Talk:Main Page

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

Main Page error reports[edit]

Main Page toolbox
August 27
August 28, 2015
August 29
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
  TFL (Friday)  
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 14:36 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 (14:36 on 28 Aug 2015), 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, 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 or next Did you know...[edit]

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

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]


untitled section[edit]

The procedure for commenting on the main page is so circular, that I suspect it discourages comments from the public and in so doing sullies the reputation of wikipedia. All that one sees are "This is not the place" messages. There is a list of other places that someone might be looking for, but not one of them seems appropriate for this comment: The front page is currently an affront both to bomb-blast victims and to golfer Jason Day. The In the news section has "A bomb explosion in Bangkok, Thailand, kills 20 people and injures more than 120 others." juxtaposed with a photo of Jason Day after hitting a drive in golf, very much as if he were either responsible for the bomb blast or applauding it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of this is nonsensical. The reputation of Wikipedia has nothing to do with this talk page and most discussions started here run their full length. In the rare cases when a "not here" message is posted, a link to the appropriate venue (in this case, the ITN talk page) is usually available. As for the thumbnail, I like to think that most readers are able to understand that the golfer has nothing to do with the bombing. After all, the next item in the list is about golf, mentions Jason Day and has (pictured) next to it just to make sure.
In any case, what would you recommend? The current scheme is by no means perfect (captions were added just a few weeks ago), but it is the best that the community has been able to come up with so far. Any suggestion is welcome! Isa (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
"Any suggestion is welcome!" Clearly not, or you wouldn't begin a response with an insult like "Most of this is nonsensical." Surely you could come up with the obviously implied suggestions to (1) move the thumbnail down to the news item it belongs to and (2) allow readers to provide comments without such heavy-handed discouragement. Whatever. I tried. Have had enough of this and am signing off now. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
There are always going to be the occasional odd match ups between the headline and the picture. I doubt that anyone, even for a second, thought some ball-whacker was the bomber. If the picture was of Abu Hamza then I might understand the confusion. Man Over-bored (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The "not here" messages are not discouraging comments, they are encouraging them by telling people where they ought to go to make them. And as for the image thumbnail locations, while it may be so that "any suggestion is welcome", I think I speak for a large number of people when I say: Could we please not have that discussion again? (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Some of the "not here" messages are not phrased in such a way as to encourage people to go further along in the process. Several of the responses I have seen have seemed more along the lines of "how could you NOT know about Wikipedia regulation 279, section 18, subsection 4-C, paragraph 2, sentence 8 which CLEARLY states" and less along the lines of "Thank you for your interest, I have passed your concerns along to relevant area. If you encounter another problem along these lines in the future, please report it here" (with "here" linked to the proper page). --Khajidha (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, a response like the "Thank you ..." above is likely to get removed as off topic, along with the original question. Welcome to Wikipedia! Art LaPella (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be on WT:ITN?-- (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It was actually about to be archived. Thanks. Isa (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

technical difficulties[edit]

Um, am I the only one seeing big red letters all over Wikipedia giving the message "Script error: The module returned a value. It is supposed to return an export table. Script error: The module returned a value. It is supposed to return an export table." Because I am seeing that on nearly every page. Is it a problem on my side or is Wikipedia experiencing Technical Difficulties?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the place to post this, but technical staff are aware. — foxj 00:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't know where to go.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Technical issues are best discussed at WP:VPT (I'm surprised Foxj didn't point you there). There's a discussion going on there already. Modest Genius talk 09:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, it's the Village Pump indeed! — foxj 13:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State?[edit]

Hello All, please do not refer to the organization called ISIS or ISIL, called by themselseves DAESH, as the Islamic State. Not only does this legitimize and credit them in an ironic way, but it also gives the wrong impression that they are an Islamic State, which they sure are not! -Dominator1453 (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"Called by themselseves DAESH"—er, no. They, fairly notoriously, find that term so offensive that using it is grounds for summary beatings in territory they control. ‑ iridescent 08:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:NPOV. We don't not call something what it is just because we personally have strong beliefs about it. As a matter of convenience the article is at ISIL at the moment, stuck in a rut of repeated and constant WP:RMs that never gain consensus. (I'll leave the fights for others to wax on.) hbdragon88 (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Well to be fair to Dominator1453, the Main Page is supposed to defer to individual articles. If the article is at ISIL then we should use that on the Main Page (it seems someone has already changed it). Modest Genius talk 09:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I agree on that, but if you look at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, topic creator believes that we should never use Islamic State, even if "irresponsible mainstream media" do so, that it still isn't the "right way" to refer to him (as if there is an one absolute single answer). In other words, he's pushing an agenda. hbdragon88 (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The President of the United States uses ISIL. I think we ought to defer to his judgment.--WaltCip (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Whatever next? Terrorists in the Republic part of Ireland calling themselves an Army? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
To be strictly accurate, the IRA are far more active in the non-Republic part of Ireland. ‑ iridescent 11:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You're grossly misrepresenting the history of the Irish Republican Army, which was not a group of terrorists and pre-dated the Irish Republic by several years. Although this is getting rather off topic... Modest Genius talk 11:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
This didn't help.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Anyone for single quote marks, as in 'ISIS' or 'IS' – ?? That would signify something like "so-called" – since they aren't recognized as a state by any de jure state (as far as I'm aware). I suggested this formulation a year or so ago. Sca (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)