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 |
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 08:10 on 21 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.
Errors in the summary of the featured article
Today's FA
Tomorrow's FA
Day-after-tomorrow's FA
Errors with "In the news"
- "Ensemble […] wins the French legislative election but loses its majority": Have you seen a single source saying it is a victory? Put it simpler: "Ensemble […] loses its absolute majority in the French legislative election". —-Fanfwah (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- The original discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted)_French_legislative_election had some people wanting there to be some mention of winning. It's probably better to take it up there for consideration. —Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Errors in "Did you know ..."
Current DYK
Next DYK
Next-but-one DYK
Errors in "On this day"
Today's OTD
- "capsizing 22 fishing boats and causing 35 fatalities." seems odd to target the loss of the boat rather than the deaths. Once again it feels like OTD is placing cart before horse. It should be that "35 people died after 22 fishing boats were capsized". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- And I'm not clear in the article where it says this all happened OTD. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is the reference - and it's not clear the deaths took place on the 20th June. Secretlondon (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- And I'm not clear in the article where it says this all happened OTD. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Tomorrow's OTD
Day-after-tomorrow's OTD
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Friday's FL
Monday's FL
Errors in the summary of the featured picture
Today's POTD
Tomorrow's POTD
General discussion
Discussion about orange tags in main page links
Hi all, just to note that I have started a discussion about whether orange tags are permitted in DYK articles at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Orange_maintenance_tags?. I'm mentioning it here at Talk:Main page as well, on the basis that this might be an area where there's supposed to be a universal main-page standard, and watchers of the main page who aren't directly involved in DYK may want to weigh in. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd probably allow a tag indicating missing content for POTD, but mainly because the image is the focus, with the article secondary, so as long as it didn't have any issues with verifiability. DYK, however, is focused on articles themselves, and it feels strange to allow maintenance tags. I suppose "Expand section" isn't so bad, though. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 02:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Page Popup
I'm not sure if this question has been asked before but I feel it needs attention: When there is an internal link to the main page, the popup shows that "There was an issue displaying this preview". I think that the text could somehow be replaced with something more friendly, such as "The Wikipedia Main Page". Thanks! Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 05:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's likely because the mainpage is really all templates, there isn't any wikitext to parse - which popups are you using? — xaosflux Talk 08:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think they're the ones enabled by default, see the image: Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 14:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: from MediaWiki:Popups-preview-no-preview. — xaosflux Talk 16:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- This may be expected behavior, may want to follow up at mw:Talk:Page Previews. — xaosflux Talk 16:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 16:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups provides inflation in setting a preview image. Perhaps if we set it to the Wikipedia logo? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 16:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden I think the OP is talking about the Popups base feature, not the navpop gadget. — xaosflux Talk 16:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ach, the help pages on this stuff is really badly disambiguated. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, some of the stuff I found on these pages basically sent me on a wild goose chase... Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 15:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ach, the help pages on this stuff is really badly disambiguated. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think that's for navigation popups, not Page Previews. I'm asking at the link that @Xaosflux mentioned. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 17:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- No issues using Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, when using the Nav popups it will simply show the title and the links instead of showing that there was an issue. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 17:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- No issues using Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden I think the OP is talking about the Popups base feature, not the navpop gadget. — xaosflux Talk 16:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups provides inflation in setting a preview image. Perhaps if we set it to the Wikipedia logo? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 16:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 16:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- This may be expected behavior, may want to follow up at mw:Talk:Page Previews. — xaosflux Talk 16:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: from MediaWiki:Popups-preview-no-preview. — xaosflux Talk 16:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think they're the ones enabled by default, see the image: Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 14:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Featured picture for 2022-06-21
Just to note in advance, while.... definitely in the vein of 18th century crudity, I feel that the featured picture for tomorrow is within community standards given that all these have appeared on the main page without controversy, some multiple times:
TFA 2021-08-02 (page slightly broken for sme reason)
POTD 2009-10-20 (with penises!)
Obviously, consensus can change. But given the image for today isn't at all sexualised - and I'd argue many of those were - and given that's honesly a very small sample found in a few minutes - I think we have an assumption it should appear if it serves an encyclopedic purpose. And given Durova isn't here to argue on behalf of her image, not having edited for five years, I find it impossible to justify pulling it, at least, insofar as it can be used to be educational about a notable artist. There are less explicit images by him, but there are actually way, way more explicit ones. Although I will agree that at least the joke of that last one I linked at least lands better than the POTD, and, yes, we could probably find a tamer image that covers Cruikshank, I still feel a duty to past contributors outweighs that sort of utopian search for a perfect image. Barring other restorations by her being found and nominated, it's unlikely she'll ever mainpage again. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 20:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- For reference, tomorrow's POTD is File:Indecency2.jpg. — xaosflux Talk 22:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also for reference, this discussion where I and another editor objected to the choice of image. Both of us gave up on that discussion because Adam Cuerden was arguing in bad faith, including falsely labeling my objection "censorship" and "prudishness". Here, he is disingenuously framing the concern as being over an exposed breast in a drawing, which is not the case. The vast majority of Cruickshank's images are completely unobjectionable. Commons has literally hundreds to choose from. There is no reason why this particular image *ever* has to appear on the front page of Wikipedia. There is certainly no reason why it must appear tomorrow. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- You objected, I put up a response promptly, and then you didn't come back to it except to state you weren't interested in talking about it more. I don't get why you started an objection only to disappear when the person responded with lengthy details, and then throw your hands up and cry out bad faith when I pinged you because you had ignored it for four days. I was fully willing to hold off on running it if you wanted to talk, but you made it very clear you didn't. Anyway, it's over now. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 00:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not wanting to participate in a bad faith discussion with a predetermined outcome and name-calling is not the same as being unwilling to discuss something. You were not looking for consensus then and you aren't interested in it now. If it is "over", it's because I am not willing to expend the effort necessary to continue it, not because you declare it to be. This is meant to be a cooperative project. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- There really wasn't a predetermined outcome. I listed a bunch of negatives to the image as well as positives. I don't think the negatives outweigh the positives, and I think that the history of the main page supports this image. However, I was completely willing to have an RFC on it if it would provide more certainty, but the process basically went, step one, agree to what's under dispute by listing pros and cons of running the image, so that either we convince each other of the image's suitability (or lack thereof), or we have agreement to the terms of the dispute which, at least in my eyes, is the obvious and absolutely necessary first step to any RFC - if that's the point that makes you leave the discussion (not that you have), I don't know what to tell you. You kind of acted in pretty bad faith yourself, trying to reclassify it under "Could cause harm" in POTD/Unused and pulling the image without any discussion. Or maybe that wasn't you. I don't know. All I can tell you is I was totally willing to have an RFC, but you instantly started to throw around accusations of bad faith and left the discussion.
- To be fair, it's possible my complaint about you ignoring the discussion for four days came off a bit harsher than intended. But I spent about an hour writing up my analysis of pros and cons of the image, only to be met with silence. Well, I mean, except for Branulator9 coming in to agree with me that the image is not particularly graphic. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 01:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did not move the image and I have never edited POTD/Unused. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Okay. My apologies, then, if any of my annoyance at that little action came out in the discussion there. While it might have been carelessness as to where it got classified, putting it into the group with the really extreme images that aren't even shown on there - lynchings, a photograph focusing on genitalia, a painting of a nude underage model - did not help make the discussion feel very... civil. Like... I get there isn't exactly a division set up for it (perhaps one for "Under discussion" should be set up), but it's hardly at the level of "Has a (finished) discussion officially declaring it unusable and is very obviously more extreme than anything we've already main paged".
- Honestly, POTD is below the screen cutoff, and not even shown on mobile. For all the work I've done setting it up, it really is secondary to anything else on the main page. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 02:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did not move the image and I have never edited POTD/Unused. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not wanting to participate in a bad faith discussion with a predetermined outcome and name-calling is not the same as being unwilling to discuss something. You were not looking for consensus then and you aren't interested in it now. If it is "over", it's because I am not willing to expend the effort necessary to continue it, not because you declare it to be. This is meant to be a cooperative project. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- You objected, I put up a response promptly, and then you didn't come back to it except to state you weren't interested in talking about it more. I don't get why you started an objection only to disappear when the person responded with lengthy details, and then throw your hands up and cry out bad faith when I pinged you because you had ignored it for four days. I was fully willing to hold off on running it if you wanted to talk, but you made it very clear you didn't. Anyway, it's over now. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 00:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Today's image barely registers on the Main Page offense-o-meter. -- Veggies (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Must we really go through this tiresome (mostly) American prudishness and attempted censorship every time we have an image that shows more than an ankle? Not to mention this only ever comes up when it's more than a female ankle. The misogyny and double standards are really quite astonishing. Fgf10 (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I find the blurb interesting, and I think the POTD illustrates it appropriately. Part of what the POTD illustrates is that prints of that day could be quite "rude"; so the mild offense of this POTD is a component of what makes it interesting and educational. A less rude image would be of less value in this context. Well done to Adam here. Jmchutchinson (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)