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 02:19 on 1 June 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 in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 3)

Monday's FL

(June 6)

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)

"It hasn't run yet" is a terrible reason to run anything. Are we running low on candidate pictures? There's really no reason to remove it from /Unused. Also, I'm sure I don't need to tell you why these airbrushed glamour shots of models are harmful, e.g. to young people's body image and self-esteem. By the way, I'm not gonna spend my free time fixing the mistakes of years past by nominating FP's for de-listing (nor would I do that with FAs), but you're welcome to. That would be a better thing to do with a bad photo than removing it from /Unused and then kinda threatening to list it unless the community deals with it. I think as POTD coordinator what you should do is make choices so that we have the best outcomes with the least disruption/editor time spent. Don't use this position to make a WP:POINT. (I read the draft Signpost essay.) Levivich 12:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, think of the children! Although Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, I think we are all tolerant of doing so on the Main Page as an exception in extreme cases. This is surely not one. Images of untypically beautiful people are everywhere in most societies, so I don't believe that Wikipedia running such a picture on one day does one jot of harm. Jmchutchinson (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's all stop using the word "censored" in these discussions. Choosing an image to showcase on the front page, or choosing not to showcase an image on the front page, has nothing to do with censorship. Censorship would be deleting the image, not declining to showcase it. This is not an image of an untypically beautiful person, and even if it were, we are not here to showcase beauty. What is the encyclopedic value of this image? How does it educate? It does harm because it presents an unrealistic, unobtainable image of what some people think beauty is or should be. And yes, think of the children. Levivich 14:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

No, you don't have to delete an image for it to count as censorship; just not showing it will suffice. You seem to disapprove of the glamour industry (maybe for good reasons, but others differ). Not displaying the image for that reason seems like censorship to me. The encyclopedic value of the image is that it was judged to be a high quality example of the genre. Jmchutchinson (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Judged to be a high quality example of the genre by whom? From among what choices? It's an example of the genre, but it's not a high-quality one. It might be the only one with a compatible license. Levivich 17:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

And may I suggest you look up the definition of censorship. It's rather specific. "Not choosing an image for the main page because it's not the best image we can put up there" is not censorship under any definition you'll find. Levivich 17:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: I feel that every featured picture should potentially run. As I said, if the only objection is feeling it's an insufficiently good picture, the remedy is a delist nomination at WP:FPC, not requesting an extrajudicial judgement.

I have nearly 8% of all featured pictures. That means I can't go around judging other people's work arbitrarily, lest I end up treating them differently than myself. The Merkin image is, at worst, boring. It won't break Wikipedia, and I have no idea why it's managed to cause so much hand-wringing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 19:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If your contributions to FP limits your ability as POTD coordinator, then don't volunteer for the job. I am operating on the assumption that having you as POTD coordinator is no different than having anyone else as POTD coordinator. No previous coordinator felt that respecting /Unused was a problem or "extrajudicial judgment". You're the one who removed this image (and others) from /Unused and scheduled them, so you're the one who needs to justify that. I don't think it's right for you to unilaterally remove images from /Unused and schedule them, and then tell the rest of us to have it delisted if we don't like it because you want to run every FP. There is no consensus to run every FP; there is consensus not to run this and other FPs. It worries me that you admit this isn't a good picture but you've removed it from /Unused and listed it anyway. That's kind of the definition of WP:POINTy behavior: doing something that's bad (scheduling this bad pic) in order to make a point (about nudity? Censorship? /Unused? Every FP should be POTD? Idk.) Levivich 21:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The point is that it doesn't seem that bad. There's no point to be made if the image doesn't look like a problem. The Unused page shouldn't be an arbitrary collection, it should make sense. I'm not really hearing concrete reasons not to put it on the main page, just... well, WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a side of WP:THEREFOREYOUSHOULDNTLIKEITANDDOWHATISAY Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 22:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

IMO, POTD coord shouldn't be scheduling pics that, in his own words, "doesn't seem that bad". POTD should be the best pictures. This is not one of them. Nobody is saying it is obscene or lewd. It doesn't matter that she's half naked. That's not the issue--and as your own examples show, that was never an issue. This is a poor quality image. It shouldn't run for that reason alone. You seem to agree it's a poor quality image. You shouldn't schedule it for that reason alone. Levivich 23:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Was going to say this in a previous section, and have probably expressed as much in the past, but I agree that NOTCENSOR should be irrelevant for main page decisions. The encyclopedia isn't censored, as in if you go to an article about sexuality, anatomy, blasphemy, violence, etc., we shouldn't censor images that illustrate that subject. All of that is really easy to find on Wikipedia. The question is what we want to showcase for the broadest possible audience. There's obviously a ton of gray area, though, and that is where we need some imperfect form of consensus, weighing the educational value against objections. NOTCENSORED on its own shouldn't carry any weight, though. Even when we're talking about articles rather than the main page, NOTCENSORED is just an argument against removal -- it still needs to be accompanied with a persuasive argument to include. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia is, and should be, fundamentally an educational project. Putting this photo on the Main Page does not seem to me to have any educational value. It is, in a weird way, somewhat similar to the lynching photo above: in both cases, there could be educational value, but that getting that value requires more of an explanation than the Main Page's FP section offers.

I really don't think that the 120-year-old photo or the 19th-century painting are at all comparable, precisely because everyone involved in those historical words is long dead. If this photo comes up again a hundred years from now, you can put me down as supporting, except to the extent that Missvain was probably right in her prior comments about the white balance being off. (Also: When people respond "Maybe this ought to be de-listed", I think the response should be "Maybe we should think longer about running this – it's been eight years, so what's another month?" instead of "My poor hands are tied and I just have to run it unless you rush over there and get it de-listed first"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• A separate objection: do we have a model release to put this image on the front page? Aside from licensing rights, the model is covered by WP:BLP, and there are personality rights to consider. Levivich 22:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm in favor of another RFC or vote or whatever, if need be, over whether to run this image; it's been 8 years, and consensus can change. I agree that NOTCENSORED applies differently to the Main Page, in which people are more likely to come across content they see as offensive without intending to view such content; cf. Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, in which the privacy interest at issue in Stanley v. Georgia (which held that possessing obscene movies et al. could not be criminalized since no negative externalities exist) does not apply to public establishments (where such externalities can exist). That said, I don't think this image is very lewd (no excessive nudity), and I don't have any particularly strong feelings over whether this image should be run as POTD or is FP-worthy. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

That's kind of my point. It's nothing worth getting so bothered about, and I think we need a positive reason to skip, not a mere negative one. If we have a good reason to not put on the main page, that's one thing. But I find it odd that the main argument against it appearing appears to be a mere... not liking it. I mean, she's a public figure. We're not Brittanica, we cover popular culture as well. If we accept we're in part an encyclopedia of popular culture, models and television personalities aren't any less valid than more traditionally academic subjects, and me having no real interest in them is irrelevant. For example if a featured article co-ordinator started blocking the prolific roads or hurricane projects from the main page, we'd be quite upset at them, even if their argument is that they didn't interest them. I don't see this as any different: a co-ordinator needs to judge things dispassionately, not by what interests them to write or photograph or work on. And any of the sorts of subjects Wikipedia covers should be considered valid unless there's a good reason not to include it. My lack of passion for the subject shouldn't matter. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 22:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If "IDONTLIKEIT" is another way of saying "poor quality image", then that's like the #1 best reason not to run something for POTD. And whole consensus can change, the way to change an RFC consensus is with a new RFC, not by ignoring the old consensus. Levivich 23:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Currently no strong opinion for or against using the image as a POTD, just wanna say that Adam Cuerden scheduling the image for a POTD (without consensus) and removing it from the unused list feels very WP:GAMEy and uncivil. The edit summary Adam used was "They're scheduled for the main page. Putting them on here if they're running is ridiculous" which in itself is ridiculous, since Adam is the one who scheduled it. Adam should have sought consensus first, and this whole discussion feels WP:POINTy. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:32, 31 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)

@The C of E: I assume @TheManishPanwar is talking about the list of Wikipedias near the bottom of the page, created by Template:Wikipedia languages. The addition of Hindi to that list has been discussed repeatedly, but has usually been rejected because the quality of the Hindi Wikipedia was not high enough. However, it has been years since it was last discussed, and maybe Hindi Wikipedia is much better now. Template talk:Wikipedia languages is the place to request this addition. —Kusma (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries – date formats

I've had a look how long we've had selected anniversaries on the MP and the revision history goes back to February 2004. And ever since then, we've introduced those selected anniversaries in mdy date format. For example, it currently says on the MP:

May 31: World No Tobacco Day; Feast of the Visitation (Catholicism and Anglicanism)

• More anniversaries:
• May 30
• May 31
• June 1

I wondered whether we want to consider using dmy for a wee while. As it says at Errors: "Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety of English." Yet, we've introduced our selected anniversaries with one date style only over the last 18 years. If we were to change, this is what today's anniversaries would look like instead.

31 May: World No Tobacco Day; Feast of the Visitation (Catholicism and Anglicanism)

• More anniversaries:
• 30 May
• 31 May
• 1 June

What do you think? Go green or stay blue? Schwede66 02:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I vote green! 18 years? Seems like time for a change to me! We don't want to look stuck in our ways, do we? DrThneed (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• It is obvious green is the way forward for a global audience, and equally obvious that will never happen, as it's not the way Americans do things. Fgf10 (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• I also !vote green. It is in keeping with how the vast majority of the world do their dates. Though shouldn't this be a formal RFC? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  I believe in floating ideas first to see what the reaction is. If nobody supports it, an RFC is a waste of time. If it gets strong support, we also may not need an RFC. There is often very good feedback that informs how you’d word an RFC. Schwede66 07:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• MOS:RETAIN would suggest that we shouldn't just switch from one style to another just for the sake of it. Also, I find having the number at the beginning of the template slightly jarring. MOS:NUMNOTES tells us to avoid beginning a sentence with a figure, and this is kind of the same. Overall I would vote to keep it as is, this isn't really a strong ENGVAR issue anyway as plenty of British sources do use the May 31 format.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Umm, we are not using MDY or DMY at all, very notably there is no "year" value on these label at all. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DATEFORMAT explains that in limited situations where brevity is helpful, we are allowed to leave the year off. What remains still represents a British or American date format, does it not? Schwede66 10:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Mostly just pointing out that the arguments for something like "05/31/2022" vs "31/05/2022" don't really apply to "5 May" vs "May 5"; the first two can be ambiguous to many readers, the later are not. So this is really just a stylistic choice. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, we don't leave off the year for "brevity" we leave it off as it is redundant, these are annual occurrences, the year is irrelevant. The introduction to this discussion states we use mdy date format - I'm just pointing out that we don't use years here at all,in display or in the target article. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, either way, changing it so the date starts with "31" is not a positive change, the MOS says that we should not do this, and using the perfectly recognizable "May 31" satisfies this to the detriment of nobody. Noting that I Oppose this proposal.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'd support the change. Wikipedia might not prefer any national variety of English -- but the rest of the world does, and Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• MD, Blue, Status Quo Canada prefers it and most of the rest of the world respects Canada's decisions (even if it doesn't always understand them). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Per WP:ENGVAR, where there is a distinction between formats, and where no one variety of English has primacy over the usage, we default to the original usage. The date format should stay just as it is. --Jayron32 16:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• How much does this even matter? They both have no ambiguity, both are readable as the same exact thing, and are both accepted by the MOS. I think that, either way, it's not a big deal which one is chosen. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Leave them be, but not because of date formatting here, but because they are already literally the names of the articles (May 30 not 30 May) they point to, if someone really wants to argue about renaming those 366 articles, this isn't the right forum for that. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• I vote green in order to better reflect Wikipedia's a global audience given that the DMY format is used by almost every country in the world. Kiwichris (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)