Page semi-protected

Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203

Main Page error reports

To report an error in current or upcoming Main Page content, please add it to the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quotation of all or part of the text in question will help.
  • Please 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 02:15 on 19 May 2022), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not give you a faster response; it is unnecessary as this page is not protected and will in fact cause problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • Done? Once an error has been fixed, rotated off the Main Page or acknowledged not to be an error, the report will be removed from this page; please check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the relevant article or project talk page.
  • Please respect other editors. A real person wrote the blurb or hook for which you are suggesting a fix, or a real person noticed what they honestly believe is an issue with the blurb or hook that you wrote. Everyone is interested in creating the best Main Page possible; with the compressed time frame, there is sometimes more stress and more opportunities to step on toes. Please be civil to fellow users.
  • Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, consider first attempting to fix the problem there before reporting it here if necessary. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. In addition, upcoming content is typically only protected from editing 24 hours before its scheduled appearance; in most cases, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know"

Current DYK

Next DYK

  • ".. that Josef V. von Wöss, a church musician in Vienna, wrote a piano reduction of Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde and a thematic analysis of the work?" - suggest linking piano reduction as a term likely to be unfamiliar to the general reader. DuncanHill (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, thanks Duncan. Stephen 02:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

  • "1965 – While attempting to land at Cairo International Airport, Pakistan International Airlines Flight 705 crashed for unknown reasons, killing all but 6 of the 121 people on board." - unclosed bolding of text after "705". DuncanHill (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, thanks. Stephen 02:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(May 20, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(May 23)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Suggestion

Redlinks, a few red links would be selected every week to be placed on the front page to be created by people. Atleast the Finnish wikipedia is doing this, i dont know about others. --Kilaseell - Message me! - 12:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds intriguing. How are they selected? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In finnish wikipedia anyone can add them, i think
That'd be a bad idea here tho. --Kilaseell - Message me! - 06:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good red links are a precious resource. Also, given that the English Wikipedia unfortunately does not allow new accounts to create articles, the proposal will run into some logistical challenges. —Kusma (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think about that. --Kilaseell - Message me! - 08:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you need autoconfirmed to create pages, perhaps the list of red links might entice readers to create an account and learn about the basics of editing Wikipedia? That way, once they build up the experience doing basic edits, they can then think about building articles from that red link list. Hx7 18:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea! --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 19:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a list of red links, called Wikipedia:Requested articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now put it on the main page, and maybe transclude the most requested ones. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 02:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with this is that content on the Main Page should be accessible to every/the average reader of Wikipedia. I'm afraid if we put redlinks on it, people will just get frustrated that they get enticed to write articles they can't actually publish (yet). Additionally, I'm concerned about trolls/vandals abusing the redlinks to get vandalistic content on one of, if not the most widely seen/recognized page of the service. Amadeus22 🙋 🔔 14:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Having one of the first things one sees on Wikipedia be something tailored towards registered and knowledgeable editors might cause more vandals to unnecessarily create or bring traffic to drafts of these missing pages. I also feel like it would be slightly discouraging to some who might just want to read or edit in small bits, regardless of whether or not it might entice new editors to try to write a new article. - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 15:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Community portal may be a better venue for this. --PFHLai (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • i would like quote of the day instead maybe book of the day our source of the day , species, word Baratiiman (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which admin keeps adding snooker tournaments to the main page? I literally notice this once a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedkaczynski69 (talkcontribs) 00:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in the TFA archives for April 2022 and saw no snooker tournaments. WaltCip-(talk) 19:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's topical: the 2022 World Snooker Championship finished today. One mention seems reasonable. Certes (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TFA is mine - always do the anniversary of the event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tens of millions of readers used to come to the main page every day, yearning for information about tourism in Gibraltar, or cleverly written articles with the word "cunt" in the titles. Now, tastes have changed and the masses yearn for coverage of snooker and rowing races between Oxford and Cambridge. But if we are highlighting "Featured" articles instead of broadly interesting, informative and well written articles, then the Main page will forever be skewed toward the focuses of a relative handful of editors who enjoy navigating the FA gauntlet. Cullen328 (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 Let's change it then. How about allow a vetted good article in TFA? It is not an unreasonable request. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vetted by whom? For what? How? Why? WaltCip-(talk) 13:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of 1 person, we have 2 people looking at an article to make sure that stuff isn't of low quality. The reason being that most FAs are disproportionately about warfare, hurricanes, and sport matches. It is unfair that other topics don't get mentioned as often. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have the power to fix that all by yourself and without changing Wikipedia policy or practices. All you have to do is to find an article in an underrepresented topic, and bring it up to FA standards. We don't need to lower standards, we need more articles improved to the highest standards. If you want a wider range of topics promoted to TFA, then find those under-represented topics and make them better. It's a lot of work, but then again, the people who wrote the FA-quality articles on warfare, hurricanes, and sports matches worked really hard too. You wouldn't have to work any harder than they did. I myself have seen two articles and one list I was the principle author of get to TFA/TFL; it was a lot of work, but it can be done by (essentially) one person. --Jayron32 14:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit confused. It's been well over six months since I last nominated an article for TFA. I have around 20 more articles that haven't been through TFA, we could push them through more often if you like. People work on articles that they want too. We also actively state what articles are to be FA well ahead of time and you can even comment on requested TFAs, such as this one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm completely baffled by this discussion too. The article which started this debate, (2021 World Snooker Championship), is an excellent, high-quality piece of work. It is extensively referenced throughout and is highly informative on the subject in question. Yet here we find editors carping about making sure that "stuff isn't of low quality" and how we should feature "informative and well written articles" instead. Have people actually looked at the articles they're criticising? If only all our current sport articles were of this standard. Effy Midwinter (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to pay attention to the indent levels to understand who is responding to whom. At 13:54, 6 May 2022, CactiStaccingCrane expressed dismay at the lack of diversity of TFA articles, specifically calling it "unfair" that some topics aren't mentioned as often as he would like. I was responding to that one comment only, buy suggesting a productive and highly effective way for CactiStaccingCrane to solve the problem all by himself. My comment was not directed at Lee Vilenski or Effy Midwinter, or anyone else except the person to whom I was speaking. Context matters, and in this case, context should have made it clear who I was talking to. If it did not, then I am making very explicit the context of my comments, who they were directed at, and what specifically that person said, and what my comments in response to them were intended for. Does that makes sense to you? --Jayron32 18:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This became a non-discussion when the OP stated I literally notice this once a week which, of course, is utter bollocks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Ted' got 800 words of blather out of it though. -- Sca (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help!

How can I help in contributing to the main page? Makerman88 (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makerman88 By participating in the processes that determine what appears there, such as WP:ITNC and WP:DYK. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Makerman88 On your userpage you mention you are interested in STEM subjects. Take a look at Category:Space program of the United States stubs and Category:European space programme stubs to see if there are any very short articles you are interested in writing more about and expanding. If you can expand one of those articles to 5x its current length, you could then nominate it to appear in the did you know section. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Four separate mentions. Is this a new record? It's ridiculous to pretend that there's any fig leaf of impartiality anymore when Wikipedia packs the MP with conspicuously-fawning factoids about the same insignificant country day after day after day for months straight. And the drumbeat of unapologetic cheerleading is particularly distasteful on the same day that the MP observes the "International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia" considering the sickening depths of Ukrainian LGBT-phobia. .froth. (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you asking for exactly? WaltCip-(talk) 17:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I doubt anyone is interested in actually doing anything, but at this point it's obvious that the original policy discussions ought to be revisited. At the time everyone was so fired-up and eager to be a zero-cent army for their favorite governments that they piled on e.g. here with votes insisting that there be no policy at all, no doubt understanding perfectly well that this would allow whomever in the English-speaking world has the most editor-time to run the show, as a way to take a meaningless stand and feel like they're helping win a war somehow. However, this is dragging on and getting increasingly out of hand. On average 2 or 3 mentions per day for months, and now 4 at once? It's grating.
Yes that is "airing a complaint" - and as far as I'm concerned this is the appropriate place for it. Ideally there would be a flood of feedback like this from people annoyed by main page policy, and what are they supposed to do, bring up a separate discussion in every single MP subsection? Or bury away discussion about a specific page's content in VP for some reason? If closing sections raising issues is really policy then it sounds like you have two policies to unbreak. This is the natural place for it and the place every average user will go to look for it. .froth. (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just did CTRL+F on the main page, and indeed "Ukraine" + "Ukrainian" appear four times. Let's look at them. (1) One is the "ongoing" ITN mention of the Russian invasion. This is still top news in the world, and belongs there. (2) Ukraine won the Eurovision contest, and we post Eurovision's winner every year. You can argue that Ukraine only won because of international events, but we are merely imparting the news that they won. (3) and (4) are DYK entries that both reference Ukraine, one about a British historian of Russia and the other about a sculpture by a Ukrainian artist. Perhaps those should have gone up on different days, but neither references the ongoing invasion. None of these four postings are unapologetic cheerleading or conspicuously-fawning factoids. In a few hours, we'll have a new set of DYKs, and Ukraine isn't mentioned in them. No actions will be taken here, though I can see a potential WP:BOOMERANG if the original poster doesn't WP:DROPTHESTICK. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. If you've seen the MP over the last few months you know exactly what I'm talking about. I am so sick of the shameless gaslighting every single time. Wikipedia is literally no better than a westoid centrist version of fucking Conservapedia, except that everyone here is so comfortable with the status quo that they don't even realize how laced it is with your ideology. Well I'm done improving this nauseating monument to smug Euro-American neoliberalism. Coincidentally, that was my 11,000th edit. On an account active for nearly 17 years. And what's that on my user page, it's {{retired}}. And my email has been unlinked from my account. And my password has been changed to a random string. Block me if you want; it doesn't matter because I don't have access to this account anymore. .froth. (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that you have decided to flush your Wikipedia career away. We're only as good as the people who choose to participate. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, the mindless slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians is just "Euro-American neoliberalism." Those folk in that "insignificant country" don't deserve news stories, do they. Utterly disgusting. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Froth If you want to push Ukraine stories off the Main Page for whatever reason, please participate in the processes that determine what the Main Page displays, such as WP:ITNC and WP:DYK. Ukraine is hardly an "insignificant country" right now. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or ever, really. Ukraine was the Soviet Union's breadbasket. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Picture of the day

Picture of the day is a feature on the main page that is urgently in need of other participants. There is no co-ordinator and I have been listing most of the POTDs myself, but now have less time to devote to Wikipedia than previously. For example, there are five days in May for which POTDs have yet to be selected. Help would be much appreciated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]