nomination page. It was not meant as "did you know this about this subject", but "did you know Wikipedia didn't have an article on such a common subject"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous, non-registered user here; I don't know why - but I'm absolutely disgusting by the attempt at dry humor on the DYK page. Can somebody please change it, with perhaps a month-ban on the IP responsible? Thanks.

Get an account and join DYK to put in more stuff that you approve of over there. --76.64.180.9 (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• There's some discussion on this admittedly odd entry at Template:Did you know nominations/Cup, with some arguments I find convincing. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• This had an article before cup? I do love Wikipedia sometimes. freshacconci talk to me 16:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• As I'm sure someone enjoyed writing that article...Wikipedia definitely gives you a welcome/unwelcome look into people's heads lol --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK commentary

The crap you are running about Sasheer Zamata is a total disgrace. Instead of telling me an interesting fact about her, you simply choose to sensationalize her race. Seriously, you guys WOULD NOT write "...that John Random is one of many white random people?" Utter crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D'urville (talk • contribs)

Looking at the article, I can't see any interesting facts that would make a good DYK. But being the first African-American female member of the SNL cast in almost seven years has been the focus of much of the media coverage that was used to write the article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And that Random sentence is a pretty crappy sentence. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Being second of something-or-other doing something relatively parochial is indeed not an interesting fact. (Second person-in-X-category to set foot on the Moon, perhaps wouldn't be so bad.) Maybe this is a case for arguing that articles that don't have any interesting facts in them at all, might be better off not appearing on DYK.

I think I myself came close with "Did you know ... that Rajinder Kaur Bhattal was the first female chief minister of Punjab, but only the eighth female chief minister of an Indian state?"... if she'd only been the second female chief minister of that particular state, it really wouldn't have been interesting enough, even with the "but..." clause added for extra interest.

As others have suggested, I doubt the intention was "to sensationalize her race" any more than our sources do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)