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 03:16 on 25 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)

Today's FA

• I uploaded a cropped version of the image featured in the blurb, which looks better in my opinion. Does anybody know which page to purge to make that one display instead?--NØ 15:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your cropped one is showing to me now, the one with little of the red at the bottom? Stephen 01:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(December 27)

Monday's FL

(December 30)

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

Beta

Some minor improvements. When or how did this come about? Simply south (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Usability Initiative - BanyanTree 11:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the text adverts (Help us provide free content to the world by donating today!) overlap, and thus block, the beta link. 800 pixels wide is narrow, but not freakishly so in a world of netbooks and mobile devices. Who wants to know? Main page people (hence my comment here) or the usability broject? 87.112.16.11 (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You may want to try http://mobile.wikipedia.org/ which is specifically designed for easy viewing on mobile devices. It does omit some of the images and tables in the articles though. Thingg^⊕⊗ 23:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree we should be advocating the mobile site for a 800 pixels wide window, which as the anon has stated is hardly small. I don't think it's a main page issue however since it can occur on any page Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. 800px is a reasonably wide window on most screens. I've noticed that people who habitually browse the web fullscreen have difficulty understanding that a large percentage of people don't, and don't want to. (I've even spoken to web designers who regard it as a bug that web browsers can be used in non-fullscreen mode!) However, Wikipedia is primarily a reference tool and will OFTEN be used in conjunction with other active windows, so these sorts of small windows have to be accommodated.

In addition most browsers now have a zoom feature. Even if you're browsing fullscreen, you may have the zoom feature on to give a much lower effective resolution. (Perhaps you have poor eyesight.) APL (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Why does the usability initiative insist on a smaller font size? Sorry but you lost me. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

They’ve changed the font size a couple of times in the middle of my browsing, so I’m sure they’re just trying to work out the kinks. -BRPXQZME (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey BRPXQZME, you're right. Thanks to whoever changed it. Now I can look at your work. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

FA free image

would this do?86.167.245.89 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll probably be told that it's a derivative work. Really, "no fair use on the main page" is a punitive policy for editors of copyrighted topic articles, and it wasn't even created by consensus; WP:JIMBO just decided fair use images aren't going on the main page one day. It's frustrating. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 15:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The lack of an image on TFA doesn't penalise editors. AFAIK Raul does not give lower priority to FAs without free images. If editors feel their contributions are somehow worth less because there's no image, that's a very sorry situation and if anything, the policy should hopefully discourage such silly thinking. In any case, it's not our responsibility to fix editors personal problems. This is of course completely unrelated to whether the policy has consensus and the background to how it was formed and whether the main page is better or worse for the policy, those are different issues and IMHO not worth discussing here. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, I don't want to get into the policy debate (since I doubt this will ever change), but! A blurb without an image is a wall of text. More people might read my FAs on the main page with an image, so there is some form of penalty. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 16:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont think its about the editors. people just dont get the whole no fair use image on main page policy. to be honest neither do i as there is pretty much no strong point against it except that jimbo once asked to only use free images (i believe it was some scooby doo article). The only argument is that main page is not an article... but its neither a gallery. image is only being used to refer to article being featured and i see no reason why it can be used inside article but not be used to refer to it. i suppose people just dont want to go against jimbo but it is one of the weird policies that we seem to follow here. (which as u said most likely will never change) -- Ashish-g55 16:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your views on the matter there are two obvious things to consider. By definition, a non free image is not our best work since it's not out work. Also, as we are a free encyclopedia and both of these are equally important, the goals are always going to come into conflict when we use non free content and it's always (not just here) a delicate balancing point. Some people argue that by excluding images we aren't doing justice to our goal as an encylopaedia yet there's an equally valid argument by including free images, on the main page, which is intended to highlight our content we aren't doing justice to our goal to be free. Ultimately, both sides have valid points and after this has been debated so many times the fact that people still don't accept this is IMHO part of the problem. I definitely accept that those who want non free images have valid points (even if I don't agree that there points are strong enough to include non free images). Although just to be clear, I'm not saying either side is more guilty of refusing to accept there are valid points each way simply pointing out that once you deny that the other side has valid policy based viewpoint, wherever you stand on the matter, any reasoned debate becomes difficult. P.S. It's worth remembering that there are definitely going to be some cases where we exclude images whatever the policy for the main page. For example Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2008#October 4 which is Tyrone Wheatley. As per policy, images simply to show what a living person looks like are not allowed and no image is in the infobox. You'd need a substanial change in policy, beyond simply the main page, to allow a non free image for him. This doesn't mean the stronger policy is right but it's also clearly not a cut and dry issue Nil Einne (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

. If anything, the fact that TFAs without images is more unusual is IMHO more likely to get readers to notice. Nil Einne (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone ever compared click-through rates on articles with and without an image? APL (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Why are there so many games that are today's featured article? Or is this a subjective view of me? --213.168.121.113 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I think you're right. There are a lot of Wikipedian gamers (I'm certainly not one) so we often end up with good (in the general meaning of the term) articles on that topic, the same way we have a lot of good articles about science fiction, quirky subcultures, and popular culture in general. It would be nice if a higher percentage of our featured articles were of a more traditionally "encyclopedic" nature (not that excellent articles about video games are not valuable - they are), but when you have a predominantly young, tech savvy corps of contributors that's obviously going to be reflected in terms of what topics are covered most effectively. Just my two cents, though I think I'm basically mouthing received wisdom here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia has a disproportionate number of people interested in this topic and attempts to wean them onto topics such as knitting and cuisine of Benin have thus far been unsuccessful. Perhaps this appalling situation may improve if you contribute to an article in a topic which you feel is underrepresented. --candle•wicke 21:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah the "young, tech savvy corps". I would say that I am the first part of that however on the second bit I fall down terribly. I can barely understand how to comment nevermind edit the article. All i can do is dream, while reading "War and Peace" and drinking a cup of tea......--Willski72 (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at last months FAs there was a majority of FAs regarding people, 7 in total and only 2 articles about games. There were an equal amount of articles on storms, there were also 2 with music themes and 2 with war themes. So last month had a person bias. It is the same this month. So far only 1 game article with one coming up and 5 articles (altogether) about people. As previously stated if you want to see articles about things that interest you, you should help out expanding those articles, as clearly we need more articles that aren't about people.Dark verdant (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's the sample you want to use, then 2 in one month is actually a very glaring bias towards that area. Unless you're really claiming that if you put all things in the world worthy of research and reportage into a big pile, 1/15th of that pile would be taken up by computer games. --86.154.1.217 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Morakot

Casualty caused by Morakot in Taiwan is far more greater than the main page news section indicates. Around 600 have been confirmed to be buried under mudslide in Shiao Lin village, Kaohsiung County 1, and thousands are either left homeless or missing 2. Please update the main page accordingly. -- 122.120.160.236 (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also please change "China" into "Mainland China" to avoid political troubles.Alonso McLaren (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Slovakia Mine Disaster

I don't think this incident is worth putting on the Main Page. Mine disasters resulting in more than 20 deaths happen almost every two weeks in China. Alonso McLaren (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You probably should take that discussion to WP:ITN/C, but anyway: If they are that common in China, they are not notable. But if they are unusual in Europe, they may be. Just like the first open and fair elections in Saudi Arabia would be a lot more notable than the umpteenth in e.g. Denmark. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This one led to an emergency session of government and a national day of mourning today. It is the deadliest mining disaster in Slovakia's history and has led to more deaths than Slovakia has experienced in this way in over 12 years. --candle•wicke 14:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Were all the miners who died from Slovakia itself? If not this could have international connotations too.--Willski72 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

either way i believe it qualifies for international interest. -- Ashish-g55 20:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit

I remember a while back, the phrase associated with Wikipedia was "The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit!" Now it says "The Free Encyclopedia." I find this very uninspiring. Can someone please change it back to the way it was? The older phrase better captures the spirit of this encyclopedia. Tr32 (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The top of the main page says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Algebraist 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better reflection of Wikipedia policy is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (the parts that aren't controversial)". But that's just my remaining bitterness over how IP article creation was turned off several years ago as a temporary measure, hasn't been re-enabled since, and how the situation with IP contributors has got even worse since then with the introduction of semi-protection and additional roles like rollback. Anyhow... -93.97.122.93 (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are a large number of controversial articles that anyone can edit. Edit: And a lot of relatively uncontroversial articles that are semi/protected. The key thing is whether the articles are frequent victims of misguided editing and vandalism, not whether they are controversial. Also the lack of rollback doesn't stop you editing. It may make it more hard but it doesn't stop it. (Obviously semi-protection does.) Also as you purposely or not I'm not sure hinted at, it doesn't actually say anyone can edit every page. Finally, the anyone can edit bit doesn't actually say anything about anons or not needing registration. Anyone is entitled to register for an account so every if we did remove anon editing, it would arguably remain the free encylopaedia that anyone can edit. It will obviously make people less likely to edit and I understand why some people may not want to register for an account and I'm not proposing we do it, but it's worth remembering 'anyone editing' and 'anon editing' are different things and not mutually inclusive. Technically of course, it's not true that anyone can edit wikipedia. Banned people can't (well they may be able to find a way, but they're not supposed to). And if you want to go to a more complex level when you start discussing anons you have to consider things like the fact you do actually need an internet connection to edit. Ultimately of course, the vision statement is, as with most, more intended to capture the 'spirit' (As Tr32 said) rather then something intended to summarise precisely what wikipedia is. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This inspires me to propose a new tagline for Britannia - the encyclopaedia anyone can edit (assuming they are an expert in their field) -93.97.122.93 (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt Britannica (if that's what you mean) allows anyone who's an expert to edit. There's a vast difference between an encylopaedia edited by experts, and an encylopaedia any expert can edit. I do expect anyone can submit corrections to Britannica, and an experts suggestions will probably get more weight, but in most cases I would expert it's someone else, not the suggestor who actually edits the articles. That's simply the way Britannica works. Citizendium is far closer to what you're trying to describe Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally, the anyone can edit bit doesn't actually say anything about anons or not needing registration. actually, it does say that. It says it clearly, unambiguously, in the founding principles. The ability of anyone to edit (most) articles without registration,. You can't get much clearer than that. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit" captures what's actually engaging about the wikipedia idea, and that the most engaging topics to contribute to are precisely the "controversial" ones. Sadly, this article by the guardian on a study by the Palo Alto Research Center (Parc) in California, shows that wikipedia's environment has become more and more hostile towards new users, and there is a clan of established users that is discouraging new people to contribute.--Sum (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Its the old freedom argument isnt it. Do you allow complete freedom, which will either bring complete perfection or complete disaster, or do you allow a carefully controlled level of freedom that satisfies most people and can be increased or decreased depending on the situation (ie. how governments do it and how Wikipedia does it). It prevents total disaster but also prevents a level of perfection.--Willski72 (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the core problems with Wikipedia is that it's not in any way democratic. Rather, it's a mediocracy of the motivated, a tyranny of bureaucracy, with those who 'run' much of it being a minority of self-appointed leaders that entrench themselves in the running of the site. These people are not representative of the silent majority that use the site, they have biases that lead them to influence certain decisions irrespective of whether it's ultimately good for the site (as long as it's good from /their/ point of view), slow down most attempted progress, and are a plague of busy-bodies that are impossible to get rid of and increase by the day. What Wikipedia longs for is a strong, forward-looking, centralised leadership that can make the tough decisions required when necessary that the community can rally around. These people can make decisions that the community has managed to fail at making and be able to do the ground-work necessary to represent the true "average user": whether manage to complete a desperately needed main-page redesign; to fixing the themeing of the site; be a central authority that administrators answer to prevent them using their tools ad-hoc as they do today; or finally managing to make the core Wikipedia functionality usable to the common man, rather than flagged revisions and editing being the utter UI disaster they are, or the laughable mess that is the MediaWiki template syntax. But this won't happen, because those busy-bodies will indicate that their very own version of "consensus" is against it.

Also, Governments don't pretend to have the tagline "The free country where anybody can do anything". -93.97.122.93 (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course we're not a democracy and consensus can change, I'm not sure how one single person would be in charge of four thousand people each of whom edit for their own reasons and in their own free time, as a cost of $0 to the WMF. We have a decision making process, it's called discussion, and your doing it. -Darrenhusted (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Those links to acronyms typify the current problems with the inhabitance of Wikipedia, people who would rather point to arbitrary rules rather than actually think and discuss how things should work in reality. I'm well aware of how Wikipedia currently works, I've been editing on and off for at least half a decade. I don't see why a single person can't be in charge - plenty of other businesses and companies manage quite successfully with that structure. The "you can't manage volunteers" argument is clearly flawed - other well-known successful charities like Oxfam or the Mozilla Foundation have good top-down management. -93.97.122.93 (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The word democracy isn't an acronym, and CCC is quicker to type, as is NOE. And unlike Oxfam and Mozilla this place does not have a specific aim, other than to record all knowledge, it is too big a task to squash in to some kind of structure. We have Wikiprojects, and admins, but really how would what you think would "fix" WP work? If I'm a new editor would I have to report to a boss who would tell me which pages to edit? Would I have to clock in and out? Would I have to only revert vandals? Oxfam doesn't have people breaking into its shops and trashing the place. Name one other business which has nearly 3 million pages of the internet to manage (not including talkpages and WP only pages), name another organisation in the world with 4000 regular unpaid volunteers, the vast majority of whom never have any physical interaction with another volunteer. WP is unique, and to say that "what it needs is..." is ignoring that the current rules are not placed on editors from "on high", they are the result of years of gradual reform. You want to replace a system of management which it the most inclusive with one decided by a cabal and forced on others? And this will fix things, how? Because people enjoy giving time to something they don't feel part of and feel they have no control over? I linked to those pages because they are the quickest way I could point you to what the community has agreed, then move on to do some editing. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The point of having rules is not so that we can stop thinking and discussing, they're so we can think and discuss other things. If we had to debate points of policy without ever referring to rules or precedent (Which is simply another form of rules) every single time they came up, then we would never get anything done, because our very finite volunteer-time would be burned debating things that could simply be decided once, given an acronym and then forgotten about for years. APL (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(to the anon) Amazing. I'm always fascinated by individuals who claim to know what the majority "longs for" (unless you were referring to the programs and documents, not the editors, when you say that "Wikipedia longs" etc.). I haven't noticed myself longing for any of the things you cite in your mini-manifesto, but then, I'm not a majority. I'm also not one of the helpful and cooperatively-minded people you refer to as busy-bodies, although I agree with much of what they say. I suspect that most of the majority simply acquiesces to the policies -- hence their silence.

At the same time, as a relatively new (although logged-in) user, I have added, significantly expanded, and helped save from deletion a number of pages, and the more experienced editors (some of which are far too outspoken to belong to the "silent majority" you describe) have always been very helpful, offering constructive compliments and constructive criticism (both of which are good).

I suggest that one of the following scenarios may be taking place. Either you are allowing a small number of negative experiences (which are inevitable in cooperative enterprises) to color your judgement; you are attempting to use Wikipedia in ways that would be better suited to another website, in which case you're in luck, since there are billions of alternatives; or (most unpleasantly) you may be actually causing problems through selfish behavior, then blaming the consequences on policies and their defenders. I would hope the first scenario describes your situation. If so, please allow positive experiences to eclipse the negative ones. Wikipedia is truly a great, collaborative project that anyone can enjoy and edit... if they choose to cooperate with the community as a whole. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a common mistake to believe that "free" here refers to the price or the freedom to behave how you want on the encyclopedia, when it really refers to free content. howcheng {chat} 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Freeeeeeeedddddddooooooooommmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!! etc etc--Willski72 (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you on that except for the second etc. To that I have to humbly disagree. 04redsox07 (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we can at least respect his freedom to believe in the need for the second etc. J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, anyone can edit any part of Wikipedia. If you have good intentions for a controversial article, it shouldn't bother you to wait a few days to get full privileges. The only people who whine are those who have fairly had their editing abilities revoked for doing something dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.160.77 (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why wasting time on terminology? There is no absolute freedom is this world.Alonso McLaren (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There never has been absolute freedom and there never will be, to have absolute freedom you must be outside of space and time. For example you can raise your left arm leftwards, forwards and backwards (straight out) but you cannot do the same rightwards. This takes up time, in the time it took to do this you could have been doing something else, you cannot get that time back, thus you cannot ever be absolutely free, you are always constrained by something.

I'm quite proud of that second etc and i find it a shame that 04redsox07 cannot agree with me! However i am encouraged in the knowledge that J Milburn has "got my back"!--Willski72 (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

'Kalaiselvan'

This is unique tamil boy name. Kalai = Art Selvan = endowed one. Kalaiselvan = one who is endowed with Art. Persons who one is having name "Kalai" or Kalaiselvan they will have similar characteristics. They will be more helpful, kind, romantic,bold ambitious and lovable persons. The survey shows the above results conducted tamilnadu in the year of 2004.