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 21:22 on 23 October 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 the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(October 25)

Monday's FL

(October 28)

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.

General discussion

No Challenger?

Why isn't the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in "On this day" column? I think it should be on there just out of respect for the people that died. — Dusty777(talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

For a start, because the article has a big {{refimprove}} notice at the top. On a related note, a whole seven people died. If we were to list every event which killed at least seven people, there would be hundreds (maybe thousands) of entries every day. This was a notable event, but not just because people died. Modest Genius ^talk 01:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has 59 references. That's a lot to be slapped with that tag. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's also an FA, which I thought was rather odd. Best to let the article talk page deal with it. Modest Genius ^talk 02:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well there are entirely unreferenced sections, but the {{refimprove}} tag might be too much. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You could use {{refimprove-section}} but if it's multiple sections I can somewhat see the problem 14:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs)

I was wondering the exact same thing. I mean, the largest recorded snowflakes and the first guy to get a speeding ticket are noteworthy, but not the Challenger disaster? The number of deaths isn't the important part, it was an incredibly significant historical event. Why isn't it there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.198.115 (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll probably find it was there last year. Can't keep featuring the same things over and over.  狐 FOX  15:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I just found out that it's the 25th anniversary today. That's why. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The rules (WP:OTD, #7) say we can't use an article with a cleanup tag on it. The challenger disaster article has one. Unless and until it's dealt with, we can't use it, regardless of how significant the event was. Modest Genius ^talk 16:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's gone now. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I put Challenger back into OTD, but there's still sections that could use more references (i.e., simply removing the tag doesn't mean that the article doesn't need work). I'll put the maintenance tags back in the article after 00:00 UTC. howcheng {chat} 16:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but doesn't that defeat the rule's purpose? Isn't the idea that articles in need of such improvement aren't highlighted? This makes it seem as though we simply don't want the embarrassment of readers knowing that the problems exist. —David Levy 16:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but Space Shuttle Challenger disaster isn't in dire need of attention, and it's got the FA star of approval, so it doesn't look embarrassing having that item featured. I don't mind sweeping this under the rug for a few hours. howcheng {chat} 19:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well what i meant by respect for the people that died is that Millions of people were affected by this event. The school teacher that died affected all the kids in her class as well as the parents, her family. What about the others who died that day? If you were someone who was related to or friends one of the people who died, wouldn't you like to feel like some people remembered what happened? Also the people that worked at NASA that day when it happened? These people all were affected the second Challenger exploded. Also its the 25th anniversary (and you guys didn't even put the Picture on there), i think that by it self is good enough for OTD. You guys run the main page and you can do what you want. If you dont want it on there thats fine. I wont get mad or anything but i will be a little disappointed. I just think that the people that died and their family's and friends deserve a little bit of respect. If you want to take off of OTD no problem, just think a little about what you said and what happened.(Dusty777 17:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty777 (talk • contribs)

The sole issue with the article was that it's not good enough to be on the main page. The thing with "a whole seven people died" should've not been said anyway since it laughingly oversimplified what happened, and the problem (not being good enough) was apparently dealt with. It could've helped if you've earlier said it was the 25th anniversary so that it was dealt with earlier (OTD likes anniversaries that are divisible by 5). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

With all respect to those who died (and I remember the Challenger explosion quite well, I found out when I got an afternoon newspaper), I do not believe every website in the world needs to run with the Challenger explosion 25th. I agree that it would have been nice, but I really can't believe it is disrespect. The survivors will continue to do just that. There is ample coverage around the world. Dusty, why not work on the article so we will be prepared for the 30th?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to go by sheer numbers, we have two roof collapse articles (Katowice Trade Hall roof collapse and Knickerbocker Theatre) that are currently hidden on OTD where a lot more people died. howcheng {chat} 19:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you guys are saying. The two roof collapses need to be on there too out of respect for the others that died. Wehwalt, maybe I should work on the article so its ready in 5 years (good advice), but tell me something, i want five websites off the top of your head (without looking it up) that have the 25th anniversary of the disaster on their home page? (so we can see if every site is honoring it) I don't really care about it being on the home page but i am thinking about the people affected by this disaster. If you think the article is not suitable for the OTD by all means get rid of it. Just think about this though, If you were a friend or relative of any of the people who died on that day, wouldn't you like to have a few people remember out of respect for them? Thats about my whole argument right there. I have nothing against any of you but it really seams like none of you care that seven people died 25 years ago. Just think, i might die today or tomorrow and no one else will care enough to get the article ready in the next five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty777 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The challenger disaster was significant and had lasting effects and great interest from many-even today. Otherwise the article wouldn’t have had 150k+ viewers yesterday. Seems to me on wikipedia if people make a mistake the trend is always to find a wiki policy that backs you up as being right and move on after the fact. Was the article Space Shuttle Challenger tagged?., didnt look like it, so why not use that one? Probably can be argued that its the shuttle and not the event but still., the event article is pretty close to a Featured right?-is it not still classified as such? Do we require all articles to be featured articles to appear on the main page? The majority are not of course. It just seems reading this text above that theres alot of excuses being made for the page not appearing on On this day.... Regardless whatever the reason, it is devastating that this article (event) was forgotten here- whether on the main page or with its maintenance in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.88.108 (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The sole viable solution to an article that has a cleanup tag on it but needs to be on the main page in the same day: rapidly improve the article and remove the tag. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point about what people are saying about numbers. 7 people is hardly a large number of deaths. And for most deaths what you say applies. Whether someone dies is space shuttle explosion or a bus crash their families, friends etc are still going to be affected. We can't put up every event where 7 people died, for most of those events we don't even have articles. And there's no reason to concentrate on events anyway if all you care about is people affected. If someone has a heart attack and dies their family and friends aren't going to be much less affected because it wasn't part of a mass casulty event. 7 people, isn't even a blip on the daily death rate. In case it's still not obvious I'm not saying the Challenger disaster didn't belong but that the argument 'some people died and their relatives/friends were affected' is an incredibly flawed one. And BTW yes sorry to save but if you do die tomorrow, there's quite a good chance there won't be a wikipedia article about you. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll readily admit that I don't care about seven people dying 25 years ago. The disaster was notable for other reasons. You're not the only one who remembers. --118.208.186.59 (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't checked back here. I did see the Washington Post and CNN feature it on their main pages, anyway. People die every day; each is a tragedy, this disaster is tragic for the death of seven; perhaps more so because of the death of the explorative space program. After this year, it may be quite some time before NASA itself orbits an astronaut, and I trace it back to Challenger. As Pournelle said, "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we send a man to the moon?"--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the great discussion on this.... I was not expecting it haha. Well i guess we got a about everything discussed on this lol. See ya next for the same thing maybe =D. Dusty777 22:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty777 (talk • contribs)

Temples

Hey, the last three TFAs all have the word temple in the title. Any significance? :) Zagalejo^^^ 03:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that, too.—Chris!_c/t 05:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

When there are no suggestions at WP:TFAR (hint, hint), Raul654, who picks the TFAs, has to get his fun somewhere... Bencherlite^Talk 07:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, and was wondering if anybody had noticed. —innotata 02:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it was like last time and the first two were coincidental so Raul decided to throw a third one in for fun Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hummm....subtle rooting for the Owls, mayhap?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A variant of the MP game in which as many entries begin with a given letter as possible - include as many references to a given word as feasible. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Donation receipt

Hi. I am a charity which has raised money for Wikipedia. I would like to donate online under the charity's name and have an "online receipt" as a proof of giving. How can I do that? Cheers, 128.232.228.114 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

For something like that, probably best to contact the foundation directly particularly if it's a large amount of money [1] has contact info in particular donate(at)wikimedia.org while [2] gives donations(at)wikimedia.org Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Dweller (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Languages Section

Indonesian has passed 150,000 articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.180.39.164 (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 31, 2011; 19:20 (UTC)

German (Deutsch) and French (Français) have passed 1 million entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.78.126.75 (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The absence of a "More than 1,000,000 articles:" row is deliberate; please see Talk:Main Page/Archive 155#Wikipedia languages section for the most recent mention of the issue and a list of links to more in-depth discussions. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If I may add, the Tagalog Wikipedia has also exceeded 50,000 articles. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this right?

I do not know if this is right place to ask this, but the pages Common ownership and Community ownership do not mean the same thing? They should not be merged? - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the suggested merge tags, since they have been on the pages for over three years. These tags are meant to alert other editors to an ongoing discussion. In the future, you can bring up any concerns about an article on its talk page. If you look at the top left of any article, there is a tab that will take you to the talk page for that article. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia. --Banana (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

hi why iis there nothing on australia siclone on the news this is racist

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.

---

add something the egptyian people got a post why doesnt aiustralia have one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.191.60 (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:ITNC#Cyclone Yasi. Please add relevant comments there, without accusations of racism please. Bencherlite^Talk 10:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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.

Ali Abdullah Saleh

It should be mentioned in the news that also His Excellency Ali Abdullah Saleh stated that he didn't seek re-election in Yemen, almost same time as Mubarak did. --112.205.7.91 (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is going on over at In The News. [3]--Banana (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

On this day

1994 – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its final ruling in Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard and affirmed the decision of the District Court; Werner Erhard defaulted on the payment due to Ney.

- What is this, and who cares? Surely there must be something better to put here, especially since most of the English speaking world will not have a clue what this is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.241.3 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Today marks the lunisolar Chinese New Year, the most important holiday for most ethnic Chinese. Surely this deserves a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.83.180 (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Random Article

Random article used to support the back button going to the previous random article, but now it takes the user back to the main page. Please restore the original behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It works OK for me; it goes back to the previous random article. If more than one person has this problem, a better page to report it is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). They will want the name of your operating system and browser. Art LaPella (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have this problem too so I've copied the OP there. Ericoides (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Chinese New Year

Today is chinese new year, a very important occasion to Chinese people, so should it be added to the On This Day column?Ysjzysn (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Alas, Chinese New Year is tagged as both lacking references and requiring cleanup, which per WP:OTD, disqualifies it from being featured in the Selected Anniversaries section. howcheng {chat} 05:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto with Tết, but Korean New Year, Tsagaan Sar and Losar are clean enough to get on to the main page. --70.31.8.40 (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Added Korean New Year. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well technically speaking (not to wikilawyer, but more to IAR), articles are "preferred" to be free of cleanup tags. The Chinese new year article is long and written somewhat decently, with 35 references, it just has 1 unreferenced section and one section needing cleanup. While we as insiders know that the Main page is to feature Wikipedia's best/better content, your average MP reader is probably not. Just my 0.02. Arakunem^Talk 17:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)