Talk:Main Page

Main Page error report

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 10:55 on 3 January 2025) 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

• In "that according to George K. Teulon all of the presidents and vice-presidents of the Republic of Texas, and four-fifths of its government officials, were freemasons?", "freemasons" should be capitalized. See paragraph four of the lede of Freemasonry, the Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, and the Cambridge Dictionary. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Uppercased per the n-grams as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• St Bride's Church, Mauku: it would be useful to have a location specified in the hook. St Bride's is not an uncommon dedication, particularly in Britain and Ireland where there are many well-known churches of that name. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(January 3, today)

Monday's FL

(January 6)

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

Tips and Hints idea

• Just came up with a creative new idea: why not have a "tip/hint of the day" somewhere on the main page (probably at the top), to let editors and casual readers get those nuggets of vital info that will help them on their way? (if any of you are aware of tge loading screens in Civilization IV, that's kinda the road I'm heading down here). They could simply be the "in a nutshell" sections of the wikipolicies, so no work has to be done in writing loads of entries, and by stacking all the entries into some sort of randomizing database, we don't have to worry about civatabtly changing it every day.

I think it's important to have them in easy to understand, conversational language if possible though (so sone may need tweaking). For example; " remember to always be as neutral as you can be when writing articles", or " Remember to not have a point if view when writing articles" - with a link to wp:pov

I am personally loving this idea more and more, the more I keep thinking about it. What do you guys think??--Coin945 (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• The following is great for editors but does NOT belong on the main page.

Tip of the day...

Are your hands full?

You have just grabbed the page's title to place a link on another page, but now you want to add a section title to it to create a section link, but the copy cache is already full. Instead of making two trips back and forth to the page you wish to add the link to, try this...

...use the search box as a quick-and-dirty edit window.

1. Copy/paste the title into the search box, followed by a "#"
2. Copy/paste the section title after the "#"
3. Enclose in double square brackets and copy/paste the whole string to the page you wish to edit.

The search box is also a handy place to store copy text while you copy/paste something else. (But do not forget it is there!)

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Become a Wikipedia tipster

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Would this be appropriate for the main page? Ryan Vesey 19:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing tip of the day

Are your hands full?

You have just grabbed the page's title to place a link on another page, but now you want to add a section title to it to create a section link, but the copy cache is already full. Instead of making two trips back and forth to the page you wish to add the link to, try this...

...use the search box as a quick-and-dirty edit window.

1. Copy/paste the title into the search box, followed by a "#"
2. Copy/paste the section title after the "#"
3. Enclose in double square brackets and copy/paste the whole string to the page you wish to edit.

The search box is also a handy place to store copy text while you copy/paste something else. (But do not forget it is there!)

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

• On Second thought, I don't really think so. The main page isn't about the editors. Ryan Vesey 19:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• No. Editor specific. Newbie editors however..... would seem sensible. Especially if blank user page/talk page. But best discussed elsewhere. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ryan, I'd have to disagree with you on that. The main page most certainly IS for editors, and here's why:

I don't think of Wikipedia as a finished product. I think of it very much on terms of a work in progress. I think it is very wrong and misleading to put our very best work on a slick main page, giving the facade that we are a perfect work of art with no mistakes, when in fact we are soooo not. Maybe the reason people get so annoyed when they see our errors is because our main page offers so much that it is only natural that their actual wikipedia experience ends up being lower than their expectation. I think that we should make the home page more open in helping editors/skim readers/newbies/whatever to make Wikipedia better, and I see a page that if full of interesting tasks, and fun drives, and useful tips...... I think this is road we should be heading down. Noove ever promised we'd have a good encyclopedia. All we promised is that it would be free. We have *got* to stop treating the main page as the main page of a finished product, and instead use it as the core navigation guide - to the various odd jobs that we can do to assist Wikipedia - that it has the potential of being. I truly think that this is a step in the right direction, and that Wikipedia will be all the better for it.--Coin945 (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree. This entire encyclopedia is about the readers, not about us. We develop a misconception that we are creating it for ourselves. A vast majority of readers will never edit, under any circumstances. There are a large amount that wouldn't even edit if we paid them. They come to the encyclopedia not to assist in its creation, but to learn from what has been created. They outnumber us 1000 to 1 (not a real fact) and they are just as important to the project as the editors. Without the readers, our work would be useless. You've been around for much longer than many editors, so you may not have as strong of a recollection of Wikipedia as a reader. I was in reader only mode less than two years ago, and I can honestly tell you that if Wikipedia had presented itself in a manner that wasn't like a serious encyclopedia I wouldn't have read it. In addition, I wouldn't have edited it. There are many wikis I could choose from; however, I edit this one because it is a quality product. Ryan Vesey 04:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think you are wrong when you say "A vast majority of readers will never edit, under any circumstances". Wikipedia as it is is uninviting to anyone who wants to edit. Plus is fails completely at turning those who would have never thought to edit into keen editors. I wholeheartedly believe that editors and the readers are one in the same. Any reader has the potential to edit, and to make Wikipedia better. Why have we not harnessed this awesome power? Why are we instead happy to make Wikipedia 'something to be read' (not 'something to be edited'), and therefore make it very hard for people to make that jump? This reader -> editor jump is a lot harder than many poeple give it credit for, and when faced with cruel, harsh comments from people at the highest rungs of the Wiki-caste system early in their Wiki-experience, the result is a further deterance and alienation in "switching sides". But then we have to ask if there actually are 2 sides. Perhaps they are one in the same. I, Coin945, an not an editor. I am an edi-reader (or readiter.. whatever you want to call it... i'm on the same vein as spect-actor here). Sometimes I want to edit and create, and other times I merely browse - just like any other reader - to discover and to learn. By making the home page a wonderful meld of the two 'types of wikipedia-people', we can end this seeming dichotimy by exposing the truth. You: yes you.. the person who stumbled upon this page today in the hopes of finding some info on your latest school assignment, you have the power to make a difference, and here are a few tools to help you on a wondrous journey, a journey that you can partake with many others just like you. ...Okay, granted that is a very airy-fairy way to look at it, but my point is that we have got to find ways to make the reader-editor transition smoother and easier.... with the ultimate goal of making it dead obvious that they are one in the same. This was Jimbo's original plan: to have a encyclopedia where you could be reaing somehting casually, and then suddenly see something tat could be improved, and realise that you have the power to improve it yourself. But somewhere along the way we got this core part of wikipedia horribly wrong, and have now landed in a harsh beaurocratic environment. Fine.. keep the featured article.. because it's encouraging to know your hard work will see your article on the main page. Keep some of the other stuff too. But I'm saying that we should include those little things that will catch some casual reader's attention one day, and make them say: "wow... i *can* make a difference...".--Coin945 (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A few points:

• TOTD: The tip-of-the-day template is already prominently included at Help:Contents, the main help page. It's not really targeted at converting readers-to-editors; it includes far too many specialized tips (see the full list at Wikipedia:Tip of the day).
• Conversions: For encouraging readers to become editors, we have a huge variety of methods, from the [Edit] links in every heading/subheading/template, to the maintenance banners that implore anyone to assist, to the anyone can edit link on the Main Page. (There is a Wikipedia:2012 main page redesign proposal too, but that needs some expert input, otherwise it's going to fizzle out.)
• For advanced work that is being done on this front, see Wikipedia:Editor engagement and Meta:Editor engagement experiments.

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Better at Wikipedia:Community portal, not the main page. --69.158.118.187 (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, last time we had a discussion about a redesign I advocated having a section aimed at new editors and potential editors. The section would (i) highlight work that needs doing (randomised examples) (ii) provide basic guidance on what the work involves (eg wikifying) with links to more detailed help. The Main Page can and should be a tool for getting more readers engaged with editing; but in addition, I think it's valuable to give readers more of a sense of how editing works. Rd232 ^talk 09:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Transpose the last three sections

The last three sections - "Wikipedia languages", "Wikipedia's sister projects", and "Other areas of Wikipedia" - should be be reversed in order going down the page. I am guessing that it may be a better order in terms of reader interest. Do we have data that could establish the level of reader interest? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree regarding Other areas of Wikipedia. Like the sections above it, it's about this site, so it wouldn't make sense for it to follow two sections pertaining primarily to other sites.

We originally displayed Wikipedia's sister projects and Wikipedia languages in the opposite order. They were swapped to enable the inclusion of additional languages without pushing down any other content. (No matter how many we add, it only makes the page longer.) —David Levy 17:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Number of articles

• Main page says: 6,934,326 articles in English.

This figure is incorrect because it includes at least 366,543 disambiguation pages. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

disambiguation pages aren't articles??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.118.187 (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A disambiguation is not an article according to Wikipedia:What is an article? and Article (publishing). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We must also remember to minus 1, since the Main Page is in the article namespace. AdamSommerton (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, what about lists? If Featured Lists are separate from Featured Articles, then surely Lists aren't considered Articles either? AdamSommerton (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See Special:Allpages. It breaks it up into alphabetical breakdowns (which are broken down further) there are 3 sections of lists in there, one of which is complete and two are partial. I think we could assume that there are roughly two full list sections. There are 71 total of those large sections. That means each section is composed of roughly 56,000 pages. That would mean we have over 100,000 articles beginning with list of. In any case, I see no reason to exclude lists because they are content pages. I don't see any way to exclude disambiguation pages in our count since it draws from statistical information based on mainspace, I believe. Ryan Vesey 00:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Lists are still articles according to Article_(publishing)#Listicles. Redirects are excluded but they are in mainspace. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Suddenly I feel like eating a popsicle. 86.128.224.90 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfree image used for today's FA

This image cannot be used on the main page, nor can it be on Commons. A costume replicating one worn in a copyrighted video game is a derivative work of the game and a picture of someone wearing that costume at a convention cannot thus be licensed under CC unless the actual game itself is.

Or am I missing something here? Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe you might be right. The blurb went up without an image, but as is unfortunately usually the case, someone went and added one after the fact. It should be stripped out of the TFA blurb for the time being at the very least. GRAPPLE X 02:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Image pulled. —David Levy 02:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I just took care of it. Yes. This image wasn't even in the article to begin with. Now to nominate it for deletion from Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume that your edit submission nearly coincided with mine.  :)

I've also notified Neelix, the editor behind most TFA image additions (including this one and an earlier attempt). —David Levy 03:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I replaced it with a free one of Steve Downes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that we were better off with no image, to be honest. This one simply doesn't illustrate the article's subject. Downes (whose likeness isn't widely recognizable, even among fans of the game) isn't mentioned in the article (and wasn't mentioned in the blurb until the image was added). We shouldn't insert a tangentially relevant image for the sake of having an image. —David Levy 03:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not really in favour of TFA requiring an image—it's all well and good if something free, recognisable and relevant exists but given that DYK, ITN, OTD and TFP are all illustrated, as is TFL when it occurs, then we don't need to force something in for the sake of having an image. GRAPPLE X 03:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well ... this decision, IMO, should have been made before the blurb was on the Main Page. I agree with the tangential relevance of the image, but we've done this with tons of other articles about copyrighted works we've run on the Main Page. Unless we make some sort of official policy out of this, we can't suddenly decide to stop now. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well ... this decision, IMO, should have been made before the blurb was on the Main Page.

To what decision are you referring? The featured article director prepared today's section without an image. —David Levy 04:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, which just shows how screwy this process is. Perhaps there should be some note, if no image is used, as to why. I do remember the old days before the free-images rule, when every main page FA had an image, and I think that the images break up the text and make people more likely to read it and click through. Plus they make a point about our commitment to promoting free content. Daniel Case (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be some note, if no image is used, as to why.

It's self-explanatory; Raul (or Dabomb) didn't find a suitable free image when preparing the copy.

This, of course, doesn't always mean that no suitable free image exists. But when we resort to inserting a picture of a car used to advertise the [non-automotive] subject or a person not mentioned in the article, it's a distinct possibility.

I do remember the old days before the free-images rule, when every main page FA had an image,

I miss those days. Upon their conclusion is exactly when the problem began. I'll never forget the fact that this happened.

and I think that the images break up the text and make people more likely to read it and click through.

This is offset by the "What's that thing?"/"Who's that guy?" factor.

Plus they make a point about our commitment to promoting free content.

We promote free content by using it appropriately. Displaying an irrelevant (or barely relevant) image makes free content look bad. —David Levy 15:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the tangential relevance of the image, but we've done this with tons of other articles about copyrighted works we've run on the Main Page.

It depends on the context. For example, if the featured article is about a book, a photograph of its author has a reasonable amount of illustrative value. Conversely, if the featured article is about a video game, a photograph of an unrecognizable voice actor (who isn't even mentioned in the article) simply doesn't illustrate the subject. It serves no purpose other than filling space. —David Levy 04:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean "wasn't mentioned in the blurb". Daniel Case (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Steve Downes isn't mentioned in Halo 2, today's featured article. —David Levy 15:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless we make some sort of official policy out of this, we can't suddenly decide to stop now.

Stop what? Our longstanding convention is to include an image if a free one illustrating the featured article's subject is available (and not include one otherwise). —David Levy 04:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is that we have stretched this one mightily in the past. I don't see why a voice actor of a major game character would be any more tangential than a writer for a TV show. I think people are accustomed to us running pictures of some creative type at a convention with many of our articles on games/TV shows/movies etc. Daniel Case (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why a voice actor of a major game character would be any more tangential than a writer for a TV show.

A TV show's writer is strongly associated with the production and might even be widely recognizable (depending on his/her level of fame). He/she probably is directly or indirectly quoted in the article. At the very least, he/she is credited with the work's authorship.

This is hardly comparable to an individual not even mentioned in the article.

I think people are accustomed to us running pictures of some creative type at a convention with many of our articles on games/TV shows/movies etc.

They also are accustomed to us running no picture in many such instances. —David Levy 15:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

By unfortunate coincidence, we seem to have four white males on the Main Page right now. Not that it's relevant to the discussion or anything, just thought I'd point it out. I think the usual practice when TFA is about a non-free work is to either not have an image, or to use one of the primary creator of the work. A voice actor in this case is probably not the best one to use. I am of the opinion that omitting the image is better than having a tangential one. —howcheng {chat} 05:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, I've removed the image. —David Levy 06:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"By unfortunate coincidence"?! Sorry but that whole statement comes across as a rather racist remark to me. I'm sure that it wasn't meant as such but it certainly can be read that way. violet/riga _^[talk] 11:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that Howard was referring to the lack of variety, not to anything undesirable about images of white males in particular. —David Levy 11:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. —howcheng {chat} 16:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I do declare! ANOTHER video game as today's featured article? How bourgeois!--WaltCip (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

For once FA has been outclassed by both FL and ITN. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why can't any of the images in the article of Halo 2 be used? 2.102.185.41 (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

All third-party content appearing on our main page is free. None of the images from the Halo 2 article fulfill this requirement. —David Levy 19:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is non-free content allowed in articles but not on the main page? 2.102.185.41 (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Main Page is supposed to show our best work. We are trying to be a free encyclopedia, and so non-free content is embarrassing and we don't show it in such a prominent place. —Kusma (t·c) 08:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This has never really been properly discussed, just imposed by diktat. The issue comes up surprisingly often, and I for one think it's a stupid thing to do (and isn't mandated by any of our policies). But this probably isn't the best time to argue about it. Modest Genius ^talk 11:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The main stupid thing we do is allow non-free images in an otherwise free encyclopedia. Once we fix that problem, the Main Page is not an issue anymore anyway. —Kusma (t·c) 12:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you call several thousand images which often provide crucial encyclopedic information (a picture is often worth a 1000 words) which are irreplaceable and often subject to petty copyright laws stupid then I don't think you are qualified to comment about encyclopedic comment. Yes, some people abuse fair use and misunderstand it but I think you're missing that thousands of images we have are certainly not replacable with free imagery and greatly improve quality/benefit us. It would be encyclopedically damaging to not merit any fair use imagery and it concerns me greatly that you can't see that. The problem is inconsistency and double standards in applying laws on here and the wiki image police who always take the worst possible scenario in assessing any image.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I certainly see that use of non-free content helps create a better encyclopedia. The presence of non-free content creates a much worse free encyclopedia, though. Non-free content that is easily available on the web does not need to be included here. I see a point in having otherwise inaccessible non-free content here, but that does not mean I have to like it. (Yes, I support WP:VEGAN). —Kusma (t·c) 18:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Vegans often make exceptions. Some health-improving/life-saving medical treatments are non-vegan and have no viable vegan substitutes.

The question is whether our limited use of non-free content is analogous to the inclusion of non-vegan food (as suggested in the essay to which you linked) or non-vegan medicine. Obviously, that's a matter of opinion, and it certainly is possible to take a nuanced position (as you've done above). —David Levy 19:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see. Yes I agree, it is stupid to call it a "free encyclopedia" and have several hundred thousand unfree images which are not really distributable for commerical purposes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:VEGAN is a silly metaphor. There's no such thing as a "Comprehensive Potluck" that allows diners to sample every food item ever invented, but an encyclopedia is defined by its comprehensiveness.

That completely breaks the metaphor. By recasting Wikipedia in metaphor as something where comprehensiveness would be undesirable, it completely ignores primary cause of the problem. It's a false parallel that seems disingenuous at best. 71.235.141.252 (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea is to create the best encyclopaedia we can, not the best repository of freely-licensed images (that's what Commons is for). Modest Genius ^talk 15:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The rule began with a vague comment by Jimbo (inspired by his mistaken belief that a suitable free image was available and had been rejected in favor of a non-free one), but I seem to recall someone pointing out that the WMF subsequently adopted a formal policy against fair-use images on projects' main pages. (I might be mistaken.)

Wikipedia certainly has a policy prohibiting the use of non-free images outside the article namespace (apart from administrative exemptions), and Main Page's presence in that space is a vestigial technicality. (I do, however, believe that limited use of non-free images on the main page should be permitted.) —David Levy 16:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• That is... a complete comedy of errors. Copyvio and fair use images, one after another. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Kazakh WP

The Kazakh Wikipedia now has over 150,000 articles and should be so included under Wikipedia languages. --Ipigott (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Kazakh? Is that a new linux distribution like ubuntu? 190.51.167.210 (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

There's plagiarism in the main page article. "The club hoped to create an intimate environment as well as a supply-and-demand factor that would reward season ticket holders and encourage early purchase of seats." is a rip off of "The club then further reduced seating to about 27,700 seats for the remainder of the 14 regular-season MLS home games, hoping to create an intimate environment as well as a supply-and-demand factor that would reward season ticket holders and encourage early purchase of seats." in this source. And so on. --KMalaysia (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)