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 21:03 on 10 July 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 the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 12)

Monday's FL

(July 15)

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 (especially 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)

This obfuscating editor is not really objecting. I have made a proposal clearly. As for code changes, because of the protection & chained transclusions I can not make the actual code change. Of course, most MP involved editors know. -DePiep (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Jayron's behaviour is disgusting and deliberately obtuse. That he is a moderator scares me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.84.186 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't have "moderators". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• If this is going to resolved by !voting, then I say leave it as it stands, per Khajidha and HiLo48's earlier comments (if not his latter.) If we need further discussion on the matter, wouldn't it be better served by moving it to ITN's talk page? Rhodesisland (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We did take your request seriously. We didn't agree with you. A does not contradict B.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No it was not. It was hidden, twice. I could search & show the edit diffs (of course), but that only proves my point. -DePiep (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I closed it again because there is still no consensus. At your current rate of winning over hearts and minds, I doubt we'll have consensus anytime before peace in the middle east. WinterWall (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence this discussion was ever hidden, can you show the diffs? The only thing I've found is that the edit protected template was quite correctly removed or marked as answered. As an experienced wikipedian who has told people to read the docs [2], I'm presuming you understand that this was the correct course of action as the docs for the template you've told people to read say and simply got confused when you twice reverted the correct removal or closure of the template.

For the benefit of those less experience with wikipedia, since the edit request clearly was not an uncontroversial change with clear cut consensus (as shown by the resulting discussion), the editprotected request shouldn't have been added in the first place. An unfortunate mistake, I'm sure DePiep will agree but it happens. This doesn't of course mean that there was no reason for discussion, simply that there was no need for an edit protect request since there was no basis to request an edit yet. When and if a consensus is reached, the template will be readded if necessary (it's possible an admin will get to it before a template is needed if it comes to that), again as the docs themselves say.

Now that we've got that out of the way, can I remind editors that although DePiep made some mistakes with the template, it doesn't mean the discussion itself should have been closed? Yes remove the template or mark it answered or whatever, but the discussion itself can continue. (Ultimately if no one further responds, the discussion will be archived some time in the future). Just treat the template as an unfortunate but minor corrected error. Of course, if DePiep was mistaken about the discussion being hidden then it's all good and we can carry on.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems I was mistaken and actually DePiep thinks the way the template was handled is a big deal. I don't understand why but in any case, although not an admin, I'm making sure that the template is handled exactly in the manner proscribed in the docs. Someone else has already marked the template as answered=yes, in accordance with the docs. The only thing missing is:

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.

So yes, the template has now been handled exactly as the docs proscribe. May be not in the order described but I think we all agree it would be silly for me to mark the template as unanswered so I can then remark it as answered. And yes, I'm not an admin so I couldn't actually deal with the template if I did have to carry out the edits, but I'm pretty sure I've done this before and of course it's well accepted that even if it's something that may require an admin in some cases, it's fine for a non admin to carry it out in cases where they can, provided they do so in a manner an admin would.

Can we now get on with the discussion rather than this complete daft aside about the way the template was handled? The template which of course was irrelevant since it was an editprotected template, not an RFC or whatever, and only intended to alert an appropriate editor (admin in this case) that there was consensus or believed consensus for an edit (which there wasn't so the template shouldn't have been added, but I can understand DePiep may not have realised this when they initially started this discussion)?

BTW, it seems the template has been moved around at some stage, so it's not at the beginning of this discussion. Which is unfortunate since it makes it appear like DePiep added the template when it was already clear there was no consensus. I don't know who moved it and frankly I've already wasted enough time on this to find out (I WP:AGFed that there was a serious problem here but it seems there wasn't). I don't know if this is one of the things which is getting DePiep so annoyed, but IMO it's fine for DePiep to move it back to the beginning of the discussion so it's clear it wasn't added later.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:54, 6 August 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)

100th Anniversary of World War I

I am somewhat perplexed that most of the major events involving the lead up to and actual outbreak of the First World War have been getting little, or more often, no attention on the front page. The Great War is arguably the most important geo-political event since the French Revolution. Virtually the entire history of Europe and to some degree much of the rest of the world since then has been shaped or influenced by the war. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree 109.149.100.15 (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to get involved at WP:OTD if you're dissatisfied with items in the "On this day" section of the main page. Once there, you'll find an invitation to help improve things: "Be bold while improving this queue but please make sure you follow the guidelines." Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah right. So at least nine hours left, then, for this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I definitely concur that getting First World War to FA status so that it could be today's featured article should have been a priority for everyone. I am very disappointed in the collective failure to achieve this. It's not like there wasn't sufficient advance notice. The anniversary has been static for nearly a century. All registered editors are responsible, and I expect each to provide their excuses below. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• It was already the daily featured article in 2004, so it would be ineligible to go up again. -173.73.92.59 (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• That's a loooong time. Some go up more than once. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• You'd have to ask @Bencherlite: he only lets most FAs go up once unless it's extreme (like Transit of Venus) Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There are some other difficulties with this. All the attention, at least in my country, seems to have been on the declaration of war between Britain and Germany. The precise time of that seems to be confused by daylight saving. But there were other declarations of war, by other countries, at other times around then. The seeming certainty surrounding this "anniversary" is a bit deceptive. Let's not be anywhere-centric. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Fair point. My main focus was less Britain's declaration of war than the invasion of Belgium which precipitated it. The invasion of Belgium in 1914 is arguably the most consequential military act since the Battle of Waterloo. So much flowed from it, and it really shaped the whole war and by extension the last 100 years of history. But sadly Wikipedia really did not cover much of any of the lead up. None of the ultimatums, the famous telegrams between royal cousins, or the various other war declarations. I don't think there is any way to sugar coat this. The simple fact is that we, by which I Wikipedia and all of us who love and contribute to it, dropped the ball. As many of the younger generation would say; this was an epic fail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Having checked the OTD archives, the directly WWI-related topics this year from 1914 were: the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo, the July Ultimatum, and Austria-Hungary's declaration of war against Serbia (we also mention, from 1915-1919, Anzac day, the Twenty-One Demands, the Battle of Romani, the Battle of the Somme twice, the Battle of Verdun, the Silvertown explosion, the February Revolution, the First Battle of Gaza, the Battle of Messines, the coronation of Alexander of Greece, the Balfour Declaration, the Battle of Ngomano, the Battle of Jerusalem, Operation Michael, the Battle of the Lys, the sinking of SMS Szent István and the Japanese battleship Kawachi, the Battle of Amiens, the abdication of the Bulgarian Tsar, Alvin C. York's last stand, Polish independence and the Scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow, plus Armistice Day and various national independence days that stem from the war.) While I agree that the invasion of Belgium should have been mentioned, we did get at least the Austria-Serbia business that started the war pretty well, and I'm not sure that a dozen iterations on "Country X was invaded by Country Y, drawing Country Z into World War I" is especially helpful for getting eyes on articles, or especially interesting to our readers. The major problem, to my eyes, is that our WWI coverage is largely about UK and France versus Germany, with UK/Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary/Serbia also highly represented. We have two mentions of the Asian front (both involving Japan) and only a couple of oblique references to anything happening in Africa (Ngomano and the kicking-out of Iyasu V). Even America is quite unrepresented. That's a bigger issue, to me, than missing "famous telegrams between royal cousins". Smurrayinchester 09:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

As I just said at OTD, Alhaji Grunshi should really run on August 7. I imagine it would surprise a lot of people to discover that one of the defining events of the war took place in West Africa. 89.242.88.157 (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That article has two empty sections and is therefore ineligible. You have about 36 hours to expand it before I get to editing August 7. Happy editing! —howcheng {chat} 16:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

As for the invasion of Belgium, if you look at the August 4 article, the blurb about Germany's attack doesn't link to a specific battle or invasion article, so there was no "hook" on which to hang such a blurb. Investigating now, I suppose Battle of Liège could work, except for the issue where the dates in the lede and the infobox are contradictory. —howcheng {chat} 16:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The two empty sections were added today, after I suggested this, presumably for the purpose of keeping it off the main page. There's no legitimate reason for them to be there - the idea that people were keeping any kind of records of Gold Coast peasants in the early 20th century which would allow someone to construct an "Early life" or "Later career" section is obvious nonsense - but I know that if I remove them, as an IP I'll just be blocked for "vandalism". 89.242.88.157 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Even without the empty section tags, the article is too short to be considered for OTD. Sorry. —howcheng {chat} 21:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is Timeline of the war in Donbass linked instead of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine or War in Donbass?

Does anyone have an answer? Dustin (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If you believe it to be an error, please post a suggestion at WP:ERRORS. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)