Talk:Main Page

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy	other	Discussions	Ideas
Automatically forming columns while using <references /> RM discussion regarding "New York" and "New York State" Wikimedia Movement strategy discussion - Cycle 3, debate the challenges identified by the research Wikibooks as part of cross-wiki search results Opening sentences of lead sections Wikimedia referrer policy For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
view edit history watch archive talk

Main Page error reports

Main Page toolbox
Yesterday July 15	Today July 16, 2017	Tomorrow July 17
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 (Monday)
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 02:30 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 (02:30 on 16 July 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 In the news

• And it would be more succinct to say "nearly ten years". Also, let's change the image as one of him is freely available. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  First part done. Biblio (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day

OTD today

Andrew Cunanan was a serial killer not a spree killer, the first reference (from the FBI) says he is a prime example of differentiating spree and serial killers, by primarily a cooling off period of several months... his first kill was in April the last in July. Klaun (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

OTD tomorrow

• Saint Rosalia - article infobox says her festino day is today, not tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  A few years ago, the article itself said the event was on the 14th. I'm not sure what is correct. Biblio (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

General discussion

ITN

Is the ITN section of the front page broken? The most recent story hasn't changed in over a week. I find that hard to believe so I figured it was a technical issue. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:57 (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's neither broken nor unusual. Here is the editing history, and here's where they make posting decisions. Art LaPella (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

ITN is not meant to necessarily have fast turnover; however if you want to see more postings, I invite you to participate. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

To be honest In The News is completely disfunctional. It gets updated when the agenda is good for some editors, otherwise not. G20 summit with Antifa riots? Forget about it. A news event that happened 2 weeks ago seems to be more important, or rather less incriminating to "Leftipedia"- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.66.70 (talk • contribs)

Whereas you have no agenda or political views whatsoever based on your use of "leftipedia". No one forces you to visit this website if you feel that way. ITN is only as good as those who participate. You are welcome to if you wish. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps other IP should try Conservapedia and/or Rationalwiki to see if they are more to (IP pronoun)'s taste.

Probably Wikipedians-in-general prefer contributing to articles on their favourite topics (and making minor improvements to other articles of passing interest) to getting involved in ITN. 86.146.100.10 (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Replace DYK with something else

I think DYK is circling the drain, and may have recently jumped the shark; the articles seem like they were randomly-chosen and a lot of the blurbs are trivia and/or other cruft. Why can't we replace it with "today's good article", 7-days-a-week TFL, The Signpost, TAFI, RD separated from ITN, centralized discussion, or something else entirely? KMF (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The Main Page is there to give users information on a diverse range of pages on topics they did not know they might be interested in, with the DYK section, in part, for articles not otherwise categorised.

Counter-suggestion - could the section name be changed/improved? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult. DYK has always been somewhat inconsistent and flawed process, largely dependent on small group of dedicated editors. Perhaps another request for comment is needed to call for reforms that will address issues like permanent backlog. Alex Shih^Talk 10:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The backlog is controlled by modifying hooks per set and sets per day so there's a few in the back pocket. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with DYK existing, but I would love it if more Good Articles were nominated for DYK. SL93 (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate them. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel like I should be the only one nominating them. It's not a one editor job. SL93 (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Every little helps! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

True. I just need to figure out where the recent Good Article nominations are. I will try looking for them. SL93 (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah. I found it. SL93 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it 'supposed to be more or less random? I mean, not in the sense of true mathematical randomness, but in the sense that it's pulled, without prejudice, from whatever articles happen to have been written recently? ApLundell (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The DYK criteria should be altered so that *all* good articles that have not previously appeared are eligible to appear as DYK items, not just the ones promoted within the last week. This would raise the quality and interestingness of the section. It would also provide a "reward" for GA-creators, which doesn't currently exist (excluding self-satisfaction). Of course that would just be a change in eligibility not a blank check, the other DYK criteria would still need to be met. 106.68.128.209 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if we should go that far, but I think that an extension of time would be good. SL93 (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I've seen so many articles get to DYK with absolutely horrendous writing that I would argue for the total abolition of the "recently created or made to GA" criterion in favor of just pulling interesting facts from articles in general (with a "no major tags" qualification and a general copyedit before posting for grammar issues). --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a case for something serving the purpose of DYK - 'links to articles viewers of the MP might not otherwise have known about (which do not fall into the other categories on the page)' - the issues being 'the name of the section' and quality control of the articles involved. (Having a section 'interesting topic - middling quality status, please improve' would be possible but clutter the MP up even more.) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Um, I thought the purpose of DYK was currently to draw attention to newly created or improved articles. Your description of the purpose sounds pretty much the same as what I described as my idea for a new take on DYK. --Khajidha (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)