Talk:Main Page
Welcome! This page is for discussing the contents of the English Wikipedia's Main Page.
For general questions unrelated to the Main Page, please visit the Teahouse or check the links below. To add content to an article, edit that article's page. Irrelevant posts on this page may be removed. Click here to report errors on the Main Page. If you have a question related to the Main Page, please search the talk page archives first to check if it has previously been addressed: For questions about using and contributing to the English Wikipedia:
To suggest content for a Main Page section:
|
![]() | Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled due to vandalism. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account. |
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive. |
---|
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 |
Main Page error reports
![]() | National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously:
|
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 19:42 on 17 April 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.
Errors in the summary of the featured article
- Kindly replace the current image with the higher-resolution File:Bædlingas in the Cleopatra Glossaries.png, which I Dezoomified and cropped. JayCubby 01:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Done Schwede66 03:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- @JayCubby and Schwede66: the image at File:Bædlingas in the Cleopatra Glossaries.png has no valid licence on it and has been flagged on Commons; furthermore the original image has now been removed by Wutsje so I am unable to put that one back in. So for now I have remove the image from the TFA altogether. Please can a correct licence be provided so that it can be reinstated. Also, as an aside, Schwede66 did you make sure the image was protected before switching it in? Just a heads up in case you did not that this is always required, for example by listing it at Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Amakuru, fixed! Not sure how that happened. JayCubby 12:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Still no image in TFA... Renerpho (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that the invalid license tag is still on the commons file, and no one wants to risk it. I certainly don't know enough about how it works to remove the tag myself. If nothing else, the public domain tag that Jay Cubby added seems (not sure) to still require another US public domain tag? Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam, the document is 10th century, so the author has probably been dead for at least 70 years, meaning that the images is public domain. I just forgot to remove AntiCompositeBot's tag.
- The file's license tag was vandalized by an IP. JayCubby 15:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- The book is from the 10th century, but someone had to take screenshots of the bits of text. Wouldn't the author of the image be whoever took the screenshots? Or perhaps the person/people who digitised the book? TurboSuperA+(connect) 15:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- @TurboSuperA+, see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. JayCubby 15:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I've re-added the image to the TFA. It's odd that we're susceptible to drive-by vandalism on Commons like that. I don't know the answer to TurboSuperA's comment, except that - until this whole thing started - there were no concerns about the original image on Commons, and it was only deleted by a Commons admin because this newer image based on that one was created. Certainly not even close to wheel warring if the licensing is questioned on Commons and someone wants to remove the image again. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- The book is from the 10th century, but someone had to take screenshots of the bits of text. Wouldn't the author of the image be whoever took the screenshots? Or perhaps the person/people who digitised the book? TurboSuperA+(connect) 15:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that the invalid license tag is still on the commons file, and no one wants to risk it. I certainly don't know enough about how it works to remove the tag myself. If nothing else, the public domain tag that Jay Cubby added seems (not sure) to still require another US public domain tag? Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Still no image in TFA... Renerpho (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Amakuru, fixed! Not sure how that happened. JayCubby 12:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- @JayCubby and Schwede66: the image at File:Bædlingas in the Cleopatra Glossaries.png has no valid licence on it and has been flagged on Commons; furthermore the original image has now been removed by Wutsje so I am unable to put that one back in. So for now I have remove the image from the TFA altogether. Please can a correct licence be provided so that it can be reinstated. Also, as an aside, Schwede66 did you make sure the image was protected before switching it in? Just a heads up in case you did not that this is always required, for example by listing it at Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it needs {{PD-US}}, and {{PD-scan}}—as a mere mechanical reproduction the scanner creates no new copyright—but of course the pic's protected so needs ... Hey, FunkMonk? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- The image is protected, but the documentation doesn't seem to be. Jay Cubby was able to add those tags. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- I wish I understood Commons a little better.... Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- The file is protected against uploading, but the page is editable. Vandalism of image descriptions is rare (or reverted in most cases), but I think semi-protecting all cascade-protected images would be sensible. JayCubby 15:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm about to go offline, so I *think* we're all set now, but if not, you're going to have to ping a different admin. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- The file is protected against uploading, but the page is editable. Vandalism of image descriptions is rare (or reverted in most cases), but I think semi-protecting all cascade-protected images would be sensible. JayCubby 15:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- I wish I understood Commons a little better.... Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- The image is protected, but the documentation doesn't seem to be. Jay Cubby was able to add those tags. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it needs {{PD-US}}, and {{PD-scan}}—as a mere mechanical reproduction the scanner creates no new copyright—but of course the pic's protected so needs ... Hey, FunkMonk? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- There is no transfer of copyright by mere scanning or photographing a public domain 2D work. So this should be very safe, as long as it has the right copyright tags and sourcing. It seems that has been taken care of? FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- I guess I work on the main page enough to know for sure that images need to be protected, and how to do that, Amakuru. It was a few weeks ago that I realised that you can still edit the image description after protection has kicked in, and that threw me a bit. Not sure whether that was new. I tend to think that this wasn’t possible before. Schwede66 16:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Back in the day, I think cascade protection wasn't a thing, so admins created a local copy and fully protected it. mw:Manual:Administrators has more on the subject.
- I could be wrong though. JayCubby 17:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a recent change. See phab:T24521. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Jlwoodwa, Feb 2025 makes sense. It was about then that I first noticed that. I posted about it here on Errors as I was rather worried but soon realised that uploading a new version of the file was disabled. Schwede66 19:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Errors with "In the news"
Errors in "Did you know ..."
- ... that Gil Hovav (pictured) reads announcements at Ben Gurion Airport for free because he was annoyed by previous small grammatical errors? Well, he did in 2016, who knows whether he still does? The article has the terrible "So he now reads the announcements at Ben Gurion Airport." (emphasis mine) referenced by sources from 2015 and 2016. Please change "reads" to "read". Fram (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Done. RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- The more fundamental problem is that I nominated this article on behalf of an IP editor who has just been identified as a sock; see Template:Did you know nominations/Alex Garfin. We should consider pulling this. Schwede66 19:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Done. RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Errors in "On this day"
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Errors in the summary of the featured picture
General discussion
Top News stories
The 'In the news' section on our main page looks more like a sports page than a news forum. Currently there are three spots related stories in this section The story at the top, which has been posted at least two days, "A nightclub roof collapse in Santo Domingo", while interesting, is certainly not world headline news. Rarely do we see the latest breaking events where it concerns e.g. Ukraine, Israel-Gaza, etc as the lead story. The latest Ukraine missile attack in Sumy should be the top story right about now. We should be seeing more top story news, and fewer stories about sports figures that only appeal to fans of the respective sport involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sports-related items are put into the In the news section of the main page according to the guideline WP:ITNSPORTS. This guideline can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:In the news.
- Editors are welcome to participate in the discussions of candidate news story to put on the main page at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. —andrybak (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Guidelines was not the issue. Lack of top news stories is the issue, with disproportionate sports coverage. Since this is the Talk page to main page, where this situation exists, it seems appropriate that the matter be discussed here.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- The 3 sports blurbs in a row is a bit of a fluke. That usually doesn't happen. Rarely, it's 3 national elections. Rarely, it's 3 natural disasters. Usually, it's a mix of those. It's whatever gets approved at WP:ITNC, using ITN guidelines as a ... guide, so yes, guidelines are the issue. ITN is not a news forum, and it is not intended for "top news stories". It is a place to see quality articles that have been substantially updated about subjects that are in the news. ITN has a system. If you want to change that system, WT:ITN is, indeed, the place to discuss it. If you just want to complain, then here is fine. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Don't appreciate the inference that I'm here 'just' to complain.
It is a place to see quality articles that have been substantially updated about subjects that are in the news.
- There are articles for the Ukraine-Russia war and the Israel-Gaza war, and they are routinely updated as significant events occur. I suppose this is more of a case of no one nominating the article in question, or if they have, it didn't get off the ground. -- Gwillhickers (talk)
- both of those are in the “ongoing” section of ITN, on the main page right now, and have been for months/years. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Don't appreciate the inference that I'm here 'just' to complain.
- The 3 sports blurbs in a row is a bit of a fluke. That usually doesn't happen. Rarely, it's 3 national elections. Rarely, it's 3 natural disasters. Usually, it's a mix of those. It's whatever gets approved at WP:ITNC, using ITN guidelines as a ... guide, so yes, guidelines are the issue. ITN is not a news forum, and it is not intended for "top news stories". It is a place to see quality articles that have been substantially updated about subjects that are in the news. ITN has a system. If you want to change that system, WT:ITN is, indeed, the place to discuss it. If you just want to complain, then here is fine. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Guidelines was not the issue. Lack of top news stories is the issue, with disproportionate sports coverage. Since this is the Talk page to main page, where this situation exists, it seems appropriate that the matter be discussed here.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- There is no 'top news' or 'news forum' section. The section is called 'in the news' because it highlights high-quality encyclopaedic articles that have been updated (or newly created) to reflect current events, see WP:ITNPURPOSE. These are high-quality Wikipedia articles about topics that are in the news, not news stories that happen to link to some articles. The section is not intended to be a news reporting website or to feature every story that is getting media attention. The primary limitations on what gets posted are a) the quality of the associated article, and b) participation in the nomination process at WP:ITN/C. If you would prefer to see more items on other topics, I encourage you to write/improve those articles, and to participate in the nomination process. The section could always do with more volunteers to help keep it running. Modest Genius talk 11:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest going to a news site for news, rather than coming to an encyclopedia and complaining about the poor quality of its news reporting.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Too right, Khajidha. Schwede66 23:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)