Welcome! This page is for discussing the contents of the English Wikipedia's Main Page. For general questions unrelated to the Main Page, please visit the Teahouse or check the links below. To add content to an article, edit that article's page. Irrelevant posts on this page may be removed. Click here to report errors on the Main Page.
If you have a question related to the Main Page, please search the talk page archives first to check if it has previously been addressed:
For questions about using and contributing to the English Wikipedia:
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 21:44 on 27 April 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.
Not exactly an error, but in the first hook, using "quiet" to describe a music scene is a bit...you know. I suggest "sparse" or "spare". (I almost said "minor".) Primergrey (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "quiet" works equally as well as "sparse" or "spare", but don't mind a change if there's consensus for it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Low-key? -- Sca (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
New main page layout currently inflicted on logged in users only looks worse than the current one. Feels like change for change sake. Current one is far from perfect. Neither looks like a modern, responsive, rich experience like users have come to expect. Switching the headings to a serif font ... LOL ... made it worse. The fact is, web design by community consensus is doomed to fail. You'll need the foundation to impose something by fiat. Seriously, the mobile site looks better. --107.77.232.41 (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"modern, responsive, rich experience like users have come to expect." - I don't know what world you live in, but when I come to this website, I come to expect an encyclopedia.--WaltCip (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with WaltCip. Instead of a "modern, responsive, rich experience", the front page design should serve the needs of the target audience. The Drudge Report has a design that is ugly, extremely simple, and almost two decades old but it is still considered one of the best designs on the web.[1][2] We do not need to make changes just for the sake of making changes. --Allen3talk 23:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And The Times (London) made do with Times New Roman for decades.
I prefer serif fonts because there are certain situations where it is unclear whether I am looking at an l or an I in non-serif fonts. --Khajidha (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The typeface is legible on all the computers I have used, and 'those who use WP know what it offers (and what it does not).'
There are various wiki-platforms available - and to paraphrase the cartoon 'If you know (how to design) a better (w)hole(,) go to it.' 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What new layout are you referring to? Logged in users get the same main page as everyone else (on desktop). -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 20:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume it's your layout, Edokter -- the OP may be another confused person. Eman235/talk 22:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, mine isn't inflicted on anyone; you have to turn on a gadget. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 18:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said, in the discussion I linked. Eman235/talk 19:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DYK correction?
Is this a first? (I also don't think it should be bulleted, but whatever) Nohomersryan (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Having been involved with DYK for almost a decade (aaaaah, just what you want to think about on your birthday :-/), I do believe this is a first. Something to note in the Signpost, perhaps. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's another DYK correction. I really hope this doesn't become a regular thing. If it must happen again, I think the word "We" should be avoided, just as for an article. Instead, it would be better to say something like "It was previously reported, but...." and avoid first person. Jonathunder (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...because, there are many coins, mushrooms, and hurricanes to write about. When you think about it, there have been quite a number of biography TFAs over the past few months as well! Eman235/talk 06:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a subject you are interested in featured at TFA, bring an article on that subject up to FA status. Mjroots (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Change TFA picture
Could I get an admin to change the picture shown in todays TFA (added without consultation) to the image that was proposed in the TFA blurb (:File:Sarcoscypha coccinea 74716.jpg). Thanks, Sasata (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasata: Done. I've uploaded the image locally so that it's protected by the cascading protection feature (do we still need to do that? I forget)- the local version can be deleted once it's off the MP. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn: Yes, the local upload remains necessary (unless the image is protected at Commons).
For the record, I don't object to the reversion itself, but the appropriate rationale is WP:BOLD. It shouldn't matter that the request came from the article's author, who apparently believes that he/she possesses special authority to approve or reject any changes. —David Levy 22:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Levy: That's completely unwarranted. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I don't think Sasata is suggesting that he has any kind of special authority. That said, you did make use of your special authority in making a change (without offering any explanation, which could rub salt into the wound) using your admin powers. Had you done this before the blurb appeared on the MP, it could have been discussed/reverted as appropriate, but because you did it while the image was on the MP, Sasata, who does not have admin powers, was left unable to change the image back- no matter how inappropriate the edit. I imagine I'd be very frustrated if faced with this- wouldn't you? Did you not think, especially given that the image was not used in the article, that it may be inappropriate in some way? Had you asked Sasata (you could put this in terms of etiquette if you like, but maybe recognition of familiarity with the subject would be another way of thinking about it), perhaps he could have explained why the original image was chosen rather the one you used. I suspect that we should be conservative when updating the main page, given that content goes through various reviews before appearing and because inappropriate edits may be seen by many people. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely unwarranted. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I don't think Sasata is suggesting that he has any kind of special authority.
On my talk page (which you've since visited), Sasata inquired as to why I made the change "without first consulting the article author". No flaws, apart from the lack of approval by him/her, were cited.
That said, you did make use of your special authority in making a change (without offering any explanation, which could rub salt into the wound) using your admin powers.
I neither possess special authority nor claim to. I've simply been asked by Dank (one of the TFA coordinators) to handle the section's images.
Most of the issues that I address relate to size constraints. (In this instance, I switched to a close-up shot to improve the amount of detail visible in the small thumbnail.)
Regarding the absence of an explanation, point taken. My edits are seen primarily by the TFA coordinators, but I'll keep in mind that such changes might be less self-explanatory to others (and formulate my summaries accordingly).
Had you done this before the blurb appeared on the MP, it could have been discussed/reverted as appropriate, but because you did it while the image was on the MP, Sasata, who does not have admin powers, was left unable to change the image back- no matter how inappropriate the edit.
I performed the edit almost two days before the blurb appeared on the main page.
Did you not think, especially given that the image was not used in the article, that it may be inappropriate in some way?
Given that I'd just uploaded image to Commons, no, that wasn't a consideration. I found it on the Mushroom Observer website, where an experienced contributor verified its quality. (The image from the article was taken from the same source, where its quality was assessed only by an anonymous user.) —David Levy 23:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the "edited while on the MP" part of my comment (and the corresponding part of my comment on your talk page)- I was clearly mistaken about that. The (I suspect) last thing I have to say: If you do (or are going to) make a habit of "handl[ing] the section's images", perhaps you should also make a habit of consulting with article authors about image choice. That may be a way to avoid frustration of this sort in the future. As I suspect you know, a lot of people find being the author of a TFA a frustrating experience; the possibility of a less-than-ideal image being used in the blurb is one thing we can hopefully avoid. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, by "handle the section's images", I'm referring strictly to an editing task, not to the assumption of any sort of special authority.
When in doubt, I do look to an article's contributors for advice. Said doubt is more likely to arise in some subject areas than in others.
When illustrating an organism, the overriding consideration is factual accuracy (i.e., that the photograph depicts the relevant species). This is especially important when visually similar species exist and sometimes are mistaken for each other – a situation that I saw mentioned in the article. That's why I went to the effort of finding a verified Sarcoscypha coccinea photograph on the Mushroom Observer website (where it received more vetting than the image that I replaced) instead of using one of multiple close-up shots previously uploaded to Commons.
The other consideration is visual quality. On the Mushroom Observer website, both photographs are labeled "good enough for a field guide". The key difference is their composition, which is unrelated to the subject matter. What's most appropriate for use in an article often differs from what works best in a TFA blurb (because of the aforementioned size constraints).
In many cases, I simply crop an image to make its subject more easily recognizable in the thumbnail. This is a longstanding practice, the template for which dates back to 2005. In this instance, the fruit bodies' proximity to each other makes cropping less than ideal, but I consider the image replacement functionally equivalent (assuming that the factual accuracy has not been compromised).
Nonetheless, WP:BRD applied, regardless of whether the reversion request came from the article's main author or from another Wikipedia user in good standing. —David Levy 00:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
News
Lee Sedol is not "one of the best Go players", he is the best Go player and I would add the information that this event is a milestone in the development of artificial intelligence. Greets from Germany --93.215.150.222 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The articles claims he "Ranks #3 in total amount of titles in Korea and #2 in international titles", so it seems rather subjective to call him the best Go player. —Nizolan(talk) 21:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
