Talk:Main Page

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 09:59 on 1 November 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 or determined not to be an error, or the item has been 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.

Administrators: Clear all reports

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)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that Yang Pao'an refused to forsake the Chinese Communist Party, reportedly even after a telephone call with Chiang Kai-shek?

The word "reportedly" is a red flag per MOS:WEASEL and MOS:DOUBT. The article's version of the story starts, "According to the People's Daily..." That's a clearer attribution but People's Daily is an official organ of the CCP and so is not reliable on the subject of its martyrs and Chiang Kai-Shek. See the similar WP:XINHUA which explains that "For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately..."

Note also that the People's Daily story was not a contemporary account but was published in 2021, ninety years after the event.

So, this doesn't seem to be a definite fact as required by WP:DYKHOOK.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Just going to mention that, at the very least, the telephone call has been reported since at least 1981.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 1, today)

Monday's FL

(November 4)

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.

Today's POTD

In the description of the featured picture for Diwali, we should wikilink the mythical city Ayodhya (Ramayana) instead of the actual city Ayodhya. The reason is explained in the second paragraph of the article Ayodhya (Ramayana):

“ The historicity of this legendary city is of concern to the Ayodhya dispute. According to one theory, it is same as the present-day Ayodhya city. According to another theory, it is a fictional city, and the present-day Ayodhya (originally called Saketa) was renamed after it around the 4th or 5th century, during the Gupta period. ”

Also see the section Ayodhya_(Ramayana)#Historicity. --Lekhak93 (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Turquoise protection lock

A protection symbol should be added to the top right corner of the main page, because the page is cascade-protected.(turquoise lock for cascade or gold lock because page is fully protected too.) RaschenTechner (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Mostly it isn't there because we don't want it there - this is a special page. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This page is not labelled as a special page, it is just the "Main Page" RaschenTechner (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be formally marked as special to be special. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

But usually, all protected pages that are not formally marked as special have protection locks in the top right corner, even redirects. Except for the main page. RaschenTechner (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The main page is not a usual page. It is not an article, and does not need a lock icon. CMD (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

But non-article pages also have protection locks (like Wikipedia policies). RaschenTechner (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Why should a padlock be permanently displayed on the Main Page when it doesn't need to be? Many who arrive there are casual readers and won't know what that means. If you really want to be formal about this, consider it an WP:IAR exception. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

But this rule doesn't prevent you fom improving or maintaining Wikipedia. RaschenTechner (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Please tell us how your idea improves Wikipedia. Again, Why should a padlock be permanently(because this will never be unprotected) displayed on the Main Page when it doesn't need to be? Many who arrive there are casual readers and won't know what that means.

If you want policy to formally state that the Main Page doesn't need a padlock icon, then go to the policy talk page to propose that(but not everything needs to be written down, see WP:CREEP) 331dot (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The lock should indicate that the page is protected. Also, if casual readers want to know what it means, they can go to the Wikipedia protection policy page and figure out what it means. RaschenTechner (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That's what you want to do, but you don't indicate why this is a needed change. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I already said this: Usually all protected pages have the protection icon RaschenTechner (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This one has never had it, again, why is this a needed change? What's the benefit? 331dot (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

People would know that this page is protected. They would also know what kind of protection is in place without needing to access the protection log, which is not accessible for unregistered users RaschenTechner (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

But what's the benefit to that? I'm honestly not clear on what the problem is that you are attempting to remedy. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

People who are unregistered can not see that the page is cascade-protected. It's only a problem for those who are interested in Wikipedia protection but aren't registered yet. RaschenTechner (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Is that a large number of people? It seems more hypothetical; I've been here for 12 years and you're the first I've seen that claim this is a problem. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not a large number of people. This is not the main problem, it's just that every non-special page has a protection icon when protected. Except the main page. RaschenTechner (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I too think a padlock is not necessary for the Main Page, which is uniquely exempted from MOS, standard layout rules for articles etc. It's pretty clear that the page is protected, obvious why, and adding a padlock wouldn't help anybody. It would just mess with the design for no useful purpose. Modest Genius ^talk 18:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the lock shows when you click the edit button, together with a huge warning that you have be careful. If you are an admin, that is, otherwise you probably cannot even do that. So, no need to add it extra. Tone 21:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I do sympathise with the OP somewhat. The Main page is special. On mobile, if you are logged in there is no edit button at the top (if it was there, clicking it could give you a popup telling you the page is protected) and the Talk page button is hidden down the bottom.

Logged out on mobile (don't test this is you don't like ads, I am still recovering) there is still no edit button and I couldn't find the Talk page button anywhere (might be a browser issue).

The presence of an edit button would help introduce the concept of protection to new editors.

This may all be by design, we don't want too many suggestions on this talk page, it is more convenient to have a barrier to entry for people who want to "improve" the Main page.

Having said all that, the status quo is not too bad. The experience on desktop is more like a regular article page, but most of our readers (and perhaps one day editors) are on mobile. Commander Keane (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)