Talk:Main Page

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 15:45 on 29 December 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

• that a reviewer identified an "audible contempt" for men in the songs of Ceechynaa, who entered the UK singles chart earlier this month with "Peggy? I fail to see how this does not "unduly focus on negative aspects of [a] living person". I'd think contempt for half the populace is a negative thing. Pinging Launchballer and Jolielover. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Not undue; she is literally notable for songs about that. Otherwise, "that the "Peggy" musician Ceechynaa worked in the sex industry before her music career?" should work instead. Pinging also @Crisco 1492 and Z1720:.--Launchballer 00:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, I wouldn't call that "undue", or even necessarily negative. Same reason I'd expect a bon mot like "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" to be allowed for a blurb for Irina Dunn or Gloria Steinem. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Seconding this; the hook also specifically refers to songs by her which should not be a violation. jolielover♥talk 09:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a blatant breach of WP:DYKBLP. Her having a "contempt for men" is not something that sources widely agree on, and is clearly a negative description of her, so is unudue negativity in a DYK Hook. There is no issue with having it in the article, where it sits in context, but not as a standalone one-liner on the main page. Not keen on focusing on her work in the sex industry either for similar reasons. I've amended to mention the review which is more positive sounding "proudly waving the sexual liberation flag". If this is no good then I think a pull might be the only other option.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

For the future, I'd also point out that we've got a MOS:SAID violation here: we shouldn't use "identified X" for a subjective judgement, but a more subjective phrase like "considered", "believed", "judged", "opined" or so on. "Identified" implies that we are endorsing this judgement. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• ... that nearly 300 construction workers showed up to work at 8 am to continue building reactors 5 and 6, unaware of the Chernobyl disaster? The source reads "Despite the disaster unfolding next door at 8am that morning, the 286 construction workers of the day shift clocked on." I can't find any mention as to whether the workers were aware, though it's possible the reference didn't fully load for me. Pinging Hawkeye7 and Bollardant. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(January 3)

Monday's FL

(December 30, tomorrow)

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.

Tomorrow's POTD

• At "more than 3000 years" maybe insert comma in 3000 per all over thousands in blurb? JennyOz (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

   Done  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

News lack updating... Again

In the past few days, I've observed that the news are (again) lacking updates, because (again) the picture wasn't changed, the news stayed stuck In the same lines, and Sichuan doesn't disappear. I think that we should really start making a new news section criteria. The need for a change In the In The News section policy is not something we could need In two moths, but it'S something that we need now, and I'm not kidding. Or otherwise, we could just remove the section, because after all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. For the purpose of reading the news, we should reccomend visiting Wikinews. How about a banner with the Wikinews link and logo and a short description of Wikinews? Or At least giving some ideas? I don't really think it'S absolutely neccesary to have a news section In an encyclopedia, because Encarta and Brittanica have never had news sections, and they are (supposedly) prestigious encyclopedias. Hope we can reach a sort of agreement. --J.C. (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are complaining about. The picture represents an event that happened less than forty-eight hours ago and is very much still a developing story. How is that not good enough? There have been a series of significant events over the past week and so this week, of all weeks, has seen an especially high number of ITN updates with the most up-to-date, accurate information. This doesn't seem like the week to suggest that ITN isn't covering what's in the news because, this week, what's in the news is in sync with what's encyclopedic, and so ITN is spot-on. -- tariqabjotu 04:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind ITN not updating. But I agree that it shouldn't be on the Main Page. I think it doesn't do the best job it could with showcasing Wikipedia's best content. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither does did you know?, but both offer articles that the readers may find very interesting. ITN is updating at a fairly good pace at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but in the pasty forty-eight hours a lot of things have happened. In the past week, the news were updating at a rate of 1 picture (and story) per day. Now that we have the same line for forty-eight hours, I've started to think it really is in need of help. Maybe you should take the information from the newspapers, because (unless you live in Antarctica) news headlines are updated every day, not in two days. What I think is that it needs to be (fully) updated every day, changing everything. At least say "earthquake in Sichuan causes more deaths. Reports indicate X people have died as a consequence of the earthquake" At least change a few words (and the picture, fundamentally), but do not become lazy in the editing of a very actual section like the In The News section.--J.C. (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Update daily? No, we should update as things happen, as we do. As you have already pointed out, we are not a newspaper, and fewer stories warrant inclusion in Wikipedia than in a newspaper; only stories with a lasting significance will be included here, and so only stories with a lasting significance should be included on ITN. If so much has happened, then it should have been discussed on WP:ITN/C, and ITN should be updated appropriately. It's quite simple- if you want more to appear, suggest more. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to stick to what you said, but, doesn't lasting significance mean it has to be old? I supposed it did...--J.C. (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No? Alarming as you may find it, things of lasting significance do still happen. Why would things of 'lasting significance' have to be old? J Milburn (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. He didn't mean like... "the beatles were the last band of significance", rather that lasting significance can only be judged in hindsight, not, rather, as it happens. What you think may be extraordinarily significant may be completely overlooked in history - you are not psychic. You misused the term - significance by itself would be okay, but I guess you have to sound smart! 82.112.138.172 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering the unfortunate circumstances, not getting ITN updated so often may be a good sign for everyone. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Note the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:In the news 2.0, where a proposal for a major structural change to ITN has gained some traction. However, more input is required. BanyanTree 01:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no way of predicting lasting significance. If it's old, we know it has proven to be of lasting significance. With recent events, we can only guess. These guesses, if made correctly, can be accurate. But sometimes they're totally off and nobody will remember the event in a few years. With older things, we know, with recent ones, we can only guess. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, how about we switch ITN for DYK or OTD? Most user's screens are not that huge, meaning they have to scroll down to see the DYK and OTD. I think that DYK is interesting to more readers because it's updated more frequently. Since it's interesting to more readers, I think it should be at a more prevalent place. And the perfect place for that is right next to the FA, instead of ITN. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is time to remove the news(and picture)about earthquake from the main page. It has remained the same for the last 5 days with the same picture and the same text. The only thing being updated is the death count. When I log on to wikipedia I want to see news that actually happend today, not a week ago. There is far more important news to be updated! Chris18240 (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said the topic is beginning to loss interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platypus929 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want up to date news, check out a news site like wikinews, not wikipedia, which is not a news site Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So why have ITN at all? --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To highlight things that the readers may be interested in, the same as the rest of the main page. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if ITN is fulfilling that purpose. How many readers are interested in something that happened over a week ago? And if they are, they'll read it once, but it remains there for quite some time afterwards. No other Main Page section is updated as slowly as ITN. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You forget that not everyone looks at the main page daily. I was going to show you some data, but I can't find the page view counter- grok.se or something? It's bookmarked on my other laptop... J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

stats.grok.se. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thankyou. Now, let us take the Russian elections, which were on from 13:53, 8 May 2008 to 01:13, 14 May 2008. I chose this article as there was a substantial article there before the event, meaning we have something to compare it to. If you look at the stats you will see that it was viewed the most times on the third day, which pretty clearly shows that the 'change news daily' argument doesn't really hold much water in terms of what people are reading. Although after that the views did begin to drop, (probably because it no longer had pride of place on the ITN section rather than because people didn't care any more) the days in which it was on the main page show a LOT more views than on other days. Even on the last day, when it was only there for an hour, it saw a whopping 3.7k views, compared to the average since (around 2k). Compare this to a DYK- the last batch was up for over seven hours (I'll also take this opportunity to say how much good work BorgQueen does with DYK, but that's by-the-by) but the top article saw practically no views, (at the time of posting, seven today, which includes the time it was on the main page) even though it was accompanied by a picture. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's give the BorgQueen a medal for her hard work at DYK. :-) --PFHLai (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK is viewed so little because it's in a much less prominent place. Most people must scroll down to view it. That's why I suggested (not sure if here or in a different thread) for ITN and DYK to be switched. DYK would get a more prominent place, because it's likely to interest more people (thanks to it being updated more often). The only reason why the ITN articles are more visited now is because they're higher on the page. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(Deliberate un-indent) Yes, but the fact that ITN is still viewed shows that there is no need to start updating it a ridiculous amount, that was my point. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's calling for a "ridiculous amount". We'd just like items not to hang around for two weeks. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The one-week trial for the new ITN candidates' structure will be coming to an end soon. I have started a section to gather opinion from editors who have been interacting with or observing the new system as to if the trial should be extended or ended as originally scheduled here. Thank you, BanyanTree 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Evacuation

At a quick glance, it appears the people in Sichuan are being evacuated on a futuristic craft with retrorockets. Jw6aa (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the appropriate FAQ. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 16:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You've gotta admit that's pretty funny though. I laughed out loud and I've seen these complaints a few dozen times before. Random89 19:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

permanent link for the lulz. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, nope, here it is: [1] Modest Genius ^talk 22:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I never actually saw it on the front page, as I don't frequent it that often. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki image content filter?

Is there any simple way to use some kind of content filter (like seen on google images) so that i dont see pornographic content when looking up certain topics on Wikipedia that may be a little sexual but only looked up to learn not view porn... ((ex. images of full frontal nudity or close up of genitals (btw, where is the explicit porn content warning?)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.116.220 (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and this isn't the proper forum. ffm 20:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The warning can be viewed by clicking 'disclaimers' at the bottom of the page, (and I believe that is more than is required by US law, not that I'm a lawyer, or American) but I personally think nudity should be expected in an encyclopedia anyway. This issue has been discussed many times, and, as Firefoxman says, the village pump would be the best place for this discussion. J Milburn (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The only way is to turn off images in your browser (there is a setting for this), when you know you are going to an article that may have sexual images. This would make the page load faster too.--Pharos (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This also has nothing to do with the Main Page. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(Which was what ffm meant I presume, if you didn't know already) Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There was also some technical solution devised for the Mohammed images, that I think involved adding a line in your monobook.css file to not show images on that page. Unfortunately that assumes you know which articles have bad images on them beforehand. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The technical solution Confusing Manifestation mentions is here, if anyone is interested. - BanyanTree 12:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Main Page

I tried to look for an article about main pages, but it keeps redirecting me here. If there is a one, where is it? 88.114.27.91 (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Homepage.--Pharos (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Sometimes I feel myself so little and stupid... 88.114.27.91 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Honest mistake to make, and a subject of repeated debate. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 10:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And just wait until someone writes [[Main Page (book)]].... ffm 12:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I might write that book - about this bloody debate over whether it should be in article space. Just for the irony. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd buy it :) ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 11:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you point me to the relevant archives where this discussion has happened? indopug (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There are relivant discussions on Archives 87, 89 and 90. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 22:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

TFA without date of birth or death

There seems to be a policy, or just a habit, of excluding the birth and death years of people when they are featured on the front page. I can't understand why this is done. The years appear in the article itself right after the person's name, and they have obvious relevance to understanding the context of the biography, just as it is relevant to describe someone's educational background. Whenever I read a biographical TFA, I find myself trying to figure out what period this person lived in, from various "hints" in the TFA blurb.

Example: Today's article is about Harold Innis and says he was a Canadian economic historian. Hmm, I think, that means he must have lived late enough to have had a sizable amount of economic history of Canada to work on. On the other hand, there's a black and white photo, so he can't have lived too recently... Wouldn't it be better if I didn't need to guess? --Zvika (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the purpose of TFA is to garner enough interest for you to click the link to the whole article and read more about it. That may not be the reason DOB/DOD is in there, but that's my impression :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense. If that were the case, why not leave out other crucial bits of information? The TFA text is just a summary of the LEAD, and I claim that the DOB/DOD is an important part of the LEAD. --Zvika (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they're conserving the number of characters for other info. Having DOB+DOD can pretty much lengthen the blurb. The tense (is/was) is good enough to establish whether the person is living or dead. I think that'll be enough. --Howard the Duck 14:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A true-to-blood vandal proposal.

Considering "vandals" are currently mentioned on the front page, it would be moste fitting and just to vandalize wikipedia's frontpage! That would be a more lively and realistic venue of rememberance, compared to the current dry, ivory tower museum-ish presentation. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually "Historians agree that the Vandals were no more destructive than other invaders of ancient times" (admitedly unsourced), from vandals Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they were merely given the bad name by the Roman Catholic Church after people started forgetting about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.176.151 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Tenses?

On the main page is written in the news section loads of stuff in the present tense. Although this is what has already happened, otherwise it wouldn't be news! Why can't Wikipedia put stuff into the correct tense in the news section? Or am I missing something important that is a reason for the present tense. Cribrad (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Given this is a news section, most of the stuff should be information from things currently happening. You know, the kind you would see on the...erm....well....news. -Cam^T|C 16:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I realise that. Although I can't help noticing that some of these things, although happened recently, actually occured in the past from when the news written. Such as this from the news today: 'A suicide car bomb explodes outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing at least five.' I would have thought in this case it should be displayed as : 'A suicide car bomb exploded outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, which killed at least five.' Cribrad (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

These short news vignettes are written in a form of headlinese (probably because it sounds "newsy") - if you pay attention to most newspaper headlines, you'll note that they will use present tense when describing events in the recent past. Apparently, though, there isn't an official style guide for "In the news". I suggest you bring up the issue at Template talk:In the news. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Style - BanyanTree 01:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note however the 'killing' may be ongoing. It's easily possible there are victims in hospital in critical condition who may die after the headline was written. These deaths will generally be attributed to the bomb. While it is not inaccurate to say that the bomb killed at least 5 people if it has killed that many so far, since this is a recent even there's also nothing with saying 'killing at least 5' since the event is recent, and the death toll may change Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)