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 19:34 on 16 November 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

Atrociraptor dates from around 72.2 to 71.5 million years ago; it survived for more than 2 million years is worded a bit confusingly, as that range is evidently way less than 2 million years.

The article's lead states The holotype specimen is known from the Horsethief Member of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, which [...] ranges from around 72.2 – 71.5 million years ago. Assigned teeth from other parts of the formation indicate it survived for over 2 million years. It could be better to clarify that the "72.2 to 71.5 million years ago" figure is only for the part of the formation where the holotype was found, and doesn't represent the full range of the genus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

"72.2 to 71.5 million years ago" refers to the age of the rock formation, not the genus. I am not sure that the blurb is actually wrong, but it would be clearer if the last sentence were "Atrociraptor dates from around 72 million years ago; it survived for more than 2 million years and across a wide geographic area." Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

It's not easy being green

• ... that ontologists disagree on whether green is real?

This statement does not seem to appear in the article. If the reader looks for it, as I did, they won't find it. It seems to have been invented in the nomination and subsequent discussion rather than being derived from a particular passage in the article. The discussion took place recently but no significant updates were made to the article following it.

Note that WP:DYKHOOK requires that "The wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to who is providing the information". As we don't have clarity about the relevant wording of the article, this is not satisfied. It's also not clear who is supposed to be providing this information as "ontologists" is used in a vague, hand-waving way contrary to WP:WEASEL.

Note also that we have an article green, which is not linked but which tells us lots of things about the concept. To suggest that none of this real seems to make a mockery of our work – crude nihilism. And so this doesn't seem to be a definite fact. As it seems that philosophers can't agree on anything, then they are not reliable sources – just airy opinions.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there appears to be no discussion about whether green, or even color, is "real" in the article. That is problematic, and a new hook probably needs to be found, though finding one for a topic as complex as this could be difficult. Gatoclass (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Universals are general, repeatable entities, like the color green. […] Ontologists disagree about which entities exist on the most basic level. Platonic realism asserts that universals have objective existence. Conceptualism says that universals only exist in the mind while nominalism denies their existence. This looks pretty straightforward to me: ontologists disagree on whether universals are real, and the color green is a universal. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Those quotes are from the lead, which is unsourced. But neither are they adjacent, so the connection between "color" as a universal and universal as a conceptual is anything but obvious. I think the reader is entitled to a plainer discussion than that. Gatoclass (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The nomination page includes the following alt hook:

• ... that ontologists disagree on whether numbers are real?

- the hook was ultimately rejected on the basis that "real" has multiple meanings, but that could be remedied by tweaking it as follows:

• ... that ontologists disagree on whether numbers objectively exist?

There appears to be plenty of discussion in the article about whether or not numbers exist, so it should be fine as a hook (IMO it's a more interesting hook anyhow), so I would suggest substituting it. Thoughts? Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Replaced with a hook from last year, as this fairly unambiguously doesn't comply with the rules and the statement about green being real isn't in the article or sourced.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Morning @Gatoclass:, just wondering where in the article we can verify the definite fact that ontologists disagree on whether numbers objectively exist? There's quite a bit of discussion on that matter, but no definite assertion of a disagreement that I can see. Also, who are these ontologists? Does it mean modern professional ontologists (as would be implied by such a statement in yhe present tense) or does it mean ancient philosophers, who are not necessarily known as *ontologists" per se... I think we'd need some clarity on that and what exactly the hook references in the article before swapping back in your alt... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It was a suggestion made on the fly, which is why I asked for further input. But I agree the article probably doesn't restate the hook with absolute clarity, and I do not have the time right now to come up with another solution. In any case, another stint at the drawing board for this article wouldn't do any harm ... Gatoclass (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Per WP:DYKG, articles that ran last year aren't eligible for DYK? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

But that rule was intended to allow users to resubmit old DYKS that had been substantially improved, it wasn't intended to limit where hooks could be taken from to replace a pulled hook. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, AFAIK this is standard practice when there's a pull in the middle of the day, I've done it a few times and I think someone else told me about it back in the mists of time! The rationale is that we don't want to slot a new hook in which then misses out on its full time slot, and it's also best not to leave it blank and then have to rearrange the rest of the main page to retain WP:MPBALANCE. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

One of the ideas behind going to nine-hook sets was that if we ended up having to pull one for some reason, the remaining eight were enough to stand on their own. I would have just left that slot empty. It's not like a newspaper where if you pull something you're left with a hole in the page. RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m with Amakuru – it’s best to maintain main page balance (which I had tweaked at the beginning of the UTC day by shortening ITN). Schwede66 16:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

There's also the option to shorten "On this day". I know it varies by screen size, but mine anyways currently shows the left (w/ DYK) being slightly longer. —Bagumba (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm viewing on the standard width on Vector 2022 (which I assume is what the majority of readers see) and DYK is currently longer than OTD, even with the extra hook that I swapped in earlier. So I think for balance we definitely, in this case at least, need to retain that extra hook. I'm not sure if OTD has grown longer in recent years - they seem to have four births/deaths rather than the previous three at least, and the blurbs look quite wordy... cropping that might be an option, but I'm not sure if there are regulars there who would get upset about that. Recycling an old hook doesn't seem like a terrible thing to me, given that it's a rare event and it's not like we're rewarding anyone excessively it's just pot luck.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC) (PS - I've just noticed that Vector 2022 doesn't' have a "standard width" for the main page, it grows and shrinks as you make the window wider; so scratch my initial point; it does seem that OTD and DYK are broadly aligned on average though)  — Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Same mosaic, different color profile.

I was confused as to why Justinian appeared to have a mustache – it turns out the picture of the famous mosaic used for OTD doesn't have the same color profile as the one used in his article. Is there a reason for the different choices? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This kind of thing has bothered me for a long time. Often I'll see a bad image of some piece of art and want to "improve" it. The problem is, I'm never sure what it's supposed to look like. Often by playing with the exposure, I can bring out detail which wasn't visible in the original image. But was it just badly photographed? Badly lit? Was the original faded after many years (or centuries)? Did the original artist intentionally make it dark for aesthetic reasons? Good technical photography will often include calibrated color chips in the frame so you can correct for all those things. But for somebody grabbing a snap in a museum, not so much. RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby and RoySmith: according to this the mosaics were restored between 1989 and 2018, and the photos here seem to be before and after. TSventon (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• 1944 – Operation Queen: ... commenced with one of the heaviest Allied tactical bombings of the war, attacking German targets in the Rur valley. — "Rur" redirects to the Roer Valley. Seems to be some confusion about these toponyms. (Also, not to be confused with the Ruhr Valley. And Ger. Wiki also directs to Roer.) – Sca (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  What do you want to change here? Secretlondon (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 22)

Monday's FL

(November 18)

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.

Today's POTD

Please sync the unprotected page to the protected page to incorporate copyedits by User:jlwoodwa, User:Cowboygilbert, and User:Art LaPella.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. Oops, how'd I let that happen? Nobody really likes the duplicate POTD system because this keeps happening, but nobody who knows how ever fixes it. Art LaPella (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I’d love to get rid of that archaic system, Art LaPella. Schwede66 16:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Sounds intriguing. How are they selected? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

I didn't think about that. --Kilaseell - Message me! - 08:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

That's a great idea! --Cheers! Kilaseell - Message me! - 19:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

We already have a list of red links, called Wikipedia:Requested articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Now put it on the main page, and maybe transclude the most requested ones. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 02:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Community portal may be a better venue for this. --PFHLai (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

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 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I looked in the TFA archives for April 2022 and saw no snooker tournaments. WaltCip-(talk) 19:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It's topical: the 2022 World Snooker Championship finished today. One mention seems reasonable. Certes (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

TFA is mine - always do the anniversary of the event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Vetted by whom? For what? How? Why? WaltCip-(talk) 13:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

- 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

'Ted' got 800 words of blather out of it though. -- Sca (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Makerman88 On your userpage you mention you are interested in STEM subjects. Take a look at and 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)

Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine

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)

What are you asking for exactly? WaltCip-(talk) 17:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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)