Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main Page error reports[edit]

To report an error on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quote of all or part of the text in question will help.
  • Offer a correction if possible.
  • References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
  • Time zones: The current date and time is displayed in Coordinated Universal Time (05:42 on 24 January 2018), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}}, which will not give you a faster response, and in fact causes problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • Done? Once an error has been fixed, or has rotated off the Main Page, or has been acknowledged as not an error, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history for discussion and action taken.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
  • Can you fix the issue yourself? If the error is with the content of an article linked from the main page, consider attempting to fix the problem rather than reporting it here.

Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article[edit]

TFA today[edit]

TFA tomorrow[edit]

Errors in In the news[edit]

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day[edit]

OTD today[edit]

OTD tomorrow[edit]

Errors in the current or next Did you know...[edit]

DYK current[edit]

DYK next[edit]

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture[edit]

POTD today[edit]

POTD tomorrow[edit]

Errors in the summary of the last or next featured list[edit]

General discussion[edit]

Wikipedia blackout[edit]

The Wikipedia blackout, as POTD for Jan. 18, seems as a clear case of navel-gazing (WP:NAVEL), of scant interest to most readers. Besides, it's not a picture, it's a sort of computer notice board. Sca (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The protest involved is mentioned in the picture blurb as having significant impact on legislation in the United States, where a great many readers are located. The legislation in question was also described -- rightly or wrongly -- as having significant potential impact on the Internet itself, which is used by almost all readers.
Many images which become POTD are not pictures (paintings, photographs) in the traditional sense. Some are diagrams, animated or otherwise. Computer notice board or not, this has the attribute that it is difficult to understand exactly what the protest looked like, without seeing the picture. MPS1992 (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
And whether you think it's a picture or not, it's still a "featured picture" and as such eligible for main page exposure, as are all other FPs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Whether you think it's a picture or not
– Do you think it's a picture? Sca (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of which definition of "picture" you think WP:POTD/WP:FP should use, the one that those projects operate clearly includes screenshots, or it wouldn't be a FP. And if you're also complaining about the timing, how is it different than having someone as TfA on their birthday? ansh666 02:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Where did I say anything about the timing? Sca (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
as POTD for Jan. 18 could be interpreted that way, sorry. ansh666 03:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I was coming from a slightly different angle with my 'WP's birthday' (going by the infobox article on WP) thread above.
Shall we say that there should be room on the MP for an occasional WP self-referential mention (and it is coincidence that the two discussions occurred together). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Personally I think Wikipedia needs to be far more self referential. Abyssal (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Two points:
  1. The screenshot went through the Featured Pictures process at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stop Online Piracy Act Blackout. As such, it is qualified (just like any other image that has passed FP) to run on POTD.
  2. We have other screenshots that have passed the FP process, such as File:Charlie Murder screenshot 5.png, File:IncredipedeScreenshot35.jpg, and File:The Splatters 03.jpg. As such, it is clear that screenshots qualify as "pictures" for the purpose of FP and POTD.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
John William Waterhouse Echo And Narcissus.jpg
Yes, yes, we know all that. But the fact that it went through the fallible process at WP:FPC doesn't alter the self-indulgent character of its content – which point I know Chris never will agree to. It's still narcissistic. (⇒) – Sca (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I know you know that, seeing as you have been a commentator at FPC for going on four years now. My reply was for the benefit of other readers, who may not be as familiar with the process or with images that have been promoted in the past -- trust me, not everyone knows.
As to your point about navel gazing, editors obviously have different approaches and views. When Howcheng was selecting FPs before 2013, he put our FP of Mike Godwin at WP:POTD/Unused for a little over two years as Godwin had been general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. I ultimately ran Godwin in 2013, both because he had not been involved with the WMF in three years and because I consider it acceptable to occasionally run images related to Wikipedia/the Wikimedia movement. Since that image ran in September 2013, to the best of my recollection we have not had a Wikipedia related POTD before the blackout image. Two images in four and a half years (1/1643.5 days) is far from my definition of "navel gazing", and this rate is far below that for DYK. Others, such as yourself, take a zero tolerance view, which is fine. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Footnote — It was obvious at the time that it was going to be promoted, so I didn't see any point in opposing it. But in general I don't see computer screenshots as being "among Wikipedia's best work" in the image/graphics realm, since little or no visual information is conveyed. They lack reader interest. Sca (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The questions are, perhaps, given the significance of the protest movement - was there any alternative image or text that was more appropriate which could have been used, and to what extent did the WP MP image show/define what the nature and policy of Wikipedia was and is (especially given that the event happened six years ago and a proportion of Wikipedians may not have been using it then)?
Wikipedia has been around long enough for it to make occasional reference to significant events in its history and its place in the wider cultural context (eg Magna Carta (An Embroidery)) - and there are going to be occasions when there are 'two or several Main Page references to or discussions on the same topic (it was chance that I had spotted the launch date the day after the event: and any longer than that I would not have mentioned it, quite independently of the blackout reference).
The next occasion for continuing this discussion is as we approach '6 millionth English language article' (and whether it will be before or after the next Wikipedia:Wikipedia Day). Jackiespeel (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"Seeing action"[edit]

The language in the current article of the day, "he saw action [in place]" is military jargon for combat, but in reality could mean a wide variety of things. Generally in cases where there is overwhelming force (this is the British Empire putting down rebellions by Arabs in this case), there is a high likelihood of professional jargon and attested bravado infused in the jargon and in the reports of military operations. In other words the reports tend to be written in a way which exaggerates the nobility of deeds, the British in this case, and contains little from the other point of view. Its a vanity topic which produces vanity articles. -Dictatos (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a fascinating topic and I am glad you have raised it. But no, the mention of him "see[ing] action" is in the Syria–Lebanon Campaign, which was fought against the Vichy French and the Axis Powers. Not Arabs, nor Arab rebellions, by any stretch of the imagination.
If someone had held the highest possible rank in the Syrian or Lebanese army then I would expect an article about them to exist, too, and that would not be a vanity article either. MPS1992 (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

complain to admins in fa.wikipedia[edit]

Hi. good morning.

the page . has been removed by admins, while the article is about introducing a great Persian documentary film making company with a lots of known works, also showed on national TV in Iran for times.. the discussion page also shows users know and confirms this. but some admins has political directions and ignore the the reality and just confirm and act as what they like! you can see the discussion page :ویکی‌پدیا:نظرخواهی_برای_حذف/سفیرفیلم

there are lots of sources that show وپ:سرشناسی for the article. is wikipedia like this? or is a independent free encyclopedia ?

tnx for checking this. Onw4y (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Onw4y, this page is to discuss the English Wikipedia's main page, your comment is about something else. in any case, each language wikipedia is independent and we can't help you at the Farsi version, sorry Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
So when the admin band there , is not responsible for this acts , and there is NO where to complain, in fact the whole wikipedia is being questioned! isn't it? Its not independent. Just because of the personal or political benefits of admins! right? Onw4y (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
As Jimfbleak told you, this is the English Wikipedia, which is separate from the Farsi Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia has its own policies and procedures. You need to discuss any issues with the Farsi Wikipedia on the Farsi Wikipedia. If no one there will listen to you, there is nothing we at the English Wikipedia can do. Sorry. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Onw4y: what 331dot and Jimfbleak have told you is, unfortunately, correct. However, one place on the English Wikipedia where you may get more attention or possibly action, is User talk:Jimbo Wales or one of the contact methods listed on that page. That's assuming that the Farsi Wikipedia and its administration is hopelessly broken -- I don't know if that is true and you would need to present good evidence of it, probably beyond just a single film not being adequately covered. MPS1992 (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)