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 22:25 on 26 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)

Today's FA

• No image? @Mattximus: It's quite unfortunate that no image exists on the worm. I see this was mentioned at the FAC by @Nikkimaria, and that it appears there may be none freely licensed available. Still, is it really possible to say that this is one of our best articles when it has no visual depiction of the animal it's about? This is made worse by the TFA, since the image is of an entirely different creature, which leads any reader to assume that the article will be about that other creature. Sdkb ^talk 04:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I went through the same thought process. It is a wonderful world (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I do agree that if there's no image of the organism concerned we shouldn't have an image. The current situation is very confusing IMHO. @TFA coordinators can we remove it and just have no image, as we sometimes do in other cases?  — Amakuru (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• "is it really possible to say that this is one of our best articles when it has no visual depiction of the animal it's about": Yes, of course it is. We're constricted by our ridiculously constrictive rules on images which lack any common sense on the point, but that doesn't stop it being a top quality article.
  "can we remove it and just have no image: yes. I suspect it was added because we sometimes get complaints when there's no image at all, even if there are some of secondary importance in the article. If someone can remove it, please do so. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   Done thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• It seems to me entirely appropriate to illustrate both article and blurb with the host species of this parasite. It has no other known host and one of the interesting aspects of the parasite is that it has this unusual host. The host will be unfamiliar to most readers and of interest to them. JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Then you will have to get the policies and guidelines surrounding the use of non-free images changed, because at the moment it is not possible. Policy says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". The fact that the worm still exists and it is, therefore, technically possible to obtain an image, which means we cannot use a non free one. And no, JMCHutchinson, we could not include an image with the blurb with a non-free image; that falls under a different part of the policy, but it's still policy. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think you misread the above comment. --58.8.159.59 (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, indeed, you have completely misread what I wrote and accused me of advocating copyright violation. SchroCat, please could you strike your comment or change to whom you are addressing it. Thanks. JMCHutchinson (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  You are right: I did misread it, and apologies for that. I won't strike it, as there is no "accusation" of anything. - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Featured articles sometimes simply don't have images. For instance, I've written a featured biographical article whose subject I could not find an image of for the life of me. In this case, barring the idea that Mary E. Spencer Jones happens to have photographs lying around which she didn't publish to the journal article and would wish to release under a Commons-compatible license; that Springer would be willing to waive their copyright to a free-for-commercial-usage license; or that someone wants to track down a South African mole, examine the rectum for worms, capture images via SEM, meticulously ensure the worm is actually Heptamegacanthus, and then provide it under a Commons-compatible license, there's nothing that can be done here. I think it still doesn't stop it from being a top-quality article. It totally sucks, but I think 'Featured' should denote professional-level quality, and I imagine even Britannica would have a rough time of this without greasing the wheels ($$$) to license the image. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  The lack of an image is usually not really an error, it's working with what we got. There are areas in which we do not have a luxury of images. If FAC passes them, unless there are exceptional circumstances dictating don't run the article, we look at them as eligible to run Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree here that the lack of an image doesn't automatically fail FAC 3. One thing I might do is reach out the author to hear her thoughts and see if she may have something, as in review of both featured article nominations, nobody explicitly mentions having done so (although this is suggested at two points by Esculenta. Update: I have since contacted the author and am awaiting a reply. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors with "In the news"

• As Toadspike has pointed out, the current layout of ITN causes confusion. The positioning of the image of Yoav Gallant makes it seem like the portrait depicts the newly elected Lithuanian Prime Minister. It would be better if we had File:Gintautas Paluckas VRK.jpg or as a second alternative to that, a portrait of Netanyahu (who is more recognizable and less likely to be mistaken for the new Lithuanian PM by a casual observer). Flip^andFlopped ツ 01:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• That file lacks evidence of permission. Knowing which blurb the picture is linked to is what (pictured) is for, and there’s no evidence that anyone is confused. Stephen 01:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have occasionally thought the image pertains to the subject of the top hook at first glance, until I looked closer. And that's as someone who actually knows how ITN works.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose that's why WP:ITNPICT says the picture should be for the uppermost blurb, when possible, but I suspect that stems from a time when images did not have captions. FWIW, "On this day" often has a picture not associated with its top-most item. —Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  This juxtapositioning issue has been extant for decades. -- Sca (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• There's now a cropped image at File:Gintautas Paluckas by Augustas Didzgalvis (cropped).jpg. Could we use this one instead? Toadspike [Talk] 15:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   Done I’ve swapped the image. Schwede66 15:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think we should link International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli figures, given that the article is about the news story at hand. — Knightoftheswords 21:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Knightoftheswords281: you can suggest a change at WP:ITN/C. The present hook was as agreed, and the article vetted accordingly. I think the proposed article might not cover it fully anyway, as Mohammed Deif is not an Israeli figure.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 29)

Monday's FL

(December 2)

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

Main page balance

Amakuru, I had already removed items from today and tomorrow's OTD. On my wide-screen monitor, that achieved balance. Now, the right column is too short for me. I know that it's not an exact science, but were you balancing for a wide-screen monitor? Schwede66 22:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Schwede66: I'm just wondering what you're looking at? When I was balancing I was looking initially at making the top of DYK and OTD match, and with the new count I've just initiated those seem to line up at most widths when I grow and shrink the browser. For example here: [1] Ther are admittedly now some widths where the bottom of OTD is not quite matched to the bottom of DYK, so it could work to add one more item in there, but as you see in the above image it's not terrible on that score... Are you seeing something different? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I usually have the sidebar turned on. When I turn it off (hide it), I get the same as you. I hadn't noticed that performance difference before and don't know whether it's defined anywhere how it's supposed to be. Schwede66 23:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a look why toggling the tool sidebar changes the main page balance and to be honest, I don't understand what's going on. First up, I've measured how much of the screen width is given to the columns. With the tools showing, it's 55%/45% (left/right). Without the tools, it's 53%/47%. For me at least. Trying to understand why there is a difference, I've looked at the main page's CSS. Rows 75 to 89 appear to be dealing with the ratio, and it says it's 55%/45%. Hence, why does turning the tools off / hiding them change the ratio that assigns to the two columns? And Khajidha, I'm aware of your longstanding advocacy for a single-column design. That's not what this is about; I'd like to understand why the ratio changes. Once we've figured that out, we can think about stopping it from doing that. Schwede66 23:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is rather confusing - too many factors to consider when trying to achieve balance. To be honest with you, with Vector2022 I thought we'd now reached a situation where the width was more-or-less fixed whatever the width, unless you went down to a very narrow viewport. That's what we see with articles, but it doesn't seem to be the case on the main page. I guess the four-panel layout makes it more complicated.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

So, again, you know that there is a way to stop this from ever happening, but you would rather have to continually futz and jigger with this than solve the problem? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated category

Why is the main page in Category:Articles containing Proto-Indo-European-language text? TheWikipede^talk 17:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Because it does - the TFA summary contains proto-Indo-European text wrapped in {{lang|ine-x-proto}}. If that's a problem, add nocat=yes to those template calls, which would prevent the category being emitted. But why is it a problem? Modest Genius ^talk 17:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)