Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Main Page error reports

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
  • 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 15:29 on 20 February 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
  • Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
  • Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed, determined not to be an error, or the item has rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Navalny item: I think corrective labor colony is a more relevant article than penal colony. The former link is used in our articles about Navalny and his death. Please update the ITN blurb to match. Modest Genius talk 20:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It now uses Corrective labor colony. Schwede66 15:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Navalny item: Virtually no one knows where Kharp is so that should be changed to "in Yamalia", "in northwestern Siberia", or at least "near Salekhard". RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Few Anglophones know where Yamalia or Salekhard are, either. Suggest instead "near Vorkuta," erstwhile site of the infamous Soviet Gulag 'camp' Vorkutlag. Vorkuta is about 50 mi. from Kharp. -- Sca (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Well, the body of the article actually did say the only such, and it was indeed cited there. However, the cited article itself merely says it's the first. Furthermore, it being the only such is the sort of thing that could quickly change over time, and the source is two years ago, so overall I agree it's safer to stick with it being the first. I have amended the body of the article (matching what was already in the lead) and the hook accordingly. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next DYK

  • "... that Max Stephan was sentenced to hang for taking a Nazi pilot to a prostitute and drinks as part of a 22nd-birthday tour of Detroit?"

Well, yes, and for giving him aid and money so he could flee the US and fight again for Germany against the US. But I guess including the main reason for the conviction wouldn't be clickbaity enough. Fram (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There must be a way to include both, this one seems too clickbaity. Wikitransit (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree this is misleading. We could just use a slightly tweaked version of the article lead:
  • '...sentenced to death for aiding a Nazi pilot who had escaped from a prisoner of war camp?'
Modest Genius talk 11:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, good call.  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(February 23)

Monday's FL

(February 26)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

This is the only article proposed so far (it's at it was at WP:TFAP) for April Fool's Day. From its Featured Article nomination page: "A bunch of men pretending to be actors? Check. A bunch of men actually indulging in "games, madness [and] obscene debauchery"? Check. Men beaten, goods stolen, a town terrorised? Check. A hapless bishop writing letters but achieving little else? Check. Welcome to 14th-century England". It's been less than a year since it was promoted to WP:FA, and it seems fine to me. Any objections? Other ideas? @Serial Number 54129. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sheila1988. - Dank (push to talk) 02:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weird side question: How does one pretend to be an actor? Acting is pretending. By pretending to be an actor, you are an actor. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Schroedinger's actors?  ;) to be fair, that's just my tic-tac speel to lure in the punters; it don't necessarily have to be accurate, just interesting  :) ——Serial 14:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any objections? Only the usual bellyaching and moaning from me as to whether or not this is something we want our schoolchildren - you know, the ones who do nothing at school all day except stare at the Wikipedia Main Page and then report back to their outraged parents - to be seeing. But I think we should be okay given that there isn't any actual explicit imagery/content on the hook itself. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 15:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is actually an amazing, entertaining, and informative article all at once. Any chance we could just use its FAC nom statement as the TFA blurb? AryKun (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it time for a new design for the main page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hi, Wikipedians,

I believe it's time to consider updating the design of the main page. I'm not certain when the current style was implemented, but it seems to date back to 2006 or even earlier. Nowadays, there are numerous modern and colorful box templates available that could give the page a more contemporary look. What are your thoughts on starting this initiative? After all, the main page represents our entire community. I understand that changing a familiar style can be challenging for many users, but it's part of the natural cycle of updates.

Best regards, Riad Salih (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you think these colorful boxes would be a good thing? Sounds hideous and childish to me. Not at all the sort of look for an encyclopedia.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Khajidha,
I haven't provided any details about their appearance, and we haven't discussed the style yet, so it's unclear how you determined that they might sound hideous and childish. I'm just starting the initiative, and it's worth noting that the existing boxes are also colorful too. Riad Salih (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This sort of discussion is best done at the Village Pump where you already started one. You can certainly provide a link here to there. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because I find most modern, colorful web designs hideous and childish. That's why my personal Main Page looks like this. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the continuing battle between the ever dwindling number of editors and the fight between various shades of Wikipedia purity, the last thing we need is a battle of the Main Page. It'd make the "...on wheels!" battle look like a nursery rhyme. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the on wheels battle? Zanahary (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the simplicity of it makes it easy to navigate. A bunch of colors would (at least for me) make it too difficult to focus on the text. It also depends on the colors, a partially transparent light blue would look great, but neon pink would be hideous. 𝔐𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔊𝔬𝔡27 (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not suggesting adding a bunch of colors, but a quick redesign to give it a fresh look would be nice to see. The current design already uses a lot of colors! Riad Salih (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Riad Salih: My thought is that a more contemporary look (whatever that means) is not needed. Bazza (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would recommend that you read Wikipedia:Main Page design as you will find that your concern regarding the Main Page's dated design is not a lonely one -- but as with all design aspects of Wikipedia, if it works, it works. And since we're not a commercial website subject to the whims and pressures of stockholders purchasing publicly-traded shares, it's highly unlikely there will be any substantive changes to the Main Page, let alone superficial purely cosmetic changes. Personally, I'd also argue that part of the natural cycle of updates is a thought-terminating cliche. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 13:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is the trend-setter. There is no need for us to follow the trend of redesigning webpages all the time. Twenty-three years into our project, we define what people expect from an informational website - which is why so many other wikis specifically run on MediaWiki, explicitly to look more like Wikipedia itself. It is what our readers expect to see. Changing the style would mean us dictating what our readers should adapt to, not the other way round. If the "dated" look is really so bothersome, one could always go to Special:Preferences and switch to Timeless. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 07:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changing the UI doesn't change the main page. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we redesign, I recommend the eswiki look. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.