Talk:Main Page

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

Main Page error reports[edit]

Main Page toolbox
March 26
March 27, 2017
March 28
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
  TFL (Monday)  
In the news: candidates · discussion · admin instructions
Did you know: nominations · discussion · queue
Wikipedia fully-protected main page files
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 15:22 UTC
Purge the Main Page
Purge this page

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 (15:22 on 27 March 2017), 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]

Errors in In the news[edit]

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



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


"... that Charles V ordered the conversion of his Muslim subjects in the Crown of Aragon, despite having sworn an oath not to do so?" This text is ambiguous and fairly risible. It seems that he wanted his crown to be used as a font, which is just silly. It's also more detail than the hook needs. And finally, technically, he was Charles I of Aragon. As Aragon went last, how about "... that in 1525, Charles V ordered the conversion of his remaining Muslim subjects, despite having sworn an oath not to do so?" --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

[admin applied this change] [1]
@Dweller: The problem with the new hook is that we don't know if "Charles V's remaning Muslim subjects" == "Charles V's remaining Muslim subjects in the Crown of Aragon". While Aragon was the last in Spain, Charles was also the ruler of many other places and at this point he probably had Muslim subjects elsewhere (e.g. in North Africa: [2] [3], and who knows if there were other Muslims in his extensive territories ). Besides, his oath only covers the Crown of Aragon, not elsewhere. If the wording "crown" is ambiguous how about replacing it with the "lands of Aragon" with a piped link to the Crown of Aragon. HaEr48 (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy with that. I'll make the change. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


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

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

General discussion[edit]

Introducing this talk page[edit]

A newcomer to this talk page is greeted with: "Welcome! This page is for discussing the organization and layout of the main page."

That's a lie. Anybody trying to redesign the Main Page is greeted with groans of "Oh no, not again!" We might tell them to go somewhere like Wikipedia:Main page redesign proposals and be ignored. If discussion breaks out here anyway, we all know where it will lead: nobody will endorse anybody else's idea without changes, and no individual's concept, not even yours, will get a consensus. So it's ridiculous to say that's what "This page is for".

It goes on: "It isn't for general questions ..."

General questions are the opposite of specific questions. So if I complain here that my big brother won't stop calling me a wumblebutt, that isn't a general question, that is a specific question specifically about wumblebutts.

"... or for encyclopedic content."

Another lie. Everything on this page is about something on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, so everything here violates the rule against discussing encyclopedic content. Except wumblebutts. That isn't content on any encyclopedia, so it's OK to discuss that.

Reading on to the bottom of the brown rectangle, we find: "Question help: to find out more about where to ask questions ..."

In other words, if newcomers with nothing better to do have wasted ten minutes reading this far, we expect them to waste another 20 minutes reading another page. We can't imagine they would just ask their question and get it over with.

And even when I edit this page, it says in red letters: "This is NOT the place to make suggestions for Main Page content. Please direct your suggestion to one of the forums listed above or your post may be removed or ignored."

Once again, everything here is about Main Page content. Well, everything except wumblebutts. Art LaPella (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
This page is about discussing the organization and layout of the main page. You should take your specific concerns to Wikipedia:Village pump.--WaltCip (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It's also the most relevant page for discussing the organization of this talk page. Art LaPella (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I generally agree with your points Art. The first sentence should be changed to:
Welcome! This page is for discussing the organization and layout contents of the main page.
We could say "current contents", but sometimes there are discussions about controversial content which is going to be displayed in the near future, so "contents" should be sufficient.
You are reading too much into the second sentence though. The "general questions" part implies general questions not related to the contents of the main page. I believe the second part is an attempt to dissuade the common occurrence of drive-by IPs dumping random "encyclopedic content" about their new start up business or amateur football team on this talk page. So for clarity, the second sentence could be rewritten as:
It isn't for general questions unrelated to the main page or for the addition of contents to Wikipedia articles.
I think these changes are fairly uncontroversial and would help clarify the first two sentences. Whether people read beyond that or listen the advice is out of our hands. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Much better. I agree that is what the second sentence is supposed to mean, and that the clarification explains it better. Art LaPella (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Art LaPella (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem here is that users who come to discuss the current contents are generally told that they should have raised the issue at WP:ERRORS. The cynic in me is tempted to suggest Welcome! This talk page is for discussing the contents of this talk page. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)