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 10:15 on 30 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"

Yasin Malik

Why do the words 'Kashmiri separatist leader' in the blurb link to the wider Kashmir conflict instead of the more appropriate/specific Insurgency in Kashmir? Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict seems an appropriate article for it. And, as chance would have it, that article mentions Malik while the insurgency article does not...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know"

Current DYK

Both DYK and OTD will have images of Abraham Lincoln running simultaneously. That made me wonder if it was the anniversary of his birth or death, but it seems that the co-occurrence is just chance. That is not so bad, and I realise that it is not an error, but I'd say that it would look more professional if the DYK hook was swapped with one from the next day. Jmchutchinson (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Tomorrow is Memorial Day an American day of mourning for military personnel who died in wars. The Lincoln Memorial was dedicated May 30, 1922, while the DYK image is of a suffering Lincoln, commanderer in chief during the American Civil War. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've learnt something; thanks. Then I suppose things should stay as they are, even though it will nevertheless still look like an unfortunate coincidence to non-US readers. Jmchutchinson (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

In my view, two Lincoln images is one too many. Whatever the underlying reasons. Thoughts? Schwede66 19:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

yes agree it would be better to swap the DYK pic out Mujinga (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

That issue is not about errors, but about an individual project's right to choose what it puts on the main page. I certainly would not make any changes without getting a consensus of the projects involved, given the historical importance of Lincoln, and the significance of Memorial Day itself. This is not a subject to get two or three agreeing here, without involvement of the projects.— Maile (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's not overdue Honest Abe just because Monday is a U.S. national holiday. There was only one Abraham Lincoln – he "belongs to the Ages." And there's only one Main Page on English Wiki. Swapping out a DYK shouldn't be that difficult. -- Sca (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Sca – I honestly can't imagine a scenario where I'd support having pictures of the same subject in multiple main page sections at the same time. Just doesn't feel like a good use of the limited space we have there. But of course, that's just my two (Lincoln) cents... ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I've moved the DYK hook back by 24 hours. Schwede66 00:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a good decision, thanks. And projects don't have an inalienable "right to choose" their content, that would fall foul of WP:OWN. The DYK pages, like any other, are subject to consensus and decision making processes across Wikipedia. That's why discussions at Talk:Main page can determine that certain POTDs are not suitable for the main page, and this Errors page has authority to make changes to all six of the main page areas where consensus exists to do so. In this case, main page balance of content is an appropriate rationale for change. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• DYK that shortly before sports shooter William Riedell was to compete in the 1936 Olympics, he had his pistols confiscated by the police because the precinct chief had decided there were "too many guns"? is not geolocated in any way in contrast to other hooks such as Austrian doctor Paul Bargehr and Indian women's hockey player Elvera Britto so I would suggest a change to DYK that shortly before sports shooter William Riedell was to compete in the 1936 Olympics, his pistols were confiscated by the New York police because the chief had decided there were "too many guns"? which comes in for me at 198 characters Mujinga (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  I've added "New York" to the hook. Schwede66 00:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Why does the main page show "Memorial Day in the United States (2022)"? Surely the "(2022)" part needs to be removed ASAP. The holiday didn't start in 2022, although this is misleadingly implied. CAVincent (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that other OTD items show the inception year, I'm unsure why you advocate for the removal of "2022". Shouldn't we except show "1868"? Or am I missing something? Schwede66 04:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I get the idea behind including (2022) — May 30 isn't Memorial Day every year, although it happens to be this year ­— but I agree it looks odd and confusing next to things like Statehood Day in Croatia (1990) and Lod Massacre Remembrance Day in Puerto Rico (1972). Displaying the item with no year would fit with the On this day (emphasis mine) heading for the box. FeRDNYC (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Memorial Day is every year but the date varies. Therefore, I would have thought that "1868" is more in keeping with other anniversaries than showing "2022". Schwede66 08:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

(We definitely shouldn't show (1868), IMHO, because Memorial Day didn't start on March 30, 1868. It's a moving holiday, observed on the "last Monday in May". ...Or is the "Monday before the last Tuesday in May", i.e. never on May 31?) FeRDNYC (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, it did start on May 30, 1868. (not March, FeRDNYC) It was formerly observed on May 30 from 1868 to 1970. Schwede66 08:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

That's just a coincidence though, presumably, that this year it happens to fall on the same date as the original. Better to just remove the year altogether IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 3)

Monday's FL

(May 30, 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

File:Lynching2.jpg

Please read the file name before clicking on it. It's exactly what it sounds like.

Okay. Let's talk. Should this appear in Picture of the day? I think there is educational value in shocking people sometimes, but I'm inclined to say, "No", because there's a lot of photographic decisions that might be coincidental, but which also feel like they paint a narrative:

Not photographing the face is a photographic decision that reinforces the dehumanisation of the victim. The hat - seriously, why would he be wearing a hat after a lynching - hides any evidence of beatings prior to the lynching. His neck is hidden by the collar, hiding the actual lynching except for a short bit of chain. His arms are tied, but that isn't possible. It feels like this photograph was staged, the body arranged to lessen the violence, and hide the humanity of the victim.

Also, there's an extreme lack of documentation for this image. Other than knowing it comes from 1925, we don't know where it happened, we don't know who it happened to. And, I hesitate to say this, but the lack of documentation means we don't even know for certain this was a real hanging: stage rigs for fake-hanging someone aren't particularly complex. (Obviously, lynchings happen, but that would go some way to explaining some of the other features of the image).

I'm open to violence on the main page. But it needs to serve a purpose. Any objections to leaving this one off? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 11:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see this image on the main page. Am I missing something? --Jayron32 15:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Nor do I. I just see another bird, as is typical for PotD. WaltCip-(talk) 16:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Doing the schedule work for next month's POTD, and this is one of the images (theoretically) in the queue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 16:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

If you're scheduling, and it bothers you, then who's going to stop you? Personally, doesn't make any difference to me. It would not be a problem to put it on the main page, but hey, if you're the one doing the hard work of setting up the queue and scheduling the pictures, it's your world. Nothing bad happens if you find other pictures to take up the queue. --Jayron32 18:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

There's no rule that all FPs have to be POTD. We have no shortage of other images to feature. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oddly enough, I'm inclined to say 'no' for the same reasons as my previous objection; it was taken in the first place to be voyeuristic - so many ended up as postcards even - and it's dehumanizing and objectifying. You touched on the latter yourself, above. This was a human being - someone's son, someone's baby. If I concentrate hard, I can understand the educational nature of this. But at the same time, it is clearly shocking on so many levels, and disrespectful to the victim. And I'm not entirely convinced that "educational" is the message everyone will receive here, y'know? - Alison ^talk 04:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Aye. I think there might be contexts for an image like this that justify them, e.g. "Walter Francis White took this photo to document the horror of.... "

But this feels like the kind of thing that would be of very low value to historians (no documentation, as mentioned), but could spread to every extreme racist website. Plus, it has an abuse filter to keep it appearing on non-whitelisted pages, which, if not precautionary, has terrifying implications. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 04:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hard no on having this on the main page. Gratuitous indeed, and unlikely to be received in its intended way, whatever that even is. Ovinus (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Think that's basically no disagreement, then. I'm sure we'll need to revisit related subjects at some point (And to clarify, by that I mean things like a few famous photographs of the aftermaths of battles, or something like File:Le Petit Journal 7 Oct 1906.jpg), but I think that we can safely declare anything like this is definitely out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 05:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Planned POTD 2022-06-13 (File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg)

There was clear consensus against including this image as POTD at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Archive 6#Discussion regarding possible picture of the day: Michele Merkin. I'm confused as to why User:Adam Cuerden removed it from Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused without discussion and scheduled it to run on 2022-06-13. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:POTD/Unused should actually link discussions if it's meant to be held by them. As it was, it very much gives the impression it was one person's opinion. However, I don't think the discussion is particularly relevant given the blurbs provided with the image were quite... bad, which contextualised things differently. Now, 8 years on, with her having done a number of notable things, I think the context is very different, especially compared to the blurb about glamour photography that I'm a little shocked this image was trying to run as. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 16:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden The discussion was explicitly mentioned and linked. Before you deleted it, the listing for this image ended in The decision not to feature this image on the main page was affirmed through a two-week discussion in May 2014. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Very well, but that was 8 years ago, in a very different Wikipedia environment, and the summary of the argument is "Too cheesecake-y", which is hardly a compelling case against. And, frankly, I don't think anyone really cares if it's on the main page. We've had literal people dying on the main page before. We've had more nudity. If it shouldn't be a featured picture at all, nominate it for delisting. There's plenty of time for that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 23:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The POTD guidelines specifically mention this as an example of an image which shouldn't be used. Hut 8.5 16:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to a vote on it, but I don't think it would really have any substantial controversy. I don't love the image, but I doubt it'd cause that much harm, and I don't like the precedent it sets to deny things more for fear of immature giggling than any concrete reason. And it's no doubt airbrushed and unrealistic, but it's not like we're going to make a habit of it. It's certainly an outlier for FPs, but it's not any worse than you'd see on the covers in any British shop's magazine rack.

I 'm not against leaving things off the main page, but I feel like there should be a standard of balancing possible harm with possible educational benefits. While a model's career might not be high academia, I'm really not seeing much harm, so... I think we call back to the default and run it.

And, you know, if we're really worried we can always move it to June 26th, at which point the featured article will absolutely assure no-one cares in the least about the FP. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 21:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Given the prior consensus against posting this I don't think it should be done without a discussion. Hut 8.5 11:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, we've been having one. I can't force people to comment. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 16:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll comment then and say that I see no good reason not to include it. It is a fine image of a beautiful person, and there is no suggestion of any exploitation of the subject. Maybe some cultures will find the semi-nudity mildly offensive, but by using the internet such users will be routinely exposing themselves to far worse, and our policy is not to accept such censorship on our pages. Jmchutchinson (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. No issue as far as I can tell. WaltCip-(talk) 15:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

May be relevant to point out Template:POTD/2018-04-02 while we're at it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 22:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Featured pictures that are apparently less controversial
• 

  Eugen Sandow
  Picture of the Day for 2 April 2018

• 

  "The Large Bathers" by Renoir
  Picture of the Day for 10 November, 2019

It kind of feels silly to block this one in the light of those. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 01:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• I wouldn't run the picture of the model on POTD because it's not a good picture. It's airbrushed and thus unrealistic. It's not educational; it doesn't really illustrate or depict anything well. There are better pictures of "glamour shots", of modeling, of airbrushing techniques, of bikinis... this just isn't a good example of anything. The bodybuilder is a famous historical figure ("the father of bodybuilding") and the Renoir is a famous painting; this photograph of a model is not a famous photograph nor a particularly famous model; they're not comparable. Levivich 07:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The remedy for "It shouldn't be an FP!" is a delist nomination at WP:FPC. They take ten days, and if closes as delist before it runs, what, 14 days from now? It can't run. If it happens, problem solved.

Frankly, it's boring '00s men's magazine cover stuff, with, at this point, it's biggest point of notability is being the oldest FP never to have gone on the mainpage. But it's also too old to effectively rejudge, and if I'm to start blocking things from the main page because they don't interest me, well, that's more power than you should give or that I should have as a co-ordinator.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 07:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hindi

Please Add A Hindi Language Sir/Madam TheManishPanwar (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheManishPanwar: There already is one. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)