Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 09:46 on 29 June 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Bermuda onion

I think Bermuda ought to be hyperlinked in this hook. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 5)

Monday's FL

(July 1)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

General discussion

– Gaza conflict – does not need mentioning of Israel?

At this moment, MP says "Ongoing: ... – Gaza conflict –". That is too short, into being POV by omitting the word "Israel". Actually I am astounded that someone made the link label this way, intentionally. -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Well of course it was intentional. It would have taken quite a few monkeys randomly hitting keyboards to produce those 12 characters and one space in that exact order. Jeesh, did you expect that these words wrote themselves? --Jayron32 23:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 is an admin. -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your skills of observation are unparalleled. How do you do it? --Jayron32 23:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It's very common for the mainstream name of a conflict to mention only the location, rather than the protagonists. Vietnam War came to mind immediately. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You say by WP main page, Vietnam War is ongoing? -DePiep (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No. But Wikipedia uses common names, all over the place. The entries in the "Ongoing" list are often shortcuts for real article names. I think you may be seeing sloppiness in the choice of a shortcut, rather than POV. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

HiLo refers to Hanlon's razor, for the record. A useful link in this current discussion. A more useful one is WP:AGF. But I'm not sure the OP is really bothered in considering the good faith in others here. --Jayron32 23:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) re HiLo48. 'mainstream name' you say? How is that WP:COMMONAME? (you are spinning). Common names is for titles. Not for wikilink labels. common names does not allow to omit half of the parties (well, maybe you can in Vietnam: N/S). My point again: "Israel" should be in that link. Bad WP presentation. -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I get the logic here. Instead of referring to the "Iraq War", should we say "United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and Iraq War"? Formerip (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem DePiep, is not whether or not Israel should or should not be in the title. At this point, you have done your own cause a disservice. Let's just say, for the sake of argument (I have no idea if this is true or not, but I will accept it as true for the purpose of moving forward with the discussion) that you main purpose is to see that the word Israel gets added to the title. The second you accuse people, whom you have never met, and whose internal thought processes you have no access to, of deliberate bad faith, as you did in your initial post in this thread you have hurt your own cause. Once you tell people "you're bad people", they no longer want to help you solve your problem. Now, let's rewind time for a minute. Let's pretend you had written "I think the link to the Gaza Conflict should also include the name of the other country involved, being Israel" or something like that, and then didn't say anything else. Well, what would have happened is we would have had a civil discussion of the matter, you would have presented rational, well thought out reasons why we should do that, people would have understood and likely agreed with you, and we'd have likely already changed it. Instead, when you say something that amounts to "You have to change it or your all bigots!", then what happens is no one does what you want, because, frankly, you have no proof that anyone intentionally kept Israel out (that is, that people considered the notion of keeping the word Israel in the link, and then for bigoted reasons, worked to remove it or prevent it from being added, which is what you just accused everyone of doing). What THAT tactic caused to happen was a) I made fun of you by pretending to not understand what you were saying b) HiLo attempted to explain why you're belief was mistaken, leading to a side debate with him that ALSO doesn't advance your cause. So you see, here's a life lesson for you DePiep, that I hope you take forward. If your goal is to get others to do what you want them to do, don't first tell them they are bad people. That doesn't work. Instead, ask politely, and accuse no one of bad action, and be prepared to make your case in a rational way. That works all the time. What you did never works. --Jayron32 00:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"The problem DePiep, is ..." you say. I say: what are you talking about? Are you the problem-defining monkey in here, number ∞+1? And about the phrase "you have hurt your own cause": only an arrogant admin could write that unsolicited beforehand judgement. -DePiep (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you truly are helping out your cause here, my good/not-arrogant sir! –HTD 01:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pushing an invented cause onto me [todo: here a picture of where it goes]. Now what is your response to my actual OP? -DePiep (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It actually makes sense. The article is at 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. If we're following "normal" naming procedures in ITN's ongoing ticker, the <year> is usually omitted, and the rest of the article's name as it appears as the title is the one that's being used. –HTD 23:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

So, since you haven't hurt your cause, I assume that means people have helped you? Because I haven't seen that yet... --Jayron32 01:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor is nice Jayron. I have heard and even used some of the sayings in that article. Didn't know there was a name for the collection. Thanks. And I wish I could read Vietnamese. I have read elsewhere that the Vietnamese call what we call the Vietnam War, the American War. (That obviously points to something else.) It would be nice to check. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It would, wouldn't it? Looks like they don't, though. (Note there's a section in the article about naming, though). Formerip (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Round up. So far, these editors have responded: User:Jayron32 (admin), User:HiLo48, User:FormerIP, User:Howard the Duck. The admin went about monkeys, and the others did not even respond to the OP. I remind us that this is the talkpage of English wikipedia Main page. Is this how we maintain quality? -DePiep (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  You seem to want to maintain quality by accusing others of antisemitism. Howsatgoinforya? --Jayron32 02:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If by that post you are saying that I "did not even respond to the OP", I call bullshit. Stop wasting our time here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to say that you went off topic. You did twice, actually. -DePiep (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That was not the offence you described and upon which I challenged you. Let's try again. Are saying that I "did not even respond to the OP"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

As the original suggester of Gaza Conflict for the title of the ongoing link (discussed here), the single only reason for the name suggestion was to attempt to keep the main page free of the NPOV discussions that are rampant on the talk page (and its article) of the linked article. My suggestion was simply as generic and neutral name as possible and anyone clicking through to the article is immediately told further details. As you will see there were no objections raised during the 36+ hours the nomination was active for before its consensus was judged. This really was a good faith suggestion and there really is nothing sinister to read into it. CaptRik (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

What NPOV? The link is to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. What you defend, CaptRik, is exactly the point I question: leaving out "Israel" is making it POV. (Can happen, but this is the MP of enwiki. How strange that there are people still defending this half-a-fact, instead of correcting it). -DePiep (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

How is this more POV than Vietnam War or Korean War? The link is talking about the fact that this conflict is over the Gaza region, not an exhaustive list of the participants. Especially since Gaza is not a participant, various Palestinian groups are. As for the name of the page the link leads to, I would argue that it is incorrectly titled. --Khajidha (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL, Khajidha. Both Korea and Vietnam were a N/S (as I said before), and they have ended. This it actual Israel-Palestine obviously, and Wikipedia should not take side (espescially not on main page or by omitting one side). -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What does either of those points have to do with ANYTHING? There were many countries fighting in each of those wars, the names refer more to the location than the participants and whether something is finished or continuing doesn't affect what it is called. To use another example, it is called the Iraq War despite having been fought by numerous countries. Finally, as you point out, this is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Notice that neither nation is mentioned in the link, only the location of the conflict. However, it is becoming clear that you are not here to discuss rationally, so I will not respond to any further posts of yours. --Khajidha (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Reading the OP could explain something. Why do you thing I wrote it? -DePiep (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Had to correct this evasive redirect too: [1]. -DePiep (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I request that the page (Main page) be edited to the effect that the "Ongoing" subsection link (now saying: 'Gaza conflict') mentions Israel, like: "current Israel–Gaza conflict". The target page is 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Just explain why you think that title is superior to the current link, and convince enough other people to support it through your powers of persuasion. --Jayron32 23:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Eid

Question... If the Eid al-Fitr article states its on July 28 then why is OTD posting a day after. This seems to be the case last year too. Any particular reason for this? -- Ashish-g55 01:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

See Eid_al-Fitr#Timing. The day has to be declared every year, July 28 is an approximation. Also, as the Islamic Calendar runs sunset-to-sunset, the day will fall over two Western dates. --Jayron32 01:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ya not entirely clear from that section then. Infobox only states one date. -- Ashish-g55 01:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved it. —howcheng {chat} 18:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, the date depends on the sighting of the moon, so in most of the Middle east it was celebrated on 28 July (27 sunset to 28 sunset), while in most of South Asia, it will be celebrated on 29 July. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 09:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's time to put a link to the WP:Signpost on the main page under "Other areas of Wikipedia"

The Signpost is Wikipedia's newspaper, keeping people up-to-date on what's going on, new features of the software, and other such information. As such, I think it's a very, very useful resource for recent information, highly suitable for the main page. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Mjroots (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Terrible idea, which I oppose. The Main Page contains information which may be of interest to readers of the encyclopaedia, whilst the Signpost contains news which may be of interest to editors. The latter group is a very small subset of the former. The contents of the Signpost will be of no interest to the vast majority of visitors to the Main Page, and it would break the convention that the MP is aimed at readers, not editors. Modest Genius ^talk 12:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The existing Community portal, Help desk, Local embassy, Site news and Village pump links under the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section all seem aimed at editors. --125.25.29.40 (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, although the Help Desk is for readers (and is useful). However, I think we could get rid of almost all of those - the Community Portal is already in the side bar, the Local Embassy is defunct, and the others are available through the Community Portal. Modest Genius ^talk 12:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Help desk is surely aimed at readers. But the others should go (if fact, all links on the main page need a good audit with a view to parsimony—any way of reducing the text bloat on the main page would be welcome, from design and readability points of view). Signpost: I'm neutral on that, but it does contain news and features of wider ramification than just the WM movement; and it might just attract the odd new editor into the fray—many readers would be quite unaware of the movement and the fact that it has a vibrant narrative that they might be a small part of if they choose to make that first click. On the other side, a link on the main page might place editorial decisions under marginally more pressure, which might impact ever so slightly on one of its best features, its independence. Tony (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just chiming in to note The Signpost is already prominently displayed at WP:News, which is linked on the main page under the 'other areas of Wikipedia' section. So adding a separate link would seem redundant. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 02:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

While it is displayed there, the description of WP:News on the main page does not in the slightest imply that one could find a link to a weekly community-written newspaper there, it makes it sound like only external news. There has to be something in the description that gives the reader some idea that clicking on it would lead to that sort of content. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Null edit

Can we get a quick null edit on the main page to remove it from this WLH? moluɐɯ 12:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

MP doesn't appear any more when I look at the WLH, so I don't think this is necessary. Isn't this sort of thing handled by the job queue? Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to assume someone made the edit, to whoever that was thank you. And this normally is, but I've been keeping my eye on its transclusions since I saw its TFD entry; a couple of pages have been in there a few days, it was a big job after all. Perhaps I'm being a little paranoid, but I'd just like to make 100% sure there are 0 errors for this change. Labs lists it as having 63 transclusions currently, and I'd like to make sure all of these can be properly interpreted as the magic word as soon as I can. moluɐɯ 13:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)