Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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 19:20 on 3 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.

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 with "In the news"

• Should it be mentioned that Ismail Haniyeh was the person leading Hamas's side in ceasefire negotiations? This is pointed out throughout reports of the assassination, and it seems like vital context for a blurb. Remsense诉 04:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am not in favour of that as a hook isn't supposed to be a mini-bio. Schwede66 05:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's not meant to be primarily biographical; it is mostly relevant for its impact on the war. Remsense诉 05:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  What do you mean by a mini-bio? Alexysun (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Biographical information beyond the mere minimum. Schwede66 06:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Am I wrong in my sense that it's not really biographical, is that overly presumptive about the greater context? Sources are universal in their comments on this being highly consequential for the war and the possibility of a ceasefire. Remsense诉 07:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Remsense ITN items are supposed to be as short as possible. The sources being universal in mentioning the fact should be reflected in the article, not on MP. BorgQueen (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Of course, but in that case I'm not quite clear on how ", following..." clauses (etc.) are justified. Surely that's the addition of important context to the core description of an event. Remsense诉 07:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• The first hook, on Oriana Skylar Mastro ends with "...in the Asia Pacific?" - but this is confusing, perhaps it should read "...in the Asia Pacific region?" Also, it could be linked to Asia–Pacific, as this is not a term familiar to everyone, especially in a military context. Abductive (reasoning) 06:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Abductive  Done BorgQueen (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• 1971 - pls move italics off Fighting Dinosaurs and onto the genus Protoceratops JennyOz (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• 1997 Sky Tower's height was surpassed by the Autograph Tower ie Thamrin Nine - maybe add 'at the time' to item? JennyOz (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, Jenny. All done. Schwede66 03:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 9)

Monday's FL

(August 5)

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

Dutch Wikipedia main page redesign

I just wanted to draw some attention to the Dutch Wikipedia main page which has recently undergone a complete redesign; I find the result looking very modern and refreshing (and a huge improvement over the previous design). I know there have been many previous discussions about a redesign of the main page here (which is long overdue imho), perhaps this successful redesign can inspire some discussion here. --WS (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Inspiration is not the problem. What is the problem is that these redesign discussions always end up dying with no broad consensus. Basically, nobody can really agree on what and how to change it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the NL Wikipedia Main Page looked like before but the current design is significantly worse than EN Wikipedia's. The immediately visible space displays significantly less information than on ENWiki - a large chunk of it is taken up by some puffery about Wikipedia which serves no useful purpose to 99.999% of visitors. On loading ENWiki I can immediately see the featured article, In The News, and a few lines of On This day and DYK. On NL I have to scroll down to see all that. NLWiki takes three screens to display what ENWiki does in one and a bit.

And it does so with no improvement in readability or attractiveness - the font is the same size and NLWiki is full of badly used space, e.g. the desolate space below the dates and years in the "On this day" and "In the news" section.

In short, it's an excellent example of why ENWiki is correct to resist the trend of websites making their designs worse for no reason other than to boost the egos of the redesigners (cf the BBC, the Guardian, the UK Government). If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --93.152.83.69 (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

By today's standards, our current main page is horribly broken; it is a static table-based design, which is not responsive to any deviating screen size. It also looks pre-historic. I'll note that the new Dutch main page also uses tables, so there is absolutely no improvement there. Resistence is not always a good thing; if we wre so stubborn with everything, we'd still be stuck in 2001. Don't worry though... One day a rogue admin that has been tweaking on his own design (backlink) for two years now may just be bold enough and just replace our coveted dinosaur. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The new design is certainly clean and airy, with so much white space, but is that necessarily beneficial for a medium that depends on conveying information?

WS, perhaps you could supply a link to an archived old-style NL-WP main page for comparison? Dank je wel. Sca (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

[1] --WS (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If text is crammed together too much, that also hurts readability. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

True, but there are various schools of thought on that. Keep in mind we are allegedly an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or magazine. Encyclopedia readers are presumed to be more motivated than general readers, not requiring so many 'entry points' to pull them into text. Sca (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• The current English WP main page is far superior to this new NL version. EEng (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

On my desktop, the new NL page has whitespace and unimportant info in top only (25% of height to state the number of articles?). This is getting out of hand. We're not the google homepage, for a reason. Doesn't that page need at least some sort of TOC? Their mobile view, OTOH, shows different [2] and there the whitespace-splashers were absent. -DePiep (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Good Friday?

In the "On this day" section, it says that April 10 is Good Friday. That was last Friday, it's the day Jesus was crucified, the first Friday before Easter Sunday. --Morgenstern91 (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

While this does concern the Main Page, you will get a faster response if you post things like this to WP:ERRORS. That said, I think it is different for Eastern Christianity, as the entry states. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The Eastern churches still use the Julian calendar to calculate the dates of holy days, accounting for the discrepancy; e.g. they celebrate Christmas on Gregorian January 7, which is the same as Julian December 25. 75.44.35.249 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Rare occurrence on the main page

As I type, 158th Boat Race is still the main page FA, with a picture of a shell in water. To its immediate right at the top of ITN is a blurb for the 161st Boat Race with a very similar picture.

Wow. It's like watching one of those once-in-a-millenium astronomical events. Good work if this was planned ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That was my fault; I didn't realize the image for the TFA was so similar to the one I swapped out at ITN when I did it. All solved now that the TFA is new, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think mention of [3] is appropriate. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

'American'

• Example (DYK): ... that Jane Eyre was the first American movie adaptation of the novel?

As an American (!), I'm somewhat concerned about our use of "American" to mean of or relating to the United States. If I counted correctly, there are 62 countries and jurisdictions in the Americas. On WP, I generally use "U.S." to denote of the United States, and suggest that WP adopt this principle. Sca (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the preponderance of evidence in major dictionaries and experts on the subject do not agree with your own, personal, unique, idiosyncratic view. See American (word), which discusses the common usage of the term. Also see etymological fallacy. The vast majority of English speakers use, mean, and understand the term to refer to people from the United States. That you wish they didn't doesn't change the actual usage. --Jayron32 01:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

So there! EEng (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, EEng, for your insights.

My view is not unique. When I was in the news biz (until a decade ago), many U.S. media used "U.S." – and while I haven't researched it I think this still is the case.

I realize "American" is widely, almost universally used by English speakers to mean U.S. However, "everybody does it" doesn't necessarily make it correct. As American (word) notes:

"...this default use has been the source of controversy, particularly among Latin Americans, who feel that using the term solely for the United States misappropriates it."

That was the main reason some media outlets (in the '70s and '80s, at least) adopted "U.S." as the adjective. I've also seen this useage among historians of repute, who will write of, for example, the United States Navy on first reference, then U.S. Navy, rather than the American navy.

Personally, I rather like the German approach: US-Amerikaner and US-amerikanisch. What would be wrong with "U.S.-American" – ?? (We use periods in "U.S." because, of course, without them it reads as us.)

In English "everybody does it" does make it correct - the only authority on what is or ain't proper English is usage. There's no academy or somesuch. Some Latin Americans may take offence at using "American" to mean "of or relating to the United States", but Canadians are liable to take offence to not doing so (and are likely to take a lot of offence if you call them Americans). There's no winning. (In practice, though, U.S. as an adjective is usually used for the government, but basically never for the people or culture. You can call someone the U.S. President, but you can't call someone a U.S. writer - only an American writer is used in English in that case.) WilyD 11:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

^{Understand yr pt of view but as journalist (ret.) wud argue there's room also for logic, specificity, etc., in the discussion. Sca (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)}

So much for windmill-tilting. Sca (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome for the insights; they're free and (as they say) cheap at twice the price. Little-known fact: Chas Doyle was the father of Arthur Conan Doyle (neither of whom were USians, of course). EEng (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Done.

Incidentally, shouldn't that have been "The 1910 movie adaption on Jane Eyre was the first U.S. version?" Eman235/talk 06:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but DYKs are so ephemeral there isn't much point in fussing about them. Sca (talk)

@Sca: I'll do a deal with you - I'll stop referring to people from the US as American, if you stop referring to your language as English :-) Optimist on the run (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Ah speak 'mericun, buddy! Sca (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The weird exception is that with anything not to do with people, or anything pre-Columbus, the usage of the word "American" is usually more in line with Sca's expectations. An "American Plant" could be one that only grows in Canada, but a person from Canada will never be referred to as "American". 74.113.53.42 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

^{Bleve some Latin Americans refer to U.S.-related stuff as North American, or the Spanish version thereof. Sca (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)}

My experience has been that the wish to redefine "American" as any person living in the new world (and apparently leave citizens of the US with no demonym) carries a distinct political flavor. This becomes especially apparent as Canadians (i.e. English speaking non-US residents of NA) emphatically do not seem to want to be called American, and Latinos living in the US use the term American exactly as Americans themselves do. Without suggesting any value judgement based on that political motive, I think it nevertheless is evident that Wikipedia should adhere to normal usage conventions and indeed make effort to avoid politically charged usages. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 18:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello? This is American Wikipedia! Time to wake up and smell the cawfee. Of course 99% of the universe refers to the "United States" as being "American". Time to get a new lamest argument. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Guess we're done taking victory laps over the two Boat Race references on the main page, eh?128.227.104.44 (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Guess we're feeling brave, taking a pop at another editor by using a disposable IP address? --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a very interesting concept. I blame the sponsor. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Canadians call Usians Americans and we do not call ourselves Americans. The only Canadians that will ever complain are engaging in real world POINTyness, i.e. making a fuss for its own sake. There's nothing else to call USAers. Wasn't Amerigo Vespucci just some skeezy pornographer anyway? United Statesians are welcome to use America. freshacconci talk to me 19:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Call a Canadian "American" and you are pretty much begging for a fight. Unless you are an actual American in Canada, the term is usually viewed as being an insult or slur. Resolute 19:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Is there another country in the Western hemisphere with "America" in its name?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Amerigo Vespucci was an Italian in Portuguese service. And Canada was derived from an Iroquois word. Sca (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not the United States of Mexico, though that's usually just called Mexico. ;) WilyD 08:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Can't we call them siders? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You're just yanking our chain, aren't you? EEng (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Just no. We get this every so often on this page - someone posts this request and follows up by asking that we refer to Americans as USians. I've not yet met a Uruguyan or a Panamanian who wishes to be identified as American. Perish the thought that a Canadian might like the term being broadened. I think everyone is quite clear when we say "American" that we don't mean people from Honduras - unless they're expat Americans living there. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)