Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Main Page error reports[edit]

To report an error on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quote of all or part of the text in question will help.
  • Offer a correction if possible.
  • References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
  • Time zones: The current date and time is displayed in Coordinated Universal Time (18:34 on 22 July 2018), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}}, which will not give you a faster response, and in fact causes problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • Done? Once an error has been fixed, or has rotated off the Main Page, or has been acknowledged as not an error, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history for discussion and action taken.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
  • Can you fix the issue yourself? If the error is with the content of an article linked from the main page, consider attempting to fix the problem rather than reporting it here.

Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article[edit]

TFA today[edit]

TFA tomorrow[edit]

Errors in In the news[edit]

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day[edit]

OTD today[edit]

OTD tomorrow[edit]

Errors in the current or next Did you know...[edit]

DYK current[edit]

DYK next[edit]

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture[edit]

POTD today[edit]

POTD tomorrow[edit]

Errors in the summary of the last or next featured list[edit]

FL current[edit]

FL next[edit]

General discussion[edit]

Color of "Featured List" section[edit]

I hate seeing the Wikipedia Main Page every Monday, with the pink glare of the "Featured List" section. I understand this section was not part of the original design and has been added at a later time. The selection of pink brings the total number of primary colors used in the page to a whopping four and makes it appear like a children's website. Why not just put it inside the purple "Featured Picture" section, which is in line with the design of the page of having two sections per color? Indeed, lists and pictures do have something in common: both are complements to the main unit of the encyclopedia – the article. Jrmde3 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

For most of us, there are only three primary colors. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I know that. I used the adjective "primary" in the graphic design sense (meaning non-accent; main), not in the color modeling sense. I am surprised that you chose to nitpick on a single word and leave aside the primary point of my message. Jrmde3 (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the colors around the section headings "primary" in that sense either. --Khajidha (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
For most of us, section headings and the backgrounds of the content beneath them are shades of the same color. Jrmde3 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
For me, the backgrounds are so lightly colored that they are almost undetectable (when I actually use the standard Main Page view), so that the color on the section headings is just an accent color. Of course, I generally set my Main page to this and avoid the colors entirely. --Khajidha (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I can see that this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. However, @Jrmde3:, I generally share your concerns in that TFL feels like it was inelegantly shoved in. I would support combining TFP and TFL into one purple box, but I'd like to see a real life implementation of it first and I'm afraid I'm not very good at wiki markup. Especially when it comes to testing TFL edits when such edits are only visible when there's a TFL. --haha169 (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I too think that this change would be an improvement. I would support any proposal to make this minor modification to the Main Page. Deli nk (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I also agree that this will be a welcomed change given that very recently Nixinova managed to push through a consistency update of the lower portions of the main page. What is lacking or sorely needed here however is a mockup of the proposed change. — FR+ 11:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Tham Luang rescue[edit]

If I may ask, why is Tham Luang cave rescue posted again on ITN? —Angga1061 13:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It was removed to make room for newer items, but later added back to ensure the two sides of the Main Page had similar lengths - the Mandela blurb today is longer than the one for Anastasia yesterday. It will be removed again once a newer item is posted or if the length of tomorrow's page is slightly shorter. Modest Genius talk 13:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks for the information. This is new to me. —Angga1061 04:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
No problem. Adding and removing (old) items from In The News or On This Day is a routine part of balancing the Main Page. The cave item has been removed again because today's featured article blurb is shorter than Mandela's was. Modest Genius talk 11:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Moon Landing[edit]

I think that's enough. Isa (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
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 know hating America is in vogue right now, but it’s still disappointing that one of mankind’s greatest achievements isn’t on the main page today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A fact from the Apollo 11 article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on July 20, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013. That's nine appearances. Other things happen also. Fish+Karate 13:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Like my birthday!--Khajidha (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Please provide a reliable source for making this claim. Fish+Karate 13:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
One wonders what happened in 2011. No Whitey on the Moon availble that year?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC) p.s. not sure the hating really extends beyond one particular person there.
Maybe next year considering that it Will be the 50th anniversary. Long after the irrelevant events of "On This Day" are forgotten, America's first landing of man on the moon (indeed the world's first), will remain significant & remembered. Please keep Wikipedia relevant by including significant events in the future. Like the first moon landing. Ferencmerenda (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
According to WP:CRYSTALBALL, we cannot include most events in the future, regardless of their significance. MPS1992 (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The first future moon-landing would probably see a shoo-in, to put it bluntly?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
To expand on "other things happen also" -- without the Battle of Britain we might have ended up without an independent USA to carry out the moon landings program, without the Normandy Landings we might not have had the Nazi scientists whose removal to the USA enabled their work in making the moon landings happen, without the United States Declaration of Independence or various battles in the American War of Independence we wouldn't have had a USA to carry out the moon program, without the Louisiana Purchase the USA would have been a minor state in a huge continent split three or more ways and thus probably unable to sustain such a huge space program, without the discovery of the Americas the Columbian exchange would not have happened in the first place, without all manner of religious and cultural and geopolitical changes in thousands of years preceding that in Europe and Asia, all of the above might not have happened anyway. If you don't like such things, there's Galileo and Newton and David Robert Hayward-Jones and all the rest of them, and what each of them discovered and when they discovered it, all relevant to the Apollo program. And if all of each of these significant events and turning points and achievements appears in On This Day every single year, then the readership of On This Day would eventually be only those people seeing it for the first time, and that would be bad. MPS1992 (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
You mean Newton, right? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC) ...and yes, thanks to David, there is life on Mars.
I must admit, I do not know much about U.S. politics. I had heard the fellow's name, but I never understood why he was named for a small slimy Republican creature. Is there some popular music reference here also? MPS1992 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, slime or no slime, you may wish to check who you've linked to there. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
They landed July 20 but walked on the moon July 21 UTC. 2011 and 2016 said: "1969 – During the Apollo 11 mission, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin (pictured) became the first humans to walk on the Moon." 2014 July 20 and 2017 July 21 the story was Today's featured picture. So it has been on the main page for last 14 years except in 2015. It's not scheduled for tomorrow but seems certain to be on one of the days for the 50th anniversary in 2019. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It was a huge failure for Wikipedia not to post moon landing or moon walk this year I won’t be surprised if Wikipedia is owned by Russians or Chinese — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but did you notice the US based items in FA, ITN and OTD currently on the front page? (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2018 (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.

Wikipedia lending its credibility to state propaganda messages at youtube[edit]

This is not related to the Main Page, and frankly, I agree with Ian.thomson's concerns regarding competency.--WaltCip (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
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 noticed the Wikipedia link in the US state propaganda message below the video box on Youtube pages with videos from RT (Russia Today - specifically recent On Contact program videos). Is Wikipedia lending its credibility to advance the authoritarian agenda of the US state, to misdirect attention and inflame hate in Americans? Rtdrury (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Is this something you find on the Main Page? This talkpage is not for general discussions. --Tone 14:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Plus, Youtube is part of Google and has nothing to do with Wikimedia; we have no control over—or interest in—what external links a third party privately owned website chooses to host. ‑ Iridescent 14:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Rtdrury: Wikipedia sticks to mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Youtube is an independent company that chose to add links of its own accord (not because of any sort of gov't order). Russia Today is state propaganda, and one that's been noted for spreading conspiracy theories, misinformation, and outright lies in favor of the authoritarian Russian gov't and against the US gov't. Frankly, that you get this so backwards raises serious concerns about your capacity to edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2018 (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.