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 (UTC, currently 22:52 on 20 May 2019), 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 the featured article[edit]

Today's TFA[edit]

Tomorrow's TFA[edit]

Errors with In the news[edit]

Errors in On this day[edit]

Today's OTD[edit]

Tomorrow's OTD[edit]

Errors in Did you know...[edit]

Current DYK[edit]

Next DYK[edit]

In the third hook (Robert Coles), the italicized text crashes into the question mark. (This may appear differently in different browser configurations.) Please replace ? with {{-?}}. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 18:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

More importantly, the hook is talking as if it's fact, whereas the article is clear that it is the opinion only of "some scholars". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Less than two hours before it hits the Main Page. Suggest "which, according to some scholars, later inspired", or, more simply, just add "may have" before "inspired". Plus, of course, the "?" tweak. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Interesting that the punctuation is fixed, but not the actual facts of the matter. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done I inserted the question mark coding. I use two different browsers, and I see no difference on either of mine. Out of courtesy, pinging Rhododendrites and Diogenes99, so at least they can't say they weren't notified. The article says, "Some scholars argue that Coles's punishment was among those Nathaniel Hawthorne had in mind when he wrote the 1850 novel, The Scarlet Letter,". Appropriate wording added to the hook. — Maile (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah didn't you write that hook? Comment from you requested, please. — Maile (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK[edit]

Errors in the featured picture[edit]

Today's POTD[edit]

Tomorrow's POTD[edit]

Errors in the summary of the featured list[edit]

Friday's FL[edit]

Monday's FL[edit]

General discussion[edit]

International Workers' Day[edit]

I am rather surprised that this day is not mentioned among the celebrations on May 1, while a Gaelic celebration in the Isles and one in India both are. Is there any particular reason for that?--R8R (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The standard rationale for these is that the relevant article is not up to scratch. A cursory scan of the article shows quite a few citation needed tags. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thank you very muchÄâ for your response.--R8R (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Couldn't the increased traffic spur improvements? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. —  AjaxSmack  02:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
There is no evidence that readers of the main page click through and significantly improve articles. Stephen 03:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Although it's easy to use to prove that articles get more edits (and presumably more improvements) while on the Main Page, that doesn't make much of a dent in 5,860,456 articles. We choose to give prominence to relatively good articles. Art LaPella (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The motive behind "giv[ing] prominence to relatively good articles" is sound, but what we've ended up with is a daily list of minor or fancruft "holidays" from Ronald Reagan Day to Star Wars Day while major world holidays like Chinese/Lunar New Year and May Day are shunted aside. This hardly inspires an attitude of seriousness by readers toward the project, and could be more counterproductive than linking readers to articles in need of improvement.  AjaxSmack  21:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Yep, I agree, but good luck getting it changed as long as Wikipedia operates on "consensus", which means any handful of people can join up to veto any change, making the project hyper-conservative. (This excludes things the community doesn't have control over like the MediaWiki software.) For consolation, the Main Page isn't very important anyway, as little of the general public ever sees it. Most Wikipedia traffic comes from Wikipedia articles showing up in Google search results. The Main Page in practice serves as a trophy case for project insiders. -- (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The main page gets between 15 to 20 million hits per day. Stephen 00:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
That's just hits, correct? Do we have any idea of unique visitors, or how much of that is automated (search engine scrapers, etc.)? And how much is people clicking on the logo link while trying to figure out how to search or get around the site? Are there figures on how long people spend viewing the main page? Honest questions. The articles that get the most daily hits are almost never things on the Main Page, which leads me to believe relatively few people do more than glance at it even if they arrive there for whatever reason. For example, right now the only article in the traffic top 20 according to Wikitrends that's on the Main Page is Ramadan, and I'm pretty sure most traffic for holiday articles is from Google. What's the Main Page traffic as a percentage of total English Wikipedia traffic? I searched around a bit for total en page views, but Google just gives me articles saying "about 18 billion views per month" for all Wikipedias combined. -- (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe if the people who believe that these major world holidays deserve to be on the Main Page would simply look over them and fix the issues instead of assuming that these days will get a pass then they would be in good enough shape to qualify. It's not our fault that people care enough to make sure that Star Wars Day is up to snuff, but just ignore May Day. --Khajidha (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. If you see a problem, fix it. howcheng {chat} 07:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see much of a problem with e.g. May Day. It is lightly sourced but certainly far from an embarrassment. Ditto with International Workers' Day. Neither seem particularly different from Ramadan.  AjaxSmack  17:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Did you check what the pages looked like on 30 April? --Khajidha (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Even now, the "By country" section of the IWD article is woefully referenced. Fully deserving of a tag really. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Would every country in the 'by country' section need a source that the IWD is indeed celebrated or just sources for the other random cultural tidbits surrounding the occasion in the different countries? (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
A source is needed, yep, for each one. Could be "one source fits all", but unverifiable claims have no place in an encyclopedia, let alone bold linked from the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah of course, not complaining. Just thinking of how much work that would be. Not sure how one would source IWD in Somalia, for example, unless there is something reliable that actually does list all countries that celebrate IWD. And then there is probably lots of content that would be somewhat easy to source, if one spoke the different languages... (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
For sure, it's difficult to source some of these things, but it really doesn't mean we should even really allow such unverifiable claims to be within the articles, let alone linked from OTD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I did not mean to say it should be linked, i was more thinking about how to fix it. And that the task at hand is quite daunting. Anyway, cheers for making clear what is needed to get the article up to scratch for next year (not that i actually believe it will be fixed lol) (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS and Commons[edit]

Finding nothing comparable to WP:ERRORS over at Commons, I've proposed that one be created. If you're familiar with the workings of ERRORS (in particular, anything technical that's not immediately obvious), please visit C:Talk:Main Page#COM:ERRORS. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You'd have better luck trying to bite an air biscuit than getting anything worthwhile proposed and established at Commons. WaltCip (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Commons is known for its resistance to changes in its policy's in fact you likely have a better chance at becoming a admin there then changing its policies Cvxs (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Cvxs, I've been an admin at Commons for four years now. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
What WaltCip said. Commons makes en-wiki look a model of efficiency, and their institutional culture is so obsessively "not invented here" they'll reject any proposal on principle. (Also, errors on their main page are less of an issue; errors on the main pages of the large Wikipedias are a problem because they're de facto portals to the internet for the general public, but nobody except insiders ever looks at Commons.) ‑ Iridescent 02:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)