Talk:Main Page

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

Main Page error reports[edit]

Main Page toolbox
Yesterday
September 28
Today
September 29, 2016
Tomorrow
September 30
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
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 09:15 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 (09:15 on 29 September 2016), 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.

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

Errors in In the news[edit]

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

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

  • 1941 I'd like to suggest a couple of points regarding the Holocaust entry. First, I think the linked "their collaborators" should be changed to "local collaborators" to make it clear that it was local Ukrainians that collaborated in the event. Secondly, the sentence seems to run on a bit, so I think there should be commas at either end of "aided by their/local collaborators". AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

General discussion[edit]

Archiving[edit]

Auto archiving did not kick in because it's configured to leave a minimum of three threads.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Deliberately so; that's a good thing. Modest Genius talk 10:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Why? --Jayron32 12:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with leaving some threads. Doing so gives a new user an idea of how to format conversations. Three is a good number, at least for this page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the point. If there is no activity in a thread it just gets annoying seeing it sitting there day after day. If the threads are inactive, then the new user should be starting a new thread which would not need formatting. The "edit" link is all they need. --Khajidha (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Leaving long-expired threads open just invites comments on subjects which don't need any more discussion days or weeks after their usefulness has ceased. That serves no one, except extending the uselessness of the discussions by delaying their archiving. --Jayron32 14:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
That is only if they use the visual editor. -- Mentifisto 14:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
That's funny, here I am logged out editing as a simple IP and there is still an edit link. --107.77.233.219 (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC) (Khajidha, making a point)

(reset) That is sometimes why 'bland comments about the MP' get added. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

We don't have any rules against manual archiving, do we? --PFHLai (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The 'bland comment' lets the bot do its work and also avoids people commenting on 'absence of material on the MP talk page.' Jackiespeel (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Free adv[edit]

  • Camera – Not an error per se, but one must wonder how this piece of free advertising got promoted. Sca (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, it’s an advert. It’s an advert for how good Wikipedia is, as one of the best pictures we have. Just like TFA is an advert for how good our writing and coverage is. And the problem with that is?
If you mean it looks like an advert for the camera, the same charge could be levelled at many of our featured pictures, of objects, of people, even of places. We don’t allow articles to be too complementary or promotional, but a good quality photo of an attractive subject can flatter the subject and so seem like an advert. There is not much we could do, except ban all good quality photos of nice subjects.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Fail to see how a picture where the subject blends into the background is considered "good quality". --Khajidha (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
And the photographer made his rationale perfectly clear during the nomination. I personally go for the "on white" look when I do product photography, but I do admire the aesthstics of this shot. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
See, this is why I find the idea of featured pictures kind of silly. There is too much room for esthetic judgement. To me, a picture like this is simply bad. --Khajidha (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Which is why you are welcome to go to WP:FPC and participate in discussion. Make sure to take a look at the criteria, though; you may be surprised that aesthetics is given less weight than encyclopedic value. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 September 2016[edit]

Please replace the text on Portal:Wikipedia in its entirety with the following text so that it can follow its WP:RFD nomination:

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Main Page]]
{{Redr|from move|to main namespace|protected}}}}

Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
For those who are as confused by this exchange as I was, it turns out they're talking about Portal:Wikipedia (whose talk page redirects here), not Main Page. The RFD discussion is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 28. Modest Genius talk 10:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Clarity added. Steel1943 (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Shimon Peres[edit]

Why isn't he on the Main Page?--74.190.109.155 (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, it should be appearing shortly. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Jose Fernandez more important than Arnold Palmer?[edit]

Absolute JOKE Jose Fernandez is on the front page and Arnold Palmer is not. Fernandez' death was tragic, but how many people knew about him outside of Miami other than hard-core MLB fans (which I am)? Say the name Arnold Palmer, and the vast majority of Americans and Canadians, not to mention many around the world, would instantly recognize what sport he played and what he accomplished, even though the last major he played was in 1994, and his last PGA Tour victory was in 1973 (two years before Tiger Woods was born). I would have no problem whatosever with Fernandez on the front page of the Spanish-language Wikipedia. But he shouldn't trump Arnie here. DavidSteinle (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the first 2, I suspect a recency bias at work. That is, AP's mastery of the game was many years ago, so has been forgotten, while JF's major accomplishments are fresh in out minds. StuRat (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@DavidSteinle: It's not an importance issue. Per an RFC earlier this year, any person who dies and has an article is deemed notable enough to be posted to recent deaths. However, in the case of Arnold Palmer, the article is not up to par (forgive the pun) and has been the only reason for opposition at ITN/C. If Palmer's article is improved (mainly referencing issues) within a week of his death, then it will be posted under the recent deaths section. @StuRat: That might be part of the issue, but more than likely it's because Palmer's article is older and a bigger target for vandalism than Fernández's. Palmer's article was created on September 7, 2002, whereas Fernández's was created from a redirect on March 9, 2013. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Arnold Palmer hasn't been posted to the main page because his article is in atrocious condition. That's all.--WaltCip (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Who is Arnold Palmer? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)