Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

Main Page toolbox
Yesterday January 14	Today January 15, 2016	Tomorrow January 16
TFA	TFA	TFA
SA/OTD	SA/OTD	SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.	POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.	POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.
	TFL (Friday)
TFA/OTD/POTD/TFL Queue
In the news: candidates · discussion · admin instructions
Did you know: nominations · discussion · queue
Protected main page images Protected pages associated with Main Page articles
Error reports · General discussions · FAQ · Help · Sandbox Main Page history · Main Page alternatives · April Fool's
It is now 11:17 UTC Purge the Main Page Purge this toolbox

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 (11:17 on 15 Jan 2016), not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Do not use {{edit 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.

Errors in In the news

• The blurb about the end of Ebola needs some qualification -- see Ebola virus: New case emerges in Sierra Leone. Andrew D. (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Not really. Flare-ups were expressly anticipated in the WHO announcement: "WHO cautions that the 3 countries remain at high risk of additional small outbreaks of Ebola, like the most recent one in Liberia. To date, 10 such flare-ups have been identified that were not part of the original outbreak, and are likely the result of the virus persisting in survivors even after recovery." It would appear that, just as one swallow does not make a summer, one new case does not invalidate the WHO's annoucement. Bencherlite^Talk 09:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    • WHO themselves recognise the need to correct their press release which now has a corrigendum in red. More headlines: Ebola resurfaces in Sierra Leone hours after WHO declares outbreak over; New Ebola death in Sierra Leone as WHO says epidemic over. Andrew D. (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
      • The corrigendum says nothing beyond what Bencherlite has already said. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Agreed, it's an example of a (not-unexpected) flare-up, not a revocation of their announcement. Qualifying the blurb is unnecessary. Bencherlite^Talk 11:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

General discussion

Bug in campaign text generator script

For visitors with a German IP address, the campaign text is ungrammatical for (at least) the last two campaign days. It says "1 day days" or "0 day days" when it should say just "1 day" or "0 days". Perhaps it's just a missing slash. (There seem to be several alternative texts, so it is not always easy to reproduce this bug. I saw it yesterday. When it reappeared today, I made a screenshot. This is the full text: "Dear readers: I hope we’re not disturbing you. It is that time of year when we ask for your support. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We're sustained by donations averaging about €20. Now we are asking you in Germany to help out. If everyone currently reading this were to contribute a small amount, our fundraising campaign would be over in an hour. Our fundraising appeal is displayed over 7 million times a day, but currently only 421.327 people have donated. Today only 0 day days are left to reach our goal. So if you find Wikipedia useful, please take a minute out of your day this Thursday to donate and give something back to Wikipedia. Thank you!") --217.226.80.235 (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, 421.347 should be 421,347 in English (note comma). Art LaPella (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the decimal in 421.347 is correct for Germany. If we had fractional people it might read "421.347,45"--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"... nur 421.347 Leute haben gegeben ..." (or something like that) would be correct for Germany, but my point was it's 421,347 in English. Or maybe rewrite to avoid that ambiguity. Art LaPella (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Germans can use English as well. I don't think it's as clear cut as you suggest whether the decimal mark should always be the dot. While it's true that the dot is most common by far in English; amongst second language speakers in places where the comma is used, there's AFAIK no clear cut consensus on what should be standard when the audience is primarily other second language speakers from the same country. There's a reason why our article barely mentions languages, Canada is basically one of the few places where the usage clearly varies by language. Having said that, I would agree that since we don't have a decimal mark, simply avoiding the usage of either the comman or space for digit groupin by using a space may be better. Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If there were 0 days days left yesterday, then it's ended ended by now. Art LaPella (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

2016 has arrived! Is the draft still 2015 redesign or is it now 2016? -TheNewbster

Making the Privacy Policy link more prominent on our main page

Making the Privacy Policy link more prominent on our main page.Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Putting an RFC on this matter was suggested at Jimbo's talk page. Some discussion is there concerning this idea. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason for singling out the Main Page to provide a prominent link. I don't have figures, but I suspect a large percentage of readers go straight to the article they're looking for, through Google or other search engines, so may not visit the main page anyway. Also the link is already provided in the footer of every page. Finally, I suspect that 99.9% of visitors couldn't care less about our policy anyway. Optimist on the run (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What Optimist on the run said. The overwhelming majority of readers don't give two hoots about Wikipedia's privacy policy, nor should they. For the few who do, it's linked on every page and there's no reason to make it more prominent on this one page just to appease a small clique of paranoid cranks who think the government finds them as interesting as they find themselves. ‑ Iridescent 17:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should strongly urge all users to read the policy because its inherently stupid not to urge them to do so. For example, the policy says : "For the protection of the Wikimedia Foundation and other users, if you do not agree with this Privacy Policy, you may not use the Wikimedia Sites." If the community does not expect the users to read it, as Optimist on the run and Iridescent so boldly proclaim, then Wikipedia is being stupid by stipulating that the users must "agree" with a policy they most likely have not read. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity do you read every single one of those Terms of Use agreements that every single app, website, and device has, in full, before clicking accept? Or do you just do what 99.9% of society does and scroll to the bottom and angrily click accept so you can get the thing you want working? Your insistence that the privacy policy link be so prominently displayed is not taking into account human nature which is to click through that legal jargon to get to the product they want to view anyways. Strongly urging people to read a 42,000+ byte legalize paper is nonsense. Stipulating that they have to agree to it is just more legalize designed to protect the Foundation. That same line is in every single Terms of Use agreement that has ever been published. The recording of readers IP address for statistical reasons is done by every single major website in the world. And most of those keep that information for much much longer than Wikipedia does and allow many more people access. If you want to browse the Internet anonymously use Tor. --Majora (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: Per WP:MULTI, is the RFC being discussed here or on Jimbo's talk page, as you seem to be posting in both locations? Optimist on the run (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake, I will remove it over there. Thanks. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Majora , I agree with everything you say. I think the legalize can be a problem for us the way it reads and I'm not sure it can not be improved so that it fits better and , as you say, at other sites users have to click "accept", which I think, although I hate it, is the worse alternative than a more prominently placed link on the main page. Mainly, I just think we should encourage our users to read the policy just as I would encourage my relatives to read or at least browse any terms and conditions they are deemed to have accepted. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• The WMF consulted, I think, about the wording of the policy. Not sure they took all the good advice they were offered... It is a good question whether the Privacy Policy or indeed the ToS have any binding power on readers or editors, in various jurisdictions - or whether they provide any of the legal "outs" that they are designed to for the Foundation.
• Placing a bold link at the top of each page might strengthen the Foundation's hand. But since it would only do so in cases where the Foundation would have done something that without the policy would be regarded as wrong, I am not particularly bothered about that. I prefer that the Foundation behave well regardless.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC).

Oppose - this is already in the footer of every single page on Wikipedia. I see no reason to treat the Main Page differently. It's not hard to find for anyone who is interested. Modest Genius ^talk 12:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

How to make a DYK appear on the main page

Anita Krajnc case received 11974 hits[1], how to get it on the main page? It is a DYK article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe DYK articles need to be submitted within the first week, not 5 weeks. I don't like that rule, but here it is. Art LaPella (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The hook has appeared in DYK on 6th January, I wish to know about its appearing on the main page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It was showcased on the main page—in the DYK section underneath Today's Featured Article—for approximately 12 hours before the next set of DYK hooks replaced the batch the Anita Krajnc case was part of. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh thanks! Missed that. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyclonebiskit is there URL to that version, I checked main page history - page versions don't show. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The main page is mostly comprised of templates that are edited separately so the history is stored a bit differently. A bot archives a single version of the main page, which are kept at Wikipedia:Main Page history. However, looking at the version for January 6 it seems that the DYK batch you're looking for was not up at the time. Only other way to see the blurb, that I'm aware of, is in the DYK archive that you linked earlier. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Cyclonebiskit Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

She is mentioned here also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It was added in [2]. http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page has more than 15000 Main Page snapshots. The Anita Krajnc case is here. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

(We should have a better way of creating historical version of pages. Just saying. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC).)

Turkey Terrorist Attack

Hi, there was a bomb explosion in Istanbul, Turkey where 10+ people died and 15+ people are injured, mostly tourists. We should update the news page to add this event.

OnurRC (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Onur

Discussion about adding it is already underway at WP:ITN/C, where all additions to In the News begin. You're welcome to chime in and contribute your say there as well. GRAPPLE ^X 12:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Breaking for Indonesia Terror Attack

Indonesia Terror Attack has been listed.13:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)180.252.247.39 (talk)

How do be an editor

How do I become an editor for the good. To help fix articles that were vandalized.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndogswim (talk • contribs)

This page is for discussing the content of the Main Page; you may wish to visit the help desk for help with using Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, see the Help Out section of the community portal. CaptRik (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

15th birthday

Perhaps for future WP birthdays there could be a 're-creation of the original WP main page'/links to the first articles created. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)