Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Main Page error reports

Main Page toolbox
Yesterday
April 24
Today
April 25, 2017
Tomorrow
April 26
TFA TFA TFA
SA/OTD SA/OTD SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
TFL (Monday)  
TFA/OTD/POTD/TFL Queue
In the news: candidates · discussion · admin instructions
Did you know: nominations · discussion · queue
Wikipedia fully-protected main page files
Protected pages associated with Main Page articles
Error reports · General discussions · FAQ · Help · Sandbox
Main Page history · Main Page alternatives · April Fool's
It is now 12:16 UTC
Purge the Main Page
Purge this page

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 (12:16 on 25 April 2017), 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

Pinging David Levy. (He generally does these ahead of time, and likes to be pinged when they show up at ERRORS.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Errors in In the news

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day

Today

Tomorrow

Errors in the current or next Did you know...

Current

Next

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

Errors in the summary of the last or next featured list

General discussion

Really, really glad that Sergio Garcia has finally progressed past the main page. I cannot overstate how much joy this brings me. The pictures need more frequent rotation than Sergio got after winning the Masters three weeks ago. Yes! Stormy clouds (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, there's not a lot we can do when there are not free images available from the other stories on ITN. In this case, there weren't - and then it took 8 days for a suitable story to arrive there. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Should we delink all articles with maintenance issues from the main page?

When a nomination goes through one of the processes (TFA/ITN/DYK/OTD/etc) there is a tendency to review the highlighted article and then add links (regardless of standard) to the description that features on the main page. That usually leaves many links that would normally be unsuitable for the main page. Several, in fact, on the main page at the moment.

Those who frequent WP:ERRORS may be familiar with highlighted articles regularly being removed because of maintenance issues, such as a lack of citations or POV concerns. My question here is whether this should extend to articles that are not highlighted - ones that are used to give context to the reader. Fuebaey (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking about the common problem at ITN, of whether all links in a blurb need to pass stringent quality review or whether this requirement only applies to the "bold" link; then I am opposed to this. It's impossible to review such a large number of articles and still post blurbs in any sort of timely fashion. Even moreso when the mere act of nominating an article at ITN brings on a flurry of tagging and "oppose on article quality" !votes. This can be dealt with for a single bold link and for subjects that generate interest, but for 2-4 other links this would stop ITN completely. I don't think de-linking the non-bold links in blurbs is the answer, either, because it deprives readers of easy access to complementary information. Putting those non-bold links up in the state that they are might even generate some interest to improve them.
Tangentially, I was extremely disappointed to see that there was no mention of Easter at all on the front page last Sunday, not even on OTD. The reason given was that the article quality was poor. I took a look, and it is not the best article, but it is extremely informative and well composed and almost all of it is sourced. Today, the US Tax Day article is featured in the same space, and it is garbage. There is obviously a problem with assessing quality, and further of striking a balance between quality and impact.128.214.69.166 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Well if you disagree with the OTD rules, and don't like the items selected there, please feel free to comment at WT:OTD. We don't make exceptions for any religious holidays if the article is woefully under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I take your point about further discussion at OTD on this narrow issue (seriously though, take a look at Easter and Tax Day and tell yourself that the latter is higher quality; I even wager the latter has a higher proportion of controversial and unreferenced claims). I mean to make a broader point that even bold links aren't getting well evaluated, so extending this already-misapplied standard to non-bold links is impossible.128.214.69.166 (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Well I review the bold linked articles at DYK, ITN and OTD every day, and apply the rules of each section accordingly. Once again, if you disagree with those rules, the respective project's talkpages is the place to start. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
What has changed since the article on Easter was mentioned on the Main Page in 2016? The criteria at WP:OTDRULES have not changed: number 5 simply says that articles should "preferably" not include article issue tags, not that the absence of any such tags (or related issues) is a mandatory requirement. (Tactically adding such tags just before an anniversary or observance comes around seems to be a neat way to torpedo any such article appearing on the Main Page, though; not that anyone would stoop to such malign and disruptive behaviour I am sure.) Was there a debate somewhere about imposing more stringent requirements? For what it is worth, the article on Easter is a good example of Wikipedia content. It is certainly not "woeful". Aber Befehl ist Befehl, nicht wahr?
What has changed is that someone is now actually working to check each OTD article and conscientious admins are working to implement the rules. Most of the Easter article was unreferenced, hence failed OTD rules. We don't post such woefully unverifiable material to the main page, it's not a good example of Wikipedia work. As for "tactics", the OTD selection isn't made until sometimes the actual day before, so there's not an option other than to do it just before an observance or an anniversary. All religions, incidentally, are treated identically in this regards. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Over the last few years, I was generally giving holiday/observance articles more of a pass. Consensus within the past year has changed to require improved quality on all articles. howcheng {chat} 18:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I've always thought that each blurb should only link to one article. I see no difference between a bold link vs a non-bold link, each is calling attention to an article. If any article would not be considered good enough for a bold link, it should not be considered good enough for any link from the Main Page. If the blurb does its job of taking readers to the article, they will have all the access to other articles that they need. --Khajidha (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
We had a discussion similar to this at DYK, it was generally agreed that minimising wikilinks in blurbs is a good thing but eliminating them altogether is to do a disservice to the reader. That may apply across all aspects of the main page, particularly if some areas contain more technical terms that may be of interest. After all, the main page is just a way to get readers to click into Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Abraham Lincoln, Wikipedian - you can please all the users some of the time, some of the users most of the time (and others none of the time) but you cannot please all the users all the time. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
That's true, TRM, but as a counterpoint, directing readers to an incomplete, incorrect, or otherwise dreadful article on a technical term is not really a "service". It's more of a disservice than not linking at all, as linking implies the reader could find something useful by following the link. No link is better than a bad one. --Jayron32 17:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
And, as I said, if the blurb's bold link has done its job they will have "clicked in". --Khajidha (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
No, that's a non sequitur, the "bold link" may be brilliant, but the hook, or the the blurb, may contain words, sayings, phrases which are open to interpretation or ENGVAR. Most of the main page is not DYK. Jayron, as a correction to my previous (undone) post, I'm almost with you. But as I've said, I check almost every bold linked article across most of the Main Page every day for quality. If we're now talking about every "linked" item, then TFA would be the place to start that fight, as most TFA blurbs have a dozen or more links. I'd suggest talking to that project directly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
And clicking through to the bold article would give them access to those terms in a larger context that might make visiting their articles unneeded but would definitely have links to those terms that they could then follow. To me, it seems logical that if you don't understand a term in a blurb that you would first read the larger article to see if it makes sense there and then go to the unfamiliar term's entry if needed. Entries are pulled from or barred from the main page because the main linked article is not of a quality that we want to call attention to, but EVERY link from the main page calls attention to that article. I cannot see how you can hold some links from the main page to a high standard, but not others. Either all need to meet the standards or none do, and the "none" option is completely untenable.--Khajidha (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
You're forgetting there are two types of link from the main page, bold "target" links and associated links. Every bold link should uphold each section's standards (and they are different from section to section) but associated links should be there to help the reader. And today's reader may become tomorrow's editor and get stuck into some of the poorer quality articles. Win-win. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm pointing out that that distinction does not exist for the general reader. To the general reader "Today's Featured Article" is just an article we have featured, "In the News" is just a list of news stories, "On This Day" is just a list of things on this day, "Did You Know" is just a list of quick tidbits, and a link is just a link. They don't know these standards and distinctions so that any link becomes an example to them of what Wikipedia is like. By linking multiple terms but only holding one to higher standards we give them many more examples of substandard material than we do of material that meets these standards. Hardly a win for anyone. --Khajidha (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the bold helps our reader distinguish between the target of the hook/blurb and the auxiliary links, otherwise we wouldn't have it in bold. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It may distinguish which one is more relevant, but gives no indication that that one is held to higher standards of quality. --Khajidha (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a non-problem. I don't see any readers complaining, the main page has a steady-ish 20 millions hits per day, where's the big issue? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────+1 Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I started this discussion in response to this edit. I actually agree with Khajidha in that most readers don't give two hoots about the perception of "quality" defined here. One could easily say, to use the same argument above, if we don't see any readers complaining there's no reason at all to pull any article from the main page at all. Fuebaey (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Not really, we should apply the guidelines of the respective main page sections accordingly, and if it says we should discourage templated articles, we should try not to run them, and cherry-picking ones which are tagged to run them regardless is true systemic bias. If you wish to change the guidelines applied by TFA, OTD, DYK, ITN, TFL, TFP etc, that's a discussion to be held at the specific projects. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping someone would point me to the (ITN?) guideline that would justify that edit then. It seemed reasonable to discuss this here because, like you said, there has been discussions at DYK and now an active edit at ITN with regards to this issue. That seems relevant to the main page if you ask me. Fuebaey (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
OTD: The article should be rated B-class or higher and like blurbs, must be free of yellow-level or higher maintenance tags.
ITN: Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link.
DYK do as they please, the other areas are featured areas so maintenance tags, low quality targets, shouldn't happen. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood my comment. The edit above was made to a (still current) ITN blurb; the link was not bolded but removed nonetheless. None of what you have written or quoted addresses that. Fuebaey (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh sure, in that case then I'm unaware of any main page regulations across all sections that precludes shit quality articles being linked as auxiliary links. I think it's usually a good thing, to encourage improvements etc, but I can also see that if we have a hugely embarrassing one, e.g. on with {{unref}} or {{copyvio}} then we'd need to unlink it. As usual here on Wikipedia, it's more of a case-by-case basis thing rather than just a "one size fits all" approach, which usually ends with "one size fits no-one". Hope that helps! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing

Curious, why no Oklahoma City bombing in OTD today? Is it merely a matter of "we didn't have room for it with all the others", i.e. an editorial decision that the other topics were more important to feature than this incident? It's an FA, so I doubt that the frequent exclusion reason of "it's poor quality" wasn't relevant here. Or maybe it appeared a year or two ago, and there's a rule against featuring the same thing too many years in a row? Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Many OTD items are circulated between years. The page history is at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 19 where the bombing is currently listed as eligible in the staging area. It was shown on the 20th anniversary in 2015. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thank you! Virtually every time I notice the absence of a specific event, it's a matter of the article being of poor quality, so I had no idea how we handled eligible articles. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
There's no rule preventing articles from appearing in consecutive years. April 19 just happens to have a large number of US-related articles and Lexington/Concord hadn't been on since 2013, and we try have geographical diversity when possible, so the bombing just made way, that's all. howcheng {chat} 18:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Earth Day March for Science

Thousands of people around the world have organized & marched, surely that is something worthy of making the ITN section? The article seems fleshed out enough to be featured under ITN.

Being discussed here. ansh666 00:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
And thousands isn't enough. So this is likely to not be posted due to sorely lacking in notability.--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

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.

Blocked users cannot edit Wikipedia. Can there be an asterisk so it says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit*" and at the bottom say "*not blocked users"? UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) (My Contribs) 21:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Asked and answered here: [1]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=777119451"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Main Page"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA