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 12:38 on 14 September 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)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(September 20)

Monday's FL

(September 16)

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

• The last sentence says what the image, from Il trovatore, shpws, but I doubt that, and wonder where it comes from: the image caption just says "poster". I'd say just that: that it shows a poster. The poster seems to picture the last line, Azucena telling the count that Manrico, the man he got executed was his brother. The people pictured would be from left Azucena, the count and Manrico (who in stage productions is no longer in the prison but on his way to execution, but this is a poster). No Leonora (who is dead at the time). If the questionable description is kept, it should at least say act 4, not scene 4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Pinging @Ravenpuff, who added this line to the blurb. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 05:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  I hazarded a guess based on my knowledge of the opera and reading of the plot summary. I'm happy for it to be amended to reflect the actual context of the scene depicted. While we could just state that the featured image is a poster, it would be of benefit to readers if we can describe the content of the poster as well. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:03, 14 September 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

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)

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)