Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

To report an error in current or upcoming Main Page content, please add it to the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of all or part of the text in question will help.
• Please 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 21:10 on 16 May 2022), not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not give you a faster response; it is unnecessary as this page is not protected and will in fact cause problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• Done? Once an error has been fixed, rotated off the Main Page or acknowledged not to be an error, the report will be removed from this page; please check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept.
• No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the relevant article or project talk page.
• Please respect other editors. A real person wrote the blurb or hook for which you are suggesting a fix, or a real person noticed what they honestly believe is an issue with the blurb or hook that you wrote. Everyone is interested in creating the best Main Page possible; with the compressed time frame, there is sometimes more stress and more opportunities to step on toes. Please be civil to fellow users.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, consider first attempting to fix the problem there before reporting it here if necessary. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. In addition, upcoming content is typically only protected from editing 24 hours before its scheduled appearance; in most cases, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors with "In the news"

Eurovision Song Contest 2022, was posted at 09:05 today. It was nominated with an image, but the poster gave no explanation as to why the image was not used. So we still have the image for the second item Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't post that photo because it is out of focus. Schwede66 23:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

And it shows a member who wasn’t at Eurovision as he’s fighting in the war. Stephen 10:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That seems notable in itself and should certainly be mentioned somewhere in the linked article(s). A first for Eurovision, I think (although the Bosnian delegation did have some members killed). Now superseded anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I suggested an alternative in the nomination discussion. Now superseded anyway.Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The ITN blurb for the shooting in Buffalo, New York fails to convey why the shooting was considered notable enough to warrant posting amidst the scores of other mass shootings the U.S. experiences on a daily basis. How the blurb should be updated, I'm not sure, but the current one is clearly insufficient.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, "US" is not a proper abbreviation, so I've expanded it to "United States." As for a detailed explanation, that's not always required for a front page blurb, though it may be useful if it is immediately apparent. Since it has not been formally labeled a "hate crime," I don't think there is more to be added here that can also be responsible speech. BTW, the U.S. does not experience killings of 10 people in one setting "on a daily basis." - Fuzheado | Talk 17:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know"

Current DYK

• "... that The Land We Love, a little magazine that merged into Southern Magazine (cover pictured), printed Civil War recollections, poetry, agricultural material, and many works by female authors?" Which Civil War? One assumes the US one, but it needs specifying, especially as it's not clear from the blurb it's an American magazine. It's not even explicitly stated in the target article which civil war it is. Lazy writing and it shows systemic bias. Fgf10 (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  The hook is ambiguous, but not an error, per se. Not sure if it was intentional to invite the reader to click the bold link. As for the article itself, you have permissions to edit that directly. Readers are invited to boldly improve it. Since your post, someone changed it to explicitly referenced the "American Civl War", though it seemed implicit before, as it was an American magazine already.—Bagumba (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Do be bold, bro. -- Sca (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with Fgf10, all the other hooks can be geolocated except this one. How about adding "American" to make it "an American little magazine"? Mujinga (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  How about U.S. Civil War? -- Sca (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. The target article calls it an "American little magazine", which I believe suffices for foreigners like me to work out the general location. Additionally: the hook seems to have two target articles, which I thought was not permitted except in special circumstances. I suggest * ... that The Land We Love, an American little magazine that merged into Southern Magazine (cover pictured), printed Civil War recollections, poetry, agricultural material, and many works by female authors? Bazza (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

   Done linked to American Civil War. — Maile (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  ...the hook seems to have two target articles, which I thought was not permitted...: There is no limit to the number of bolded links, as long as each one meets the DYK criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Bagumba: Thanks for explaining that. Bazza (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting how quickly you are quick to criticize, typically unfairly in my view, content when you don't contribute content yourself and don't ever act yourself to make easy fixes. It's unfair to call something lazy writing if it's the only issue you see and the article was written from scratch. SL93 (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

given that the issue was already resolved, SL93, I don't see any constructive value in having this fight- especially on a highly public page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any constructive value in assuming that I'm trying to start a fight. SL93 (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to do, but calling someone an armchair critic on WP:ERRORS isn't going anywhere good. Can we step back from this, please? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I never called anyone an armchair critic and it's fine if they are, but not when they are consistently unfairly rude about it. I wasn't planning on saying anymore if the editor did respond, but I wanted my thoughts posted. I don't appreciate your assumptions. SL93 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

okay, sorry about that; responded on your talk. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Tomorrow's OTD

• Montreal unsourced sections Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(May 20)

Monday's FL

(May 16, today)

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.

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)