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 23:09 on 24 February 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
Errors with "In the news"
Errors in "Did you know ..."
Errors in "On this day"
This seems to me a bit oddly worded.
"Napoleonic Wars: French admiral Louis Thomas Villaret de Joyeuse (pictured) unconditionally surrendered to British forces, ending their invasion of Martinique and beginning a five-year occupation of the island."
Villaret de Joyeuse surrendered ... ending their invasion ... and beginning an occupation. Hmm?
How do you end someone's invasion by surrendering? It was the British that doing the invasion, wasn't it? And how do you keep the occupation going after surrendering?
I think this needs rephrasing, because there is a confusion about who is the grammatical subject. The only grammatical subject in the sentence is French admiral Louis Thomas Villaret de Joyeuse.
But maybe the confusion is just in my mind. ;-)
HandsomeFella (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- @HandsomeFella: Good spot about who's doing the occupation! How about * 1809 – Napoleonic Wars: The unconditional surrender of French admiral Louis Thomas Villaret de Joyeuse (pictured) to British forces ended their invasion of Martinique and began a five-year occupation of the island. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- or maybe "The unconditional surrender of French admiral Louis Thomas Villaret de Joyeuse (pictured) to British forces, which ended their invasion of Martinique and instead began their five-year occupation of the island. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Don't all these proposed rewordings still have the same problem (an unclear "their" modifying who was doing the invading)? How about: "The British invasion of Martinique ends with the unconditional surrender of French admiral Louis Thomas Villaret de Joyeuse (pictured), beginning a five-year occupation of the island." If you really wanted to, you could say "British occupation" at the end, but once you clarify who is invading and who won, I think that's unnecessary. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Since no one objected I went ahead and did this. Not so much for today (it's 22:00) but if this is used in the future Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Don't all these proposed rewordings still have the same problem (an unclear "their" modifying who was doing the invading)? How about: "The British invasion of Martinique ends with the unconditional surrender of French admiral Louis Thomas Villaret de Joyeuse (pictured), beginning a five-year occupation of the island." If you really wanted to, you could say "British occupation" at the end, but once you clarify who is invading and who won, I think that's unnecessary. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- or maybe "The unconditional surrender of French admiral Louis Thomas Villaret de Joyeuse (pictured) to British forces, which ended their invasion of Martinique and instead began their five-year occupation of the island. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Errors in the summary of the featured picture
General discussion
User:Yann and POTDs
Hi all
Just bringing wider attention to a dispute that's flared up in the past two days between myself and User:Yann regarding eligibility for certain articles to be linked from POTD entries on the main page. There has been a back-and-forth discussion on this at my talk page.
The guidelines at WP:POTD/G and longstanding practice is that because Wikipedia FPs are different from Commons FPS in that they are designated as high-quality images which also illustrate encyclopedic topics, the blurb at POTD should contain a small introduction to the topic of the linked article, alongside the image. The upshot of that is that if the article is a stub or doesn't contain sufficient cited information to construct a minimal introductory blurb on the topic, we don't list it in the POTD queue and it's added to the page at WP:Picture of the day/Unused.
Note that the POTD standards are already lower than those at TFA / ITN / DYK / OTD, in that the article can be listed with uncited material present (something which isn't ideal but has generally been seen as unavoidable); however, we've always been clear that the content of the blurb itself must be a sufficient brief introduction and that that content used on the main page itself must be fully cited within the article (a basic requirement of the WP:V policy). I have not known anyone to dispute this before.
The particular articles / images which have come under dispute from Yann are:
In all these cases, the basic details of the topic are either not present or aren't cited. Myself and Jay8g have been the de facto coordinators of the POTD project for the past 2+ years, scheduling and writing most of the daily entries, and we've always been very clear on making sure WP:POTD/G is followed and listing as "unused" those which don't comply with the guidelines. These images aren't lost forever, the goal would be eventually for us to work on improving those articles and finding relevant sources. I do think that Yann attempting to schedule them before they're ready, and Yann would be welcome to undertake that work themselves if they wish, as Jay8g and I regularly do for other POTDs. They shouldn't be listed as they are now, however.
Any feedback on this welcome. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, Well, this is not in the guidelines. The only requirement there is that the file should be a featured picture, and still used. This is the case for all three pictures mentioned above. Yann (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Both WP:POTD/G#Writing the blurb and WP:POTD#Guidelines list the guidelines, the they're pretty clear on this. In particular - "A blurb is liable to be amended or even rejected" if it doesn't meet the criteria, as well as "Not all featured pictures will appear as the picture of the day". This is long-standing practice and, as I said above, is already a much weaker standard than is applied across the rest of the main page. — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's not what I read. The guidelines say "the article should not be a stub", and none of these articles are tagged as "stub". Alicudi and National Maps of Switzerland are clearly not stubs, so your argument doesn't hold. Yann (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not being a stub is the baseline, but given the requirement that "All facts mentioned in the blurb must be found in the target article, or in the description linked to the image itself (if it's a specific detail not relevant to the article topic)" and "All facts used in the blurb must have a citation to a reliable source", it's self-evident that the article in question must have sufficient cited material within them to construct a verifiable blurb. None of the above cases have that. Jay8g and I work hard day-in and day-out to flesh out the prose and/or locate sources for the often substandard articles linked to FPs, and I'm merely saying that you'll need to do the same if you wish the above entries to be scheduled for the main page. It's my hope that I'll be able to work on more of the entries at WP:Picture of the day/Unused in the future and give them their place in the sun, but this isn't automatic and requires work - sometimes even hunting down offline sources or visiting the library. — Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- No time or desire to review the specific examples here, but in case it helps to have a 3rd opinion, I can confirm Amakuru's basic description of what we've done historically, and what the POTD guidelines say. I would interpret them the same way Amakuru has. It would maybe help resolve this quicker if Yann could clarify what specifically Amakuru is saying above that they don't think is correct. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not sure where the confusion lies --
All facts used in the blurb must have a citation to a reliable source, either in the linked article or in the image description page
seems pretty clear to me. Both Alicudi and National Maps of Switzerland are ones that I had looked at scheduling a few times, but ended up deciding those articles needed more work than I had the time to put in right then. Anyway, the only reason I've been helping out with POTD is that it has traditionally been the only drama-free part of the main page project -- let's try to keep it that way. Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC) - Yann, in case it helps, what Amakuru says is correct. The bar is a bit higher than where you believe it is. Schwede66 20:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- If you say so, but the guidelines must be made clearer. In all three cases, I copied the text from the article, so that meets the requirement that "All facts mentioned in the blurb must be found in the target article". Yann (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not being a stub is the baseline, but given the requirement that "All facts mentioned in the blurb must be found in the target article, or in the description linked to the image itself (if it's a specific detail not relevant to the article topic)" and "All facts used in the blurb must have a citation to a reliable source", it's self-evident that the article in question must have sufficient cited material within them to construct a verifiable blurb. None of the above cases have that. Jay8g and I work hard day-in and day-out to flesh out the prose and/or locate sources for the often substandard articles linked to FPs, and I'm merely saying that you'll need to do the same if you wish the above entries to be scheduled for the main page. It's my hope that I'll be able to work on more of the entries at WP:Picture of the day/Unused in the future and give them their place in the sun, but this isn't automatic and requires work - sometimes even hunting down offline sources or visiting the library. — Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's not what I read. The guidelines say "the article should not be a stub", and none of these articles are tagged as "stub". Alicudi and National Maps of Switzerland are clearly not stubs, so your argument doesn't hold. Yann (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Both WP:POTD/G#Writing the blurb and WP:POTD#Guidelines list the guidelines, the they're pretty clear on this. In particular - "A blurb is liable to be amended or even rejected" if it doesn't meet the criteria, as well as "Not all featured pictures will appear as the picture of the day". This is long-standing practice and, as I said above, is already a much weaker standard than is applied across the rest of the main page. — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)