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 18:41 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

Please,

Remove Pai's face from the front page. Thank you.

• No. Wikipedia is not censored.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Can we at least hurry up & get a new ITN article up already? I'm tired of my blood pressure rising every time I visit the front page. JanderVK (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
    • That is still not a valid reason to replace it to "hurry up & get a new ITN article up already". It is an important news story happening at the moment. Aoba47 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Emotional distress & nausea are insufficient reasons? At least find a picutre where he isn't grinning like a serial rapist who was just found not guilty. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Again, we are WP:NOTCENSORED. Your own personal sensibilities are not a sufficient reason for pulling content.--WaltCip (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• I've wanted to ask the same thing. Certainly there is a better image to use concerning Net Neutrality? --dashiellx (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Walt's point notwithstanding, we do seem to overuse portraits (which are easy to find in the PD) for stories where the individual is connected, but THEY are not the story (Trump for Jerusalem-as-capital, Nazarbayev for Kazakh-going-Latin). If you're a pro-NN partisan, Pai is the "face" of this decision, which makes the use of his visage here both apropos and repulsive, but this was the decision of a five-person commission. If no better image exists to represent the story, the FCC logo could be used as it is on the mobile site. GCG (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Cascade-protected edit request on 17 December 2017

Add the {{Main Page topics}} template to the bottom of the main page. It obviously belongs on the main page. 2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:8D50:F5F3:A1EC:7855 (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done I'm trying to remember, but I vaguely recall there have been discussions in which there was a consensus that the Main Page should not have any navboxes, categories, and the like. The objections that I recall included "it spoils its appearance", "the Main page is a giant exception to the normal article mainspace rules", the Main page navbox and categories are for regular editors and logged in users, not new readers stumbling onto the Main page for the first time" and "no one needs help finding the Main page because there is always a link at the top left corner of the page". That is why the Main page currently does not have either {{Main Page topics}} or Category:Main Page. Thus, adding them would likely be controversial, so please form a new consensus/discussion beforehand. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering why Other areas of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's sister projects, and Wikipedia languages don't seem to be considered to fall under that. Also, do you know which talk page archive that discussion would be in?

Because apparently there was consensus to add "Other areas of Wikipedia", "Wikipedia's sister projects", and "Wikipedia languages" to the Main Page. Most of the redesign proposals can be found on Wikipedia:Main page redesign proposals. Specific discussions about the categories and navboxes may be buried in the Talk:Main Page archives. I'm only able to specifically remember Talk:Main Page/Archive 111#Category, and a case where somebody added Category:Main Page[5] but then was reverted.[6] But again I wrote that I vaguely recalled the reasons, so that may not be accurate. In any case, adding any major additions to the Main page should normally be treated as controversial anyway, and proposed and discussed first instead of having a single person merely add an edit request (See also Wikipedia:Edit requests#Planning a request). Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add a unique id to the ‹div› containing "Recent deaths"

This will make it easier for users to hide it using their userContent.css or equivalent. (Because: it's a sensitive topic.) For example:

‹div id="recent-deaths"› ... ‹/div›

--Evgeni Sergeev (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

TFA

We've had two video game articles within eight days of each other as today's featured article on the main page. Please! How can anybody say there isn't a bias or proclivity towards video game articles on the main page? The vast majority of readers do not care about this sort of content. 174.64.100.70 (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)