Talk:Main Page

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 10:28 on 14 May 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.

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

(May 17)

Monday's FL

(May 20)

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.

Tomorrow's POTD

• 15 May sword-billed hummingbird blurb - at "hummingbirds preen using their beak", preen is a redirect. Pls remove "(bird)" from pipe. JennyOz (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

September 11

The featured article (with photograph) is going to be United Airlines Flight 93 [1] and the featured photograph is going to be Image:WTC-Fireman requests 10 more colleages.jpg [2]]. Don't you think this is too much emphasis being placed on the (admittedly tragic) event? Wikipedia is supposed to maintain balance; there's an awful lot going on out there that isn't 9-11 related. Having both these on the front page isn't going to help charges of US-centrism that are often levelled at Wikipedia. And yes, I know it was a massive event with world-wide repercussions, but I just think having both the featured slots on this one event is too much. 81.156.124.178 (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's one way to look at it: both the article and the image are so high-quality that they've achieved featured status, and if they're going to be recognized on the main page (as featured articles and featured images should be), what more appropriate time than on September 11th? This is a lot of emphasis on one event, but the repercussions and implications of that event were global in scope. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not save one of them for next year? --76.64.76.141 (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point, but 168...'s is better. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is better at all. Why not save one for next year? There's no rush. This is the seventh anniversary - think what massive coverage there's going to be on the tenth: will all the photos and articles on the page on that day be related to 9-11?. And it kind of ironic having the brush-off to the German Wikipedia above because 800,000 articles isn't a particularly special figure, yet every year 9-11 is featured prominently, and this year, the seventh anniversary, is not a special one as anniversary-keeping goes. As Wikipedia has the systemic bias built in of having a majority of American editors, who have American interests and worldviews, I don't think this is ever going to change. But I think it is not right to have such overwhelming emphasis on this one event. 81.157.194.19 (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To say that 9/11 is an American event is like saying the 2008 Olympics is a Chinese event. –Howard the Duck 11:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to be commemorating the 2008 olympics on the main page in 7 years time? Thought not. Modest Genius ^talk 02:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone manages the same with the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings we may well do much the same on march 11th.Geni 12:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the 7th anniversary is relatively unimportant, and that the 10th anniversary is likely to be huge. On the other hand, how long is the usual waiting period for featured articles and images to appear on the Main Page? Do they usually have to wait a year or more after achieving featured status before appearing? If the answer is no, then why single out a certain topic just because it tends to get a lot of annual coverage? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet it's not in On This Day...bizarre. 199.89.180.65 (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries#Preset options states "to maintain some variety of topics on the Main Page as a whole, an event should be hidden if it also is the featured article or the featured picture for that particular day". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I like how a massacre by Muslims was replaced with one by Mormons --NE2 03:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The time period is highly variable. Some articles wait only a few weeks, some a few years. There's definitely nothing unusual about the TFA being related to an event that happened on that day, nor was it extremely accelerated time for it to get on the main page. However there is something unusual about having the TFA + 2 TFPs concerning the same event on the same day Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I too think that there is a little overemphasis on the terrorist attacks, as they does not represent a world view of 11th September - considering billions of people on the Earth with thousands of years of human history. Yes, have a prominent article or image, but there's no need to have a 'WTC Special' of Wikipedia for today! MathiasFox (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

File:110908WP.png

Main Page on 11 Sep 08.

i for one think wikipedia puts too much attention on US articles/news but its September 11 and you know what, it wouldnt really hurt to remember what happened by featuring the articles related. Its not like the article doesnt deserve to be featured by wiki standards. so i agree with 168... there is no better time. 99.237.118.115 (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Too much attention? How often do U.S. news articles appear in "In the News"? I can think of only four in the last six months or so: McCain winning Republican nom, Obama winning Democratic nom, Palin being selected as McCain's running mate, and Gustav making contact with New Orleans almost exactly 3 years after Katrina. That's rare to get that many in this time span. Most of the time, U.S. news doesn't get featured. As for U.S. articles getting featured A: Does it matter if they're FA's? B: We have a pretty good mix of "U.S." and "non-U.S." articles featured and C: If you feel like a "non-U.S. article" (which btw what would constitute a "U.S." article and a "non-U.S." article?) should be featured, then pick an article and get it up to FA status. Anakinjmt (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two US news items in ITN right now. Algebraist 12:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really count the U.S. Open bit though, because that's just a global sporting event that just happens to be taking place in the U.S. I get the U.S. Open is only held in the U.S., but there are players from all over the world that come, and it's a prestigious thing to win on the planet. It's like when Atlanta held the Olympics in '96: in the U.S., but global prestige from winning there. And I didn't see the federal takeover bit, so that's 5. Still rare to have that happen. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So due to recent events, this is an unusual amount? Let's bookmark this talk.Lympathy ^Talk 15:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The odds of seeing one U.S. news item on the Main Page, at least as often as I check (which is about once every other day) is rare, so yes, I'd say this is an unusual amount. If you want to bookmark this talk (whatever that means), go ahead. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there were 3. the hurricane article very recently got changed from pointing out the fact that its coming towards US to deaths in haiti. then right before there were 2 of obama's VP and mccains VP. then phelps article. there were more that i cant remember. but this is all within the last month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.15.17 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, like Wikipedia's Front Page hasn't been event specific before. Never in the history of Wikipedia. Never. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm not aware of anything like this before... We definitely have had TFAs and TFPs on days related to them before. We've also done some silly stuff on April fools but with a variety of articles intended to be humourous rather then articles specific to April Fools day. But I'm not aware of us previously having a TFA & 2 TFPs about one event on the same day (albeit an anniversary). This doesn't mean it's wrong, it is however the first time we've done it AFAIK Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Now we have half the page just on 9/11... ;) - Mailer Diablo 14:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So, one particular day 7 years ago featured the largest terrorist attack on (correct me if I'm wrong) English-speaking soil in history, dealt a massive blow to the economy of one of the most powerful nations on Earth (which, thanks to the global economy, had a ripple effect all around the planet), provided incentive for two wars, and had far-reaching political consequences within the United States and the United Nations... and when the seventh anniversary of that day is prominently featured on the Main Page of the English Wikipedia, this causes outrage among readers just because the original event didn't happen in their country? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with where it occurred. Do we really want one event dominating the page, as it does right now - featured article, picture of the day and lead DYK with photo. Lots of article exposure and three photos out of a possible five. There is supposed to be balance on Wikipedia; there is none right now on the front page. I don't think I've ever seen it so skewed. I think the decisions of whoever put these up is distinctly lacking. 86.133.215.165 (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst they may be related, they are not the same articles and each has proved it's merit on Wikipedia through different channels. I think they are timely and diverse enough to be inclusive in a holistic respect to an event without domineering the main page. Lympathy ^Talk 16:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

86's opinion is one that I understand; my previous post was in response to phrases like "U.S.-centrism" and "systemic bias" in favor of "American interests" (the last phrase, ignoring the presence of quite a few other American nations on two continents, is deliciously ironic). It *might* be a little over-emphasized today, although as a U.S. citizen I certainly feel that the event's importance is being marginalized by some editors here. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a conversation that pops up frequently and I understand it. In this instance the event is substantial enough to warrant several inclusions so long as they focus on something different. I am non-American and very loosely associated with the event so as to speak impartially. PS. I too am wary of US-dominance on such things. Lympathy ^Talk 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) TFA and TFP are scheduled independently of one another. TFP is selected a week or so in advance, sometimes earlier, and the pictures are taken roughly in the order they were promoted. This one happened to be scheduled almost one month in advance because I happened to have a 9/11 photo, which by the way is the very first 9/11-related TFP to appear on 9/11: 2007 was a spacecraft, 2006 was Salzburg, 2005 was a praying mantis, and 2004 was a Gothic church. Earlier this year, we had another 9/11 photo which appeared far from the anniversary, because when that photo came up in the rotation, it was nowhere near 9/11. There is no site-wide conspiracy to make today's Main Page 9/11-centric; it just happened that way. howcheng {chat} 19:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But should it? Surely there should have been checks made to make sure this kind of bias didn't occur on the main page? And if there aren't any such checks, why aren't there checks? Surely the people putting up the photos, the people putting up the featured articles and the people putting up the DYKs all have a responsibility to check on what the content, or proposed content, of the main page is going to be, to ensure that exactly this kind of bias doesn't occur? It just isn't good enough to shrug and say 'it just happened that way'. Don't get me wrong, I have no beef with this topic in particular: it's the fact that one topic has been given overwhelming and disproportionate emphasis.81.157.194.138 (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias? It's one day where TFA and TFP are similar, it could be argued that this should be done every day? I digress, clearly this is not a bias but a coincidence. Lympathy ^Talk 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You confuse cause and effect: the cause may be coincidence; the effect is bias. 86.134.25.139 (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias infers that the main page is not impartial, when I would say it is completely impartial. In your instant I believe it is perceived bias when in reality it isn't. Lympathy ^Talk 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How can the main page be impartial when over 50% of the area on the page that is given over to articles covers just one topic? That shows complete lack of impartiality in the choice of what goes on the page. The fact that 9-11 gets the featured article, the picture of the day, a featured sound/media slot and a DYK clearly shows bias. Not perceived, but actual bias. How can it be anything but bias when the page is so weighted to this one topic? 81.157.195.33 (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The topic was the start of a war that affected England, the US, anyone flying in and out of the US, and several Middle Eastern countries and their inhabitants. I think it should get some recognition. And changing articles/pictures so they don't match is bias. If the articles/pictures happen to mathc, then that means they both are good quality.

24.21.123.235 (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Responding to an earlier comment by 81: Bias is, by definition, a cause... but none exists here. The cause here, however, is that we had a number of articles which earned places on the Main Page, and there was exactly one day on which these articles would be topical. The effect, however, is that you and a few other viewers got yourselves all twisted up about the evil Americans taking over Wikipedia. Now, as the day of our conquest was 4 days ago, can we let it rest? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bomb blasts in New Delhi

There is an ongoing series of bomb blasts in New Delhi. So far at least 5 blasts have been reported and 12 people killed. --122.162.60.204 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please suggest new items at WP:ITN/C. Spencer^T♦C 15:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Train crash in LA

Heard about this on CNN, despite all the coverage about Hurricane Ike. 4 confirmed deaths in Hurricane vs. 20 confirmed deaths in train crash. Oh wait - I forgot about all the financial losses from Hurricanes. MONEY MONEY MONEY PRECIOUS GREEN PAPER (orgasm) (dies). Anyway, does this merit a mention in the news section? 24.3.14.157 (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. The best place to suggest this though should be Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Simply south (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If this happened outside the U.S. this'll be posted in a jiffy. 119.95.21.132 (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already on there. Look closer. - Mark 02:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if this really happened outside the U.S. and beyond the coverage of CNN, this'll take many, many jiffys to get an article created, de-stubbed and expanded, and then take eons to be posted, if posted at all. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we're always biased against everything except what's on the main page and we're biased toward what is. If there's no coverage of the train crash and there is of the hurricane, it can't be because the hurricane has been active for several days and the train crash was only a few hours ago, no, we must be biased toward the financial implications of the hurricane, because that affects Wikipedia somehow, perhaps the amount of donations we get is inversely proportional to the damage caused by disasters on the main page. Or perhaps Wikipedia is just a front for NOAA to push their pro-hurricane POV. Mr.Z-man 06:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did this show up on my list of contributions? Has anybody else had anomalous entries from your IP address? Nobody else has been in my house, so how does somebody do this? This happened to me a few weeks ago, and somebody from my IP address edited the Norm Macdonald article. Why would somebody "hijack" (I don't know if that's what they did) my computer just to make lame edits? Sheesh. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Complain to Comcast. Maybe you're sharing the IP with other Comcast customers.

Or maybe a neighbor of yours is enjoying wireless internet for free. --70.50.202.150 (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly your ISP shares IP addresses amongst multiple customers. This is one of the reasons why it's a good idea to create an account if you intend to edit wikipedia more than a couple of times. Modest Genius ^talk 05:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Genius. I always wanted to say that without being sarcastic:) 24.3.14.157 (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Rampant Pro-Rail bias on Main Page !!!

Note: The section header was not added by NE2 (talk · contribs). --199.71.174.100 (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the railfan admins have taken over. 2008 Chatsworth train collision in the news, John Bull as the FA, Sutton Tunnel railway accident in DYK, and Liverpool and Manchester Railway in on this day. --NE2 05:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha, that's great. First there's a massive debate about whether we're oversaturating the mainpage with 9/11 coverage/tributes, now we're halfway to selling Lionel sets on the sidebar. Oh, what is this w(orld?)ikipedia coming to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.14.157 (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of these trains consume environmentally-unfriendly fuel and give out stinky exhaust fumes. Maybe we should get Hurricane Ike on ITN to bring in some fresh air. (Already on WP:ITN/C!) --199.71.174.100 (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, the two crashes would probably be considered anti-rail propaganda, and the other two from railroad boosters. So I think we have neutrality :) What an odd coincidence that they all ended up there. The TFA and OTD were selected long before the news of the crash and the DYK (which has now cycled away) would have been nominated before it. A perfect storm, as it were. --JayHenry (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-rail propaganda? That's great. I guess Conservapedia will have to include Luddism on the list of Wikipedia biases! 24.3.14.157 (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is still caused by the vast "Wikipedia's Conversion to 9/11 Memorial Site" conspiracy... consider: the 9/11 attacks were caused by airplanes, so today we flood the mainpage with spam related to alternative forms of transit. It's harder to crash a train into a building. Why must we Americans dominate everything? Oh noes! Needz moar Brittish katz! 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that was intended as a joke, but you realise of the several rail related main page items, only 1 was in the US, right? The rest were British (mostly English) Nil Einne (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I didn't fully read the John Bull blurb... saw New Jersey and thought US. Other than that, I was aware, yes... although there seems to be a tendency in the US to think of locomotives as being a mostly American phenomenon, even for those of us who know it's not true. I'm not sure why, unless it was the tremendous importance of the American transcontinental railway to the formation of our nation. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ironically outside the US anyway, nowadays people tend to see rail in the US as in a rather poor state and definitely not even close to being a world leaderNil Einne (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never gotten the impression that Americans (of which I'm one) regard rail travel as "a mostly American phenomenon." It's rather well known that our infrastructure lags far behind those of many countries. —David Levy 06:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. "Seems to be" might have been my operative phrase... if other people haven't gotten that impression, then my (mis?)perception might be regional, local, or even just personal. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

168, I couldn't agree maor. Ceiling Cat (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected that would get your attention :) (Ceiling Cat iz watching me...) 168.9.120.8 (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

He's watching everyone... --Coffee // talk // ark // 21:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We're such tools. Mrow! 24.3.14.157 (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I really hope someone configures the abuse filter to block anyone who says "m(oa|ao)r". --NE2 12:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

But, but, why? Can't sleep, the cats are watching? (we are, ya know. watching and breathing yur infants air!) Moar Cats (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Blasts in Mexico City during Independence Day Celebrations

I don't see anything of this in the news section.... Today (17 Sept) 3 grenades were detonated in Morelia, Michoacán, killing 9 and wounding hundreds... I mean, this must be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.135.215.150 (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

At the very top of this page, you'll find out this is not the place for this. –Howard the Duck 05:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:ITN/C. Spencer^T♦C 11:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper

I want Wikipedia to have the newspaper

See the preview in Club Penguin Wiki --125.25.9.195 (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)