Talk:Main Page

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy	other	Discussions	Ideas
Revisions to the harassment policy, about non-editors Wikimedia Movement 15 year strategy - themes Lead wording/ titling of "Canvassing" guideline For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
view edit history watch archive talk

Main Page error reports

Main Page toolbox
Yesterday June 2	Today June 3, 2017	Tomorrow June 4
"3D fanart Noel From Sora no Method" by XkungWork TFA	TFA	TFA
SA/OTD	SA/OTD	SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.	POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.	POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.
TFL (Friday)
TFA/OTD/POTD/TFL Queue
In the news: candidates · discussion · admin instructions
Did you know: nominations · discussion · queue
Wikipedia fully-protected main page files Protected pages associated with Main Page articles
Error reports · General discussions · FAQ · Help · Sandbox Main Page history · Main Page alternatives · April Fool's
It is now 04:56 UTC Purge the Main Page Purge this page

To report an error on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quote of all or part of the text in question will help.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones: The current date and time is displayed in Coordinated Universal Time (04:56 on 3 June 2017), not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}}, which will not give you a faster response, and in fact causes problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• Done? Once an error has been fixed, or has rotated off the Main Page, or has been acknowledged as not an error, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history for discussion and action taken.
• No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
• Can you fix the issue yourself? If the error is with the content of an article linked from the main page, consider attempting to fix the problem rather than reporting it here.

Errors in In the news

Minor gripe, but the numbers of deaths listed in the blurb on ITN and the article itself for the Manila attack don't seem to align. May require attention at one end. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That's why it says "at least" so updates don't need to take place every five minutes. The ITN listing is still factually accurate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day

OTD tomorrow

• Charles Lwanga's feast day is noted but not referenced in the target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Battle of Dutch Harbor already tagged twice before I got to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Errors in the current or next Did you know...

DYK current

DYK is about four lines too short today, the main page is horrendously lop-sided. Please fluff it up a little, and perhaps even consider removing one OTD to restore some kind of balance. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That'll be a no then, some 10 hours later... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

General discussion

mouse

Why are there no pictures of this non-endangered mouse? 171.116.121.84 (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Frequently asked question. Of course, if you find an uncopyrighted picture ... Art LaPella (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not just that there's no image on the Main Page, there's no image in the article either. I do find it very odd that Akodon spegazzinii was made a Featured Article despite having no images whatsoever. That issue was never even mentioned in the FAC review. Modest Genius ^talk 14:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Odd indeed, as the FAC mention "It has images and other media, where appropriate ..." Kareldorado (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

As a tangent of this discussion, there seem to be a lot of featured articles of extremely obscure animal species on Wikipedia which seem to be judged as such by having an exhaustive dense technical anatomical description, almost rivaling that of a research paper. For the average reader this would be difficult to understand. Which would seem to me to be a violation of Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal guidelines. I'd like to hear your thoughts --Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Some of the mathematical pages are equally obscure to the rest of us - an initial explanation aimed at 'readers of popular science and mathematics books/viewers of such TV programs' would be useful. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I wrote a number of these featured articles on obscure animals, including the ones being discussed here. I can see the argument that such articles are too technical to be a good fit for Wikipedia, but articles like the ones I've written are definitely useful to me as condensed, well-organized representations of current scientific knowledge. To remember the tortured history of the taxonomy of Akodon spegazzinii, I would much rather read the Wikipedia article than chase through a dozen scientific papers. Sure, there aren't that many people interested in reading about this particular obscure species, but the article represents real, verifiable scientific information.

As for images, the reality is that few images exist of most small mammal species and even fewer are freely licensed. (Only specialists would be able to tell that they found an Akodon spegazzinii as opposed to some other species anyway.) The Featured Article process has generally decided that it's acceptable to create a Featured Article without images if it is prohibitively hard to find freely licensed images, but that's definitely a decision that could be up for debate. The place to argue it is WT:FAC. Ucucha (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That article in particular didn't really bother me all that much, since it was collating multiple sources together in a meaningful fashion. Some other articles (typically on fossils) are just pretty much solely working on the holotype description paper, when most people who are interested in that can just read the paper themselves. Do obscure "low importance" species articles have different standards from high visibility ones eg Tyrannosaurus or Camel, due to differing audiences? Kind regards --Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

There could/should be an introductory narrative description (in this case what does the animal look like and does, where it is found, and similar), and another narrative aimed at those wanting an overview of the specialist texts. Jackiespeel (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Who decides featured news on the front page?

OP question was answered precisely in the first three responses. "Discussion" now devolving. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

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.

---

And who thought it was a great idea to include the Palme d'Or? I really think it isn't an event worthy being featured when there are much more important events occurring around the world. Beatitudinem (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Items are nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D Cannes/Palme d'Or. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(And for recurring items such as film festivals, this particular nomination included a (small-fonted) link to Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items, where the Palme d'Or is listed in the subsection "Film". ---Sluzzelin talk 01:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC))

I would further add that ITN is not meant as a news ticker, but a way to improve and feature articles about topical subjects. If you want to see more turnover, I invite you to participate. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• The short answer is you do. Your ability to determine what articles appear on the main page is a direct function of what articles about recent events you have improved, and to a much smaller extent, to what articles you have nominated and voted for at WP:ITNC. Of course, the you here is both general and specific; the primary criteria for inclusion on the main page is article quality (a substandard article is never to be posted on the main page regardless of any other possible criteria it may or may not meet), so any person can influence what appears in any section of the main page simply by making articles better. Since the OP is "any person" you can also be specific here: if you as a specific person have a specific thing you want changed, it's fairly reasonable for you to be able to do so; the community is fairly small and easy to influence if you know what you are doing; it tends to be influencible by people who are willing to put in sufficient effort, and improving an article you would like to see on the main page is usually sufficient enough. --Jayron32 03:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This user has a history of trolling this talk page to prove some kind of WP:POINT or another about Main Page content. Suggest closing this thread down and giving out a warning. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes how dare I ask questions. Fuck off. Beatitudinem (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2017 (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.

I think 'many people' will understand why I changed the word in question (but do not object to G-c-t Lane appearing on the MP). 86.191.125.157 (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Slight grammar change

I think the first "On this day" event would be better if we changed "one of the largest ships in the world of its time" to "one of the largest ships in the world at the time". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS is the best place for this. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

TFA Monnow Bridge

It isn't impossible that I'm placing this comment in the wrong place, but I did wish to record my thanks to all of those editors who have manned the machicolations for the last 22 hours. A much appreciated service which deserves acknowledgement. Only another two hours to go. KJP1 (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)