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 19:45 on 2 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)

Errors with "In the news"

The "pictured" line for the World Series was not removed when the picture was swapped (pinging User:Schwede66).:Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• Add "Victory Day in the Maldives" near "Culture Day in Japan". MAL MALDIVE (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 8)

Monday's FL

(November 4)

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

In the description of the featured picture for Diwali, we should wikilink the mythical city Ayodhya (Ramayana) instead of the actual city Ayodhya. The reason is explained in the second paragraph of the article Ayodhya (Ramayana):

“ The historicity of this legendary city is of concern to the Ayodhya dispute. According to one theory, it is same as the present-day Ayodhya city. According to another theory, it is a fictional city, and the present-day Ayodhya (originally called Saketa) was renamed after it around the 4th or 5th century, during the Gupta period. ”

Also see the section Ayodhya_(Ramayana)#Historicity. --Lekhak93 (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Rotating locomotion

• Today's TFA, Rotating locomotion in living systems, is more than averagely interesting. Certainly more worthwhile than yet another article about some stupid computer game. 86.190.171.142 (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Concur. I don't understand the obsession that Wikipedia has with posting video games on the main page.--128.227.142.127 (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    • If you or anyone doesn't like what is posted, you are welcome to participate in the processes that determine what appears on the Main Page. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    • See my point in the previous conversation. "Today's featured article" is chosen from the list of pages that have reached "featured article" status. It is NOT just a random article picked for display. If there are lots of video game articles that have gone through the featured article verification, there will be lots of them on the front page. --Khajidha (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
      • The flaw in this oft-repeated argument is that main-page FAs do not need to be selected from the total pool of FAs in proportion to the numbers pertaining to particular topics. If, for example, there are 1000 eligible articles, and 200 of them are related to one particular topic, then that does not mean that one in five main-page FAs need to be on that topic. Of course, if a point is reached where ALL eligible articles pertain to a particular topic then there is no choice. I assume that is not the case. 86.190.171.142 (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
        • • WP:FANMP lists all the eligible Featured Articles that are yet to appear on the Main Page - the topical balance is very patchy. We don't need to use them exactly in proportion (indeed, we don't), but a rough allocation is necessary. Less than one article per day is promoted to FA, so at some point we will start running out. If the available pool isn't used sensibly that will leave only a handful of subjects, forcing an even more unbalanced coverage. The solution is to work on articles in under-represented areas and get them up to FA standard. Modest Genius ^talk 12:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
        • There is a fetish for WWI RAAF airmen too at TFA ... shrugs. The best way to get a non-video game article up in TFA is to get articles up to FA status. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
        • So, instead of mixing them in proportionately now you would have us wait and do them all at once in a huge clump? Your suggestion is worse than the status quo. --Khajidha (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, come on, we only have at most one video game-related TFA per month, far less than things like animal species and military history. If you actually look at TfA archives, it's extremely well spread out and balanced among all topics. And I honestly don't see what's wrong with video games anyways. ansh666 06:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

In the news redux

I apologise for the delay. I reiterate a couple of things here, simply because I really don't think most people actually saw the specific suggestion (one single reply?) -- not recommendation, not even at the level of proposal. For it to make sense, I also have to quickly summarise identification of issue, and it also seems only fair that I quote that single reply. If future responses continue along the same clichés, I will assume there is no community interest in trying to achieve true ITN neutrality by at least considering the existing systemic biases, and I won't mention this again.

First, the original, QFT:

"It is one of the interesting peculiarities about an all-volunteer ground-level workforce in the first-language English world these days -- aiming for a neutral POV, but nonetheless failing to accomplish it through sheer neglect of some subjects and not others -- and equally through sheer arguing down of some articles and not others on the sole basis of setting different bars -- since no one tells a volunteer workforce what they must do. This is one of the key differences between Wikipedia and a standard encyclopaedia."

In short:

1. Some articles persistently receive more attention than others (which tends, on average, to improve their quality);

2. This is inevitable with a volunteer staff;

3. The end result happens to be editorial bias quite independently of individual good faith.

The standard clichéd responses to pointing out anything such as this are as follows:

1. A challenge to edit the articles in question myself.

R1. It is impossible for one person alone, however dedicated, to eliminate a systemic bias. Repetition of such challenges in the absence of other action or even comment is a way of denying that such a bias really exists. (This pattern also exists in many other contexts, taking the basic form: "You say that a broad-based issue exists. Solve it yourself! Oh, you don't want to solve it by yourself? Clearly then there is no problem other than *you*.)

2. Insistence that ITN articles should be both ITN-appropriate and high quality articles.

R2. This could be valid, but with two qualifications.

First, protestations notwithstanding, ITN-proposed articles are not measured by identical appropriateness or quality bars. Currently, the application of guidelines is a moving bar, too often linked to the editor's individual isms -- and there still continue to be many votes where the only comment after "oppose" is that "I never heard of x".

Second, the large majority of editors who vote on ITN articles only cast a one-time vote. Regardless of any subsequent article improvement, those editors' original votes still stand, because they never return to re-assess, let alone change their minds. A very few editors will go back and strike out their original votes, or point out later in the discussion that their opinion about the article's appropriateness has changed -- but they are far in the minority. Without the willingness to change one's initial vote, article improvement during ITN nomination is pointless. (As a curious related point, in the original discussion thread, not one of the original commenters returned to discuss my suggestions -- including the single person who asked for concrete suggestions.)

For these two reasons, a point which could have been valid has turned into a no-other-action-needed cliché. In this form, it is often used as a discussion shut-down -- once the cliché has been stated, no further consideration is needed.

3. ITN is not a news ticker.

R3. Some subjects are always understood to be ITN-appropriate, if not necessary ITN-ready. However, if there is even so much as a single day's delay between being ITN-proposed and ITN-ready, there will already be negative votes -- and nearly all of those votes will never be rescinded later, regardless of future article quality (per R2). Within a week, most such stories will then be voted down by new voters as "stale".

4. You are demanding we abandon the whole notion of community consensus and just post what you like.

R4. This is not an either-or polarity, nor is it a matter of like vs dislike. I simply identify a sharp difference between the ratio of major news subjects as opposed to the ratio of ITN news subjects. That kind of discrepancy indicates that systemic bias exists. Most people never realise that there is a discrepancy because the ITN systemic bias happens to echo the mass media and social media systemic bias, albeit for different reasons. In mass and social media, the ratio of text or time, article positioning, and overall focus are concentrated on articles on particular subjects (love, money, conquest, disaster) which tend to draw much larger readership/audiences. That very large number of articles, however, only represents about 10% of major news *subjects*. In theory, WP should not be influenced by the same systemic bias as the mass media -- but the net effect is absolutely identical. Even though ITN is not intended to be a news ticker, it persistently posts between 2/3 and 3/4 articles focused on money, conquest, or disaster/death. In part, the ITN echo arises directly from a natural tendency to dismiss as irrelevant whatever one has not personally heard of before.

These clichés having been addressed, I go on to the suggestions. The first two ideas have parallels in other parts of WP, e.g. administrator-applied limits, identifying IPs which seem to only exist to promote a single editing POV. No such limits currently exist on those commenting in ITN -- or possibly they are not enforced, which comes out to the same thing. The third and fourth ideas are proactive possibilities.

1. Create and enforce the same *hard* guidelines for all ITN postings -- with administrators actively pointing out to editors where their comments indicate that those guidelines are not being equally applied across all articles.

2. Actively identify those ITN-active editors who consistently apply different bars to different articles and who never, ever alter their votes even after their original criteria for rejecting an article have been fully addressed.

3. When considering whether or not to post an ITN article, ITN-oriented admins could place a different weight on the votes of early commentators who never return to the vote discussion after the article has been improved.

4. ITN-oriented admins could actively bring extremely low comment proposals to the top of the ITN pile three times (to echo R3R) and actively encourage additional comments, pointing out what changes have been made.

Something similar to #4 exists in the current reiteration of DYK. I raise the possibility because I have noticed that quite a few ITN proposals outside the high-eyeball memes die simply because very few people comment on them. In such cases, even when a few editors are actively improving the articles to meet the current objections, those proposals still die due to a combination of lack of interest and early voters not returning to re-assess the article's current condition. This was the case for the recent Nobel non-postings, which, Internet-ages ago, sparked my current part in this.

• laugh* There is a tendency even among WP administrators, I have noticed, to think of administrators primarily as those who wield the mop. Think of that last suggestion as preempting at least one spill.

Again, as always, it is entirely up to the community what actions its editors and administrators choose to take. If future responses take the same clichéd directions, clearly this is what the talking part of the community wants and I won't raise this issue again. I reposted this much simply because only one person had actually responded to these suggestions -- or, indeed, at all after I had posted them one and a half weeks after the initial post. It seems only fair to include the single answer I received to this, which is quoted in its entirety below. It was in response to that answer that I added cliché #4 and its rebuttal to the beginning of this post. It is my strong opinion that binary thinking is for computers, not for human beings. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You have stated what you believe is an issue. The community has responded that it is a feature not a bug. What would you now propose, that we abandon the whole notion of community consensus and just post what you like? You say that one person cannot solve the issue; not true. Any wikipedian can fix a bad process by proposing something better and building consensus. People disagreeing with you is a feature, not a bug. - GCG (originally 15:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC))

Why are you posting this here? Whatever flaws you feel exist in the ITN process should be straightened out there. As far as the main page goes, the discussion is irrelevant. We post what comes out of ITN and catch flaws in those items. Concerns about selection of items should be raised there.--Khajidha (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding point #1: You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. It is true that 1 person cannot alone correct the problem. However, 1 person makes a greater impact than 0 persons. If everyone who has ever complained about the problem improved 1 article instead of complaining, the problem would be greatly improved. --Jayron32 15:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Khajidha that this should be discussed at WT:ITN, not T:MP. Yes, bias at ITN is a known and real problem, a subset of the systemic bias throughout the entirety of Wikipedia. But your proposed solutions appear to be simply more workload on admins with no reason to believe they would result in a more balanced set of items. Meanwhile, you reject the most practical solution: working on articles on under-represented topics. Your proposals would probably attract more comment if they weren't so long-winded. Modest Genius ^talk 19:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• TL;dr. Make a proposal, raise an RFC, something practical; this simply isn't the way to do things here, as you can tell from the preceding comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Today's birth anniversary

150 years ago Marie Curie was born! BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Added. Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but Marie Curie is already included on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 26 and thus is not eligible to appear today. —howcheng {chat} 16:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC

I disagree that Marie Curie's birth (or death) was ineligible for inclusion on the grounds stated. The relevant guidelines suggest to me that either birth or death, but not both, are eligible, provided that the person is not already otherwise commemorated (see criterion 6.3). However, the December 26th anniversary is not of Marie Curie in her own sole right, but for her and her husband's discovery of radium, which I think is a sufficiently different thing from her own birth/death as to not exclude them.

Obviously, this sort of issue could arise with many other eminent scientists, explorers etc. so needs to be clearly understood. Are there definive precedents and decisions? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.27 (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is featured on that date already. That's what the guideline prohibits: Furthermore, if the person is featured (bold item) as a regular blurb on any day, they may not be chosen for birth/death listings. Exceptions are made when the day in question is lacking a selection of decent articles (i.e., only reuse it if we're desperate). —howcheng {chat} 23:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Am I missing something? On Dec 26 the radium item is in the 'eligible' section, not actually selected for use. Furthermore, it should really just have radium as the bold link, because the discovery of that element is the relevant historical event, not the biographies of the two Curies. Why have three bold links in the same item? Modest Genius ^talk 11:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Attacks against Wikipedia Users ...

...via heavy metal poisoning. If necessary, with methylmercury. Some of Wikipedia 's opponents even forbid precautionary mercury antidotes across the country. So with a suggestive suggestion for the Wikipedia article may be harmful to health. How can we overcome this weird situation, now? 195.244.180.59 (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)