Talk:Main Page

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 15:54 on 6 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 with "In the news"

• Not an error as such, but I think the picture caption should clarify that this is the aircraft that crashed, not simply one of the same type. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Moot for now, as I pulled the picture as it wasn't fully protected yet (my bad). Regarding your comment, I never knew how to tell when it is the actual one vs same type.—Bagumba (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Ivan the Terrible movie

Ivan the Terrible (full film)

Part I, which is public domain

• This isn't necessarily an error, but I think it would be a good idea to replace Ivan the Terrible screenshot on DYK with the full film. We have used a full film on DYK before (Night of the Living Dead if I remember correctly). I think it's just more interesting and enticing. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Jaguarnik, thoughts on that idea? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Are we sure that the film is in the public domain in the United States? Schwede66 04:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If it's hosted on Commons, it's good enough for the Main Page, as far as I know... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

We've seen plenty of instances of things being tagged as properly licensed on commons that turned out not to be. And I agree that the goal of DYK is to get people to click through to the article and this would distract from that. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm against it. Our concern is to get our readers to click on the bolded link. Posting a 3-hour film next to it is rather distracting. Once they read the article, they would know where to watch the film. BorgQueen (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against it, but unfortunately we don't have full English subtitles yet for that film (there are partial subtitles but unfortunately there's no time to complete the subtitles before DYK is up). So assuming someone decided to watch the full film and did not know Russian (as most of the readers on ENwiki do not) they would only be able to watch about 16 minutes, so there wouldn't be much of a point for posting the full film. I'll leave it up to consensus though because it's an interesting idea. As for US public domain, the first part would be under public domain under URAA, but I'm not sure that the second part is in public domain, and the video has both parts. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

[...] I'm not sure that the second part is in public domain, and the video has both parts. Right, we can't post it on MP then. BorgQueen (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• We could just post part I (pictured), which we have as a separate file. Its thumbnail looks clearer and more interesting. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Good solution, but would we have to replace the current file in the article with the part 1 file? There's also still the issue that it has no subtitles. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Foxtrot

• I'll See You in C-U-B-A was released in 1919, not 1920. Aydoh8^[contribs] 12:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

   Erledigt, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Firefangledfeathers @Aydoh8 are you sure? According to the infobox, it was written in 1919 but released in 1920. What's the WP:RS for this? RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  The song itself was written by Irving Berlin but was recorded by Billy Murray in 1920, I guess both dates could be argued but I'm going off when it opened in the Follies which was in 1919. Aydoh8^[contribs] 15:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

" Christopher Columbus set sail from San Sebastián de La Gomera in the Canary Islands on his first voyage across the Atlantic to the Americas." He set sail to find a shortcut towards India . . . . that the two Americas lay in his way was a lucky find, as he would have never been able to navigate the whole of the Atlantic and Pacific. Ciao Pentaclebreaker (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

According to Amerigo Vespucci, cartographer Martin Waldseemüller applied the Latinized form "America" to a map showing the New World for the first time in 1507, i.e. 15 years after Columbus's voyage. – Sca (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you perceive an error. "Voyage ... to the Americas" is a normal way to describe where he ended up, not where he intended to go. It would sound stranger if we wrote about Columbus's voyage to India! And of course we use the modern name for the continent. JMCHutchinson (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

As it was his intention to find a shorter way to India (actually to the land that was the source of pepper and other spices) it is definitely misleading to state that he set sail to cross the Atlantic and reach the Americas. With todays lack of elementary education in sciences and crafts some people might interpret the voyage as a given route to a well known land. What it definitely wasn't.

Albeit it was most probably know to Columbus that far to the West across the Atlantic there was another land (he may had access to a source describing the Viking expansion toward Greenland and Newfoundland, and maybe some rumours about ships going to the Southwest to find favourable winds and currents to reach Subsahara Africa (and sight some foreign coast to the west maybe only hints to a coast), he had no knowledge about the lands that later were named "The Americas". He barely had an idea of what he had found and most probably was convicted he found some parts of Asia untill very later in his life. Ciao Pentaclebreaker (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD

• 1936 – The last thylacine (pictured)... - in the caption, pls remove the name "Benjamin". The name is a myth. See discussion on talk page and ref 116 "Stop calling the last thylacine Benjamin, Tasmanian tiger researcher says" of Dec 2022, which lists some websites (including WP) for misnaming the animal as "Benjamin". JennyOz (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(September 6, today)

Monday's FL

(September 9)

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.

Tomorrow's POTD

• Sigmaringen Castle - there are 7 x "castle"s in the blurb. Maybe this one can go, "Sigmaringen Castle is a castle in Sigmaringen"? JennyOz (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  A few others can easily go, I think: This photograph of Sigmaringen Castle was taken from the north west; First mentioned in 1077, the castle it was rebuilt around 1200. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I've had a go at removing some of them. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Amakuru and UC, that's smoother. Just need to remove "of" in the last sentence. JennyOz (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

   Erledigt, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Proposal: Move main page to Wikipedia namespace

Copied from Wikipedia Talk:Village pump (technical):

I would like to propose that we move the Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page. This would offer a number of benefits, including:

• Causing the top-left tab to read "project page" instead of "article"
• Making it easier to make a mass-copy of Wikipedia's articles without picking up project-specific pages like the main page

There would of course be a redirect from Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page, and we could even hide the "redirected from Main Page" notice using CSS, making the transition virtually seamless. The German Wikipedia has actually already moved their main page to the Wikipedia namespace and it is working great for them. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I find illogical that the Main Page be in the article namespace, too, but wouldn't this proposal belong to Talk:Main Page? --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  09:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

--A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  09:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page is at the Main Page namespace. --Howard the Duck 09:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Been propopsed many times the answer is no.Geni 11:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no harm in discussing it again. I've been hanging around this talk page for a long time, and, personally, I've never really seen a great argument either way. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused why Wikipedia: would be proposed. Main page is a Portal:, the main one.. but a Portal: none the less. It's no big deal at the moment, but it could help bring some more attention to the many other useful portals. ... There is, however, talk of no-indexing the Wikipedia: namespace (to keep all the weird sausage making going on there from inappropriately showing up in google searches), if that happens we really wouldn't want the main page in that namespace. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Argument Summary

Here's a summary of one of the "for" arguments from last time:

• If someone writes a book/movie/play/etc called Main Page, will we have to put a disambig? People are already confused that they cannot get to Homepage by typing in Main Page, we should start the transition now so we can avoid namespace conflicts in the future.

Against (I'm biased, someone else want to write a better one?):

• It will cause everyone to have to update their bookmarks. ffm 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it won't, since a redirect from Main Page to Wikipedia:Main Page can be created. --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But...if its just going to be a redirect anyway, won't that pretty much defy the whole point of moving it?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A soft redirect could be created alerting users to update their bookmarks during a transition period. Lympathy ^Talk 15:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• It isn't broke and doens't need fixing. ffm 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Better point... :-) (See also Why is Main Page in the main namespace?.) --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page is on its on mainspace. As for Talk:Main Page... --Howard the Duck 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In the German WP is was moved several days ago. --213.155.231.26 (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Guadalete.

Why must we make a link from the main page to an article that is not even half finished? This article is in serious need of help; but enough about the article - my point here is that we shouldn't make links to articles that are so poorly written.Tourskin (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This must've somehow got thru' by mistake. Try WP:ERRORS if you want to remove such a link. --74.13.129.166 (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

See a related discussion archived at Talk:Main Page/Archive 125#Main Page links to articles. There seems to consensus that only the bolded links should not be stubs, tagged for cleanup, etc. The other links are given for more clarification and explanation, regardless if they have cleanup tags, like the Battle of Guadalete article which is not currently bolded. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ITN guidelines currently don't even go that far, only recommending strongly against emboldening links to articles with yellow or red level tags. It may be worth noting that Conservatorship, the link to which prompted the previous complaint and discussion, was updated in response to being on the Main Page and now includes a brief description of how it relates to corporations. - BanyanTree 05:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Whilst the issue raised is similar to the one raised at ITN, it has nothing to do with ITN guidelines themselves. A Today's anniversary article will usually have more time to be made up to scratch, where else most ITN articles aren't much better than "Start" level and so can and must get away with poorer quality. Tourskin (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

...especially with the many historical events and milestones related to core biographies, most referenced topics, vital articles, and other core topics. As such, these types of articles should be relatively complete, while the average ITN featured article is usually only hours old. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Extra space below "Other areas" section

There is currently approximately 3 pixels of whitespace below the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section that is being caused by an empty table created by Template:WikipediaOther. This is the HTML being generated:

<table align="center" width="100%" style="background:none;">
<tr>
<td></td>
</tr>
</table>

Obviously it does nothing. User:David Levy believes that this whitespace should be there, apparently for aesthetic reasons; however, I see no reason for this. I am proposing that it be removed. --- RockMFR 06:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you believe that there should be less space (by my count, seven fewer pixels in Firefox 3) between the Other areas of Wikipedia section and the Wikipedia's sister projects section than there is between the Wikipedia's sister projects section and the Wikipedia languages section? —David Levy 06:40/07:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of debating about minor tweaks of a few pixels of whitespace, why not put your time and energy in Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because that "proposal" is the most chaotic free-for-all I've seen outside of a Wikipedia Drama of the Week pile-on, which will as a result probably take months to come up with a subset of ideas over which a manageable discussion can take place, and has a significant chance of resulting in no change at all? Just saying... - BanyanTree 02:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reducing "3 pixels of whitespace" would be a significant change!!! --199.71.174.100 (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what you call "significant". 137.164.79.11 (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Most visited articles

I remember there being a little link in Special:Statistics (this edit removed it) that brought users to a page that showed the most viewed articles for each month, though it was taken down because it stopped working. Will that ever come back again??--Newcloud1 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The village pump would be the best place to ask this, though I can point you towards this page which does just the same thing. That site also has a great tool for checking how many times any page has been viewed. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay women

This is the first time I've seen two pictures of women on the main page. It's usually a bunch of dudes. It shocked me. Way to go. — jwillbur 01:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. At least we had one shining six hour period of glory. - BanyanTree 06:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's a couple of birds on the main page right now. Lampman (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's gonna get that slang reference.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's purely sad when the "women" on the main page are "known" for being on pay-per-view.--66.245.217.171 (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We had a couple of feminists who decided on their own to remove it, without consulting others. I reverted both times, as it was discussed on the Template Talk page and there were no objections there. It'll be gone in a hour or two, anyways.--Bedford ^Pray 09:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone wonders, it was User:Seraphim Whipp who chose to censor Wikipedia without seeking consensus. Messages of complaint should go to her, and tell her she's not Jimbo.--Bedford ^Pray 10:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was me, and yes, I know I'm not Jimbo. *cough*. I asked a male friend for his opinion of the hook before I removed it and he said, "it's dodgy as hell," so I don't think you can dismiss it as hairy armed feminists on a rampage. Regardless, it's not appropriate for you to nominate, approve and then edit war over your own hooks. Sarah 14:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it :), though I'm very glad Sarah did. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was fighting against censorship, against a bunch of feminists who don't bother to discuss things on DYK's suggestion page, but feel their world view must be enforced. So sad on your part. It is only due to confines of 3RR and the fact its due to be updated again that your censorship/vandalism was victorious against the spirit of Wikipedia.--Bedford ^Pray 11:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Interested parties may be interested in conversation ^permalink. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record I'm male, and completely support the action taken. This is an encyclopaedia, not Page 3. Orderinchaos 11:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I thought Angela was our token female admin. How did we end up with "a bunch", very quickly upgraded from "a couple", of "feminists" with admin rights? When will it end? Will female users eventually demand to be allowed to edit Wikipedia without a male guardian present? This is a shocking turn of events! - BanyanTree 12:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's even worse than I thought. They're not only feminists, but feminazis! - BanyanTree 14:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Check yourself, Bedford. Differing tastes and sexual organs does not censorship make. First, you could've had a better hook (for example, "...that John "Bradshaw" Layfield won the World Heavyweight Championship match against Batista at The Great American Bash (2005) but did not win the title?") - while Wikipedia is not censored, it is not tasteless either - and promoting your own hooks is a clear conflict of interest and inappropriate, even if the hook itself wasd. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins who place hooks on DYK suggest alternative hooks, and use those, all the time, so nothing I did was unusual. Several people were OK with the hook. The hook had more general interest than the JBL one. It was censorship by a bunch of extremists.--Bedford ^Pray 17:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Olympics on ITN

A proposal to add a link from Template:In the news to an Olympics highlights page for the course of the 2008 Summer Olympics is currently up at Template talk:In the news. The highlights page will presumably be 2008 Summer Olympics highlights, which follows the format of similar pages from previous Olympics. Comments, and editors interested in maintaining such a highlights page, are welcome. - BanyanTree 09:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)