Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Main Page error reports[edit]

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 (18:10 on 20 June 2018), 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 the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article[edit]

TFA today[edit]

The summary says "To the surprise of the civic groups, Canadian and American highway officials attending the opening announced federal funding to cover the bridge costs." But when I read the article, it was 2 Canadian officials and no American showed up at the opening. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this, I'll go try to figure out when that change was made. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
You're right, and looking at the history, I couldn't figure out what happened. I'll fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

TFA tomorrow[edit]

Errors in In the news[edit]

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day[edit]

OTD today[edit]

OTD tomorrow[edit]

  • International Yoga Day is actually called "International Day of Yoga" but have you read the 2018 section? Poor tone much? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    Not going to pull this for involvement reasons, but I concur that it should be pulled. The event itself is a PR exercise, and the page needs to be rewritten entirely using independent sources before it is featured.
    Moved the article to International Day of Yoga. As for the nature of the article itself, it doesn't seem to be that much different from other UN dates like World Toilet Day. howcheng {chat} 16:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    @Howcheng: Most UN dates are not the product of a PR initiative from a a single government, resulting in the article being full of dodgy material. I've already removed an entire section, but there's more problems. A large paragraph about the origins of Yoga (a sensitive subject) is sourced to this unreliable website. I also had to remove this bit of randomness. The lead repeats the assertion of a political figure [1] in Wikipedia's voice (the bit about June 21st having special significance). Ref 7, used for an entire paragraph, is a primary source from the Indian government which no longer works. Ref 8, also used for an entire paragraph, is by this guy, and is an explicitly religious column; it has its role in the newspaper, but it's completely unreliable for factual information. The 2015 section claims millions of people participated in the event, but that's not in the source. I could go on. As I said before, the reason I'm not pulling this is because I've worked on related articles, but that's why I have the background knowledge to be deeply skeptical of the quality here. Vanamonde (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "National Indigenous Peoples Day" either the article is incomplete/out of date ( "... a statement pledging to rename the event National Indigenous Peoples Day.") or the name is still "National Aboriginal Day". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    This could do with more fleshing out. I'll leave it be for the moment (Trudeau seems to have said he'd rename it, after all, we just need someone to add the actual renaming) and pull it if it proves necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    Updated article to use the new name. It appears the actual renaming was a bureaucratic action, though, as I couldn't find anything about it online. The closest I got was a bill introduced to make the day a statutory holiday [2], which hasn't been passed yet. howcheng {chat} 16:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Marie-Joseph Angélique's death is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    Now referenced. Article isn't great overall though; a swap may be a good idea. Vanamonde (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Query: the image used tomorrow does not actually appear in the target article. This is usually a no-no across pretty much all sections of the main page, does that apply here? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    I agree that it's unusual, but this does seem to be a case where the image is the best one for the blurb, would be okay in the article, and the article has too many images. Vanamonde (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    We've never had that rule for OTD. howcheng {chat} 16:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Errors in the current or next Did you know...[edit]

DYK current[edit]

DYK next[edit]

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture[edit]

POTD today[edit]

POTD tomorrow[edit]

Errors in the summary of the last or next featured list[edit]

FL current[edit]

FL next[edit]

General discussion[edit]

Change in section headers[edit]

I propose that the current section headers "Wikipedia's sister projects" and "Wikipedia languages" be changed to "Sister projects" and "In other languages". The fact that these sections are on the (English) Wikipedia Main Page, combined with the introductory sentences in each section, makes the current headers redundant. I have created separate sections for each below.

"Wikipedia's sister projects" to "Sister projects"[edit]

  1. Support as proposer. --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - no need to remove clarification. Using "Wikimedia sister projects" (see Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects) might be something to consider, but I am not sure I would support that. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose to preserve clarity. — This, that and the other (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Don't really see much point of changing it - and currently it's clearer.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia languages" to "In other languages"[edit]

  1. Support as proposer. --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Chris857 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support L293D ( • ) 20:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC) moved to support in next section
  4. Oppose - Again, no need to remove clarification. Furthermore, it is not this site translated as that implies, but rather they are separate entities.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    Considering the location on Wikipedia and the introductory sentence reiterating that these are Wikipedias I have to wonder about how much "clarification" this really needs. And I fail to see how this would imply that the other Wikipedias are translations of this one. --Khajidha (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Godsy. --Joshualouie711talk 21:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Oppose for clarity. If I see "In other languages", then I'd expect choosing one will give me a translation of the main page, which it doesn't (today, it includes a featured article on Norma; whereas clicking Nederlands has something about California). Bazza (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia languages" to "Wikipedia in other languages"[edit]

  1. support as proposer. L293D ( • ) 21:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. Some have opposed this on the basis that this is like saying "This wiki in other languages", suggesting that the other language editions of Wikipedia are merely translations of this wiki. However, Wikipedia is an overarching project with many manifestations. This is the English Wikipedia, and it is as much a part of the Wikipedia project as is French Wikipedia, Tagalog Wikipedia and so on. So it is not incorrect to say "Wikipedia in other languages"; we would simply be referring to other parts of this project. In any case it is certainly clearer than the ambiguous "Wikipedia languages", which is an uneasy juxtaposition of two nouns without any clarity as to how they relate to each other. — This, that and the other (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Not sure how to clearly convey the intended meaning, however, this change is not an explicit improvement (though it may be equal).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support. Clearer and makes more sense, also This, that and the other has good points. See below--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support, much clearer. — 🦊 23:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia languages" to "Wikipedias in other languages"[edit]

  1. Support as proposer. Same as immediately above, but pluralising "Wikipedias" better emphasises that these are seperate entities, and not translations of a single "Wikipedia". --LukeSurl t c 19:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    This sounds like a good idea; I'll have to ponder it a bit though. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    @This, that and the other: What do you think about plural as opposed to singular Wikipedia. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. Bazza (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support. Moved my support to here.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, per our article, Wikipedia is the complete entity of articles in multiple languages. There are no “Wikipedias”. Stephen 21:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Leave everything as-is[edit]

  1. Support as proposer. No changes need to be made.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    Is this really needed as a separate option? Won't the Main Page stay as-is if none of the current proposals gain consensus? --Joshualouie711talk 18:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, while failing to gain consensus results in this outcome, it can be useful to record this option anyway. An explicit option to make no change, if it gained significant votes, is different that failing to gain consensus for the type of change. One means that people want a change, but couldn't agree on how, the other means they don't want change at all. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 21:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Fix Donation Link[edit]

The Donation link leads to the German site https://spenden.wikimedia.de/. For English readers, having to read German or translate will most likely put them off from donating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xuramaz (talkcontribs)

When I click the donation link, I get English. And when I go to German Wikipedia and click Donate, I get Jimmy Wales in German. Your link asks you to donate to something that claims to be collecting for German Wikipedia. I wonder if you have some malware. Art LaPella (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Then again, this page has existed since 2010, so at least the organization sounds legitimate. Art LaPella (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Xuramaz: all of the donation links on Main Page should go to donate.wikimedia.org. Can you provide some more details of exactly what you are seeing? Is this happening here, on the English Wikipedia, or on another project? — xaosflux Talk 03:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, are you referring to the link in the left side bar, or is this a big banner on the top of the page (a CentralNotice perhaps). — xaosflux Talk 03:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

hmmm, it must be something funky on my end then, as going to donate.wikimedia.org by typing it in still gets me to that German site, but typing it in on my phone works fine. Opening it in Firefox instead of Chromium works fine. Turns out deleting cookies for the German donation site fixed the issue, although it is strange that this happened to me in the first place. False flag I guess. Also, I was initially talking about the sidebar. Xuramaz (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass shooting in Charleston, SC[edit]

I really like that this item never mentions the name of the shooter. (It is in the articles, for those interested.) But not including it in the item here on the main page is great -- don't give any publicity to people like this. T bonham (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to tell whether or not this is a tongue-in-cheek comment, but if you or anyone would prefer to see something not there currently on the main page, please participate in the processes that determine what is chosen.--WaltCip (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure that the comment was not tongue in cheek, but a genuine sentiment. There's a growing push for the media not to publicize the perpetrators of mass shooters so much in reporting on the events, since that gives such people exactly the attention they crave and increases the likelihood of further such acts.--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 North Korea–United States summit[edit]

Is this still news? Granted at the time it was major, but it happened 6 days ago. Without wishing to become embroiled in an "If you want changes get involved with the decisions" type of discussion - at the very least isn't it time the picture was changed to something more recent and notable? Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Certainly -- if a free image exists. Most of the time, images that are suggested are non-free and cannot be used.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion should be at WT:ITN.  Nixinova  T  C  21:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)