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 17:54 on 9 July 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

Flyover

• ... that Flyover, a 2023 science fiction novel by an American author, portraying a dystopian future where part of the US becomes a theocracy, was published in French but not in English?

There are several issues with this:

1. The published title of the book was Et c'est ainsi que nous vivrons (This is How We Shall Live). If you're going to make a big thing about it being published in French then you should use the French title
2. It appears that Flyover is the planned title for an English-language publication. When this happens the hook will no longer be correct. DYK hooks are supposed to be "a definite fact that is unlikely to change".
3. What initially attracted my attention was that the hook talks about "an American author" without giving his name or linking to his article. This reads oddly and it took me a while to realise that the issue was the language.

To fix this, we might have an ALT like:

• ... that Et c'est ainsi que nous vivrons, a dystopian novel about a divided US, was originally written in English by Douglas Kennedy but then first published in French?

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• If there's an issue with the name, we could just pipe the bold link à la "a dystopian novel" or "a 2023 science fiction novel". I don't see the problem with the author-related wording. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• On the first point, I think readers would find a book with a French title being published in French less interesting. Second, when Flyover is published in or after 2024, will it really invalidate a hook that is clearly about "a 2023 science fiction novel"? Third, that's pretty common writing and it emphasizes the weirdness of the book being in French. Also, the first and third thing aren't even real policy errors? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Anna Russell Cole

I’m afraid I don’t agree that ... that Anna Russell Cole, a significant benefactor of Vanderbilt University, donated $10,000 in 1926 to endow the office of dean of women? is an interesting hook. This fact tells us that a benefactor gave money to a university. That sounds likely.

Even the way the sentence is structured—Anna Russell Cole (who?) a significant benefactor of Vanderbilt University (Oh, okay!) donated $10,000 to endow the office of dean of women? The reader begins with no knowledge of or context for who this person is, then learns she was a benefactor, then learns she did what someone must do in order to be called a benefactor.

It’s not unusual, to say the least—it has to be true, give or take the detail provided on where her donation went (which, if interesting, could be emphasized as such with a better hook—but I don’t see any indication from the article’s treatment of the fact that it is unusual or interesting. It’s one of many donations she made). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, there were quite a number of editors involved in this one. Let us ask them for their input: Xoak (as nominator), Hydrangeans (first as reviewer but later having adopted the nomination), Launchballer (as the second reviewer), AirshipJungleman29 (as promoter to prep), and Premeditated Chaos (as promoter to queue). Schwede66 09:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair cop. My initial gambit is ... that Anna Russell Cole donated $10,000 in 1926 to endow Vanderbilt University's office of dean of women?--Launchballer 09:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think WP:ERRORS is the place to relitigate whether hooks are interesting or not. That's a subjective question and not a clear-cut error or violation of core Wikipedia guidelines that I'd expect us to fix after the prep process is over. Suggest we close this and move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree, since WP:DYKCRIT clearly states that approval is subjective. That said, I think the hook is mostly interesting, but I should have trimmed it along the lines of Launchballer's suggestion above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The point is, DYKCRIT and other norms on that page are project-specific. The requirement for something to be "interesting to a broad audience" is one set by the DYK community, not a sitewide guideline. As such, it's beyond the scope of ERRORS. This page is intended for factual inaccuracies, hooks or articles that don't conform to the sitewide policies guidelines (including the manual of style), and those that aren't "main page ready", for example because they have uncited paragraphs. That's not to say we should never make changes, and no doubt you could dig out examples where I've enacted on a report such as this made some in the past too - if there's consensus amongst participants that a change will unambiguously be better then one could consider it. But as a general principle I don't think we should routinely treat these requests as bona fide errors.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

What makes that interesting? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I find it fairly interesting that an American woman has control over the equivalent of US$175k in today's money in 1926, but I get the sense that the hook isn't really about that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a shame that this was not the picture hook as her lead picture is quite striking. Anna Russell Cole: A Study of a Grande Dame makes it clear that she was quite a striking figure in person. We might have had a hook like:

• ... that Anna Russell Cole (pictured) was known for her brilliance and beauty, called 'The Pride of Georgia', and became a grande dame?

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 thanks for the ping. I did see the issues raised in DYK nom, but I was (and still am) on a wiki break due to my final exam, so couldn't participate in the discussions. To keep it brief, I really appreciate @Hydrangeans for her efforts to adopt the nom and make it pass. She did a wonderful job there. Having said that, I do feel that the blurb could have been slightly better (A + for @Andrew Davidson's comments and hook, it's great), but that's sometimes the case for many DYK hooks where an alternative could have been better. It can't be a reason for removal from main page. I feel this is not the place to raise this concern, rather it's a subjective opinion/feedback and only could have been given during the nom or before the promotion if any effect/correction were to be expected. Regards. X (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

These issues are quite frequently raised and addressed through discussion on Errors, and I’m of the opinion that there’s no bad time to fix a bad hook on the main page. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 12)

Monday's FL

(July 15)

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

ITN picture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel given the impact and coverage of the story it would be more appropriate to have a picture of Jo Cox rather than Sidney Crosby, which has been up a few days and is for a story about to fall off the main page. yorkshiresky (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The main page requires free photos and none have been found. It's discussed at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D 2016 Birstall shooting. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I don't see any images of her, whether in her article or at Commons (File:Jo Cox-Ladru 1952.jpg is someone else), that are eligible; the only pictures in her article are an image of a library and a non-free portrait, which due to its copyright status is not permitted to appear on the Main Page. If we had a usable picture of her, I'd readily move it to the Main Page. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there's some free images of Russians beating the crap out of England fans? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cavs Headline

Maybe it would be good to include that Cleveland won their first ever championship in the news item mentioning their win? 71.183.244.136 (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

When it was discussed at WP:ITNC consensus was that particular fact was trivial and not necessary to mention. If you have additional comments to make, and would like to see it added, perhaps you could discuss it there with others. --Jayron32 23:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ancient history

The History page for this page starts with (that is, the most recent change listed is)

(cur | prev) 10:03, 26 December 2015‎ Materialscientist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,470 bytes) (-48)‎ . . (Undid revision 696846306 by Shirt58 (talk)) (thank)

Oh, really? --Thnidu (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That's because the page is relatively stable; it's the templates that are edited.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Click here for a more complete explanation. Art LaPella (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Promotion of Same Article Two Days Running?

Is it customary to promote an article on the front page twice in as many days? Mortara case was just the front page Featured Article yesterday. Now it is being promoted in OTD. Just wondering. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Mortara case is still listed at the end of today's featured article. There are several other candidates eligible for OTD, as listed here at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 23. Hopefully one can be switched in. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

"Wiktionary" missing from left panel's "In other projects"?

On the Main Page's leftmost side, between "Print/export" and "Languages", it has an "In other projects" section listing almost all of Wikipedia's sister projects, except for MediaWiki and Wiktionary. (However, those two are included at the bottom of the Main Page under "Wikipedia's sister projects", with all the others.)

I think I understand why MediaWiki is not listed on the left panel's "In other projects", but why is Wiktionary not listed there, even though it also has a "Main Page"?

Just curious, I'm not really suggesting any changes. Thank you:) Zeniff (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I think those links are handled on Wikidata, so you could add it over there. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages: Basque Wikipedia has 250.000 articles

Hi everyone. I'm a basque wikipedian and I just saw on the panel "Wikipedia languages" that Basque Wikipedia (Euskara) is listed on the "More than 50,000 articles" section. I'm congratulated to tell you that yesterday Basque Wikipedia completed its 250.000 article so I think it should be now on the "More than 250,000 articles" section. Thanks. Euskaldunaa (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)