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 01:14 on 14 June 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)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• Excuse me for noticing, but three of OTD's four items seem to be about English/British conflict or warfare. – Sca (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 14, today)

Monday's FL

(June 17)

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

Japan and the Middle East and North Africa protests

In the news section, why are the links to the earthquake in Japan and the Middle East and North Africa protests being added and taken away so much? Can't we agree on something? Elium2 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

they were removed due to lack of significant updates to the article for 3+ days. if something big happens they will get a new blurb. -- Ashish-g55 17:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. They are not being added and removed with anything approaching "so much", and each time they're added or removed, it's with consensus at WP:ITN/C (except for one time when someone accidentally restored them). So, yes, people are agreeing. -- tariqabjotu 15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I accidentally restored them when (thinking I was clever) went back to a version a day old or so to remove a posting that had some issues. Turned out to be not too clever and lesson learned...RxS (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay … I think I get it. Elium2 (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that -almost- anyone can edit.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:SNOW close. For multiple reasons, including the lack of support here, the legal/technical aspects that the WMF would have to sign off on, and the harm that this would do to Wikipedia's image, it's safe to say that this isn't going to happen. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

---

In the mainpage we can read: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

However, there have been changes in the official policy which includes the Child protection policy which excludes some people from editing on wikipedia. This exclusion is immediate which means that it applies to newcomers so I propose that the text on the mainpage is changed to reflect this. Here is my proposal for change:

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit."

This would reflect current policy better. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Kind of a bad idea - and it would be really hard to change the motto/slogan … Elium2 (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We could have a secondary slogan that reads : "Hey, kid, we didn't say that anyone could edit it right now. Come back in a few years. We'll still be here." APL (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not true -- children can still edit. The child protection policy is intended to keep kids safe, not bar them from editing. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's right, it is the group named pedophiles that are banned from editing. However, one might not necessarily like that group but the fact remains that this policy makes the "anyone can edit" statement to be clearly false and in need of correction. This has additional benefits in that it will silence many critics who have claimed that the statement is false. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this proposal, and the steady stream of others seeking to make similar changes, is that it seeks to cast an advertising slogan into the roll of disclaimer. Slogans express broad principles or visions and are expected to contain a certain level of puffery and ambiguity. Requiring a slogan to fully delineate all possible exceptions and qualifiers results in an unusable mess. Besides as anyone with real world experience knows, "What the big print gives you the fine print takes away". See the links at the very bottom of this and every other Wikipedia page for additional details. --Allen3 ^talk 18:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not even go for a more grandiose slogan in that case? "the fault-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and just add some disclaimers in the fine print? The reason is obvious: The slogan would be to out of sync with reality, just like the current one is. With the new official policies that so blatantly goes against everything that the early vision stood for, the slogan leaves a very bad aftertaste. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If you check you will find that Wikipedia's purpose is creation of an encyclopedia and not as a forum for unregulated free speech. As for "new official policies", the core policies that form the basis for these reasonable restrictions have existed with little to no change since I registered my account in early 2005. --Allen3 ^talk 18:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have the Founding Principles as a guide and as they evolve, so should the slogan on the mainpage. What do you think is the problem of a more realistic slogan? Will people perhaps assume that there are restrictions on who can edit on wikipedia? Would that be a bad thing (given that it also is true)?Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This, oddly enough, is not a new gripe. It's also utter bullshit.  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!  18:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If anybody wants to be that technical, one could say there's a difference between "can edit" and "may edit". However, we all have better things to do than worry about this. Kansan (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, very few things (on wikipedia) are more important that the fundamental matter of what the wikipedia vision should be and how it should be shown to the visitors of wikipedia. But oh well... Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no case where anybody without a blocking history cannot edit in the first place (unless they're caught in a range block, in which case, that can be appealed easy enough). I looked at the child protection policy and all it says is that people who either admit to being pedophiles or who act on it on wiki are to be blocked on site. If somebody has feelings such as that, but would never act on them, and would never say anything about it on wiki, nobody would ever know about it. Kansan (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can technically make an edit, but you will also be banned if someone finds out. That doesn't exactly qualify as being able to edit. You can express free speech in a dictatorship, but you will also be shot if you do. That is not free speech, just as this case is not "anyone can edit".

And there is no need to act on it, only registering and account is enough if the person also expresses his orientation in some way. It goes against everything that wikipedia was supposed to stand for. This kind of policy is just to avoid possible negative media attention and it cheapens the ideals of wikipedia. And we should reflect this in the slogan instead of pretending that everything is fine. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I value child protection very highly, and I guess the only other thing I have to say in response is that I strongly disagree and will leave it at that. Kansan (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You consider pedophilia to be an "orientation"? Is it possible that English is not your native language? Because the last time I checked, English-speaking nations (while sometimes disagreeing on the boundary between orientation and perversion) were in unanimous agreement that the mindset known in English as " pedophilia" is a perversion, a sickness, and a precursor to the sort of behavior that has rightly caused its practitioners to be labelled as the very worst sort of subhuman scum ever to walk the Earth. I don't think Wikipedia is violating any sort of principles by denying felons (or would-be felons) the right to make victims of its other users. Perhaps you feel differently... 174.252.136.207 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this guy seriously defending pedophiles? --Khajidha (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia as long as they follow the prescibed policies. A pedophile can edit wikipedia all they want if they don't make a statement that they are a pedophile or attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships. We have many people who are permanently blocked or banned from editing wikipedia. If they had followed the policies and community norms they would still be able to edit. They all made the choice to act in a way that got them blocked. The same applies to anyone blocked under the child protection policy. It is not Wikipedia that is stopping them from editing it is their own actions. GB fan (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Anybody can edit, they just can't edit anything they want. And it has never meant that. Corvus cornix_talk 20:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Calm down guys, cool heads will prevail so let's not get gripped by masshysteria here. The policy of child protection have actually nothing to do with child protection, it has never been used that way and it most likely never will. That is not the issue. Neither is pedophiles the issue. It could have been any group of any kind and the problems would have been the same. It could have been constructionworkers from central London who where banned and then my criticism would be exactly the same. It would be a policy which violates the idea och a free encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit. It is not, and the slogan should reflect this change in policy. Simple as that. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you want a cool head? Simple? Here's a simple, cool-headed answer. The slogan is imperfect: granted. Go click it (the "anyone can edit" link). Check the third paragraph: "it is allowed to be imperfect," referring to the project as a whole, which obviously includes its slogan. 'Nuff said. 174.252.136.207 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It also says right before that "Wikipedia is a work in progress." so why treat the slogan like it was written in stones and handed down by the gods? Why not make improvements when possible? What do we stand to lose? No one seems to be able to answer that question. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Has an improvement been suggested? Your proposal leaves much to be desired, for reasons given by Allen3 above. If someone presents a new slogan that is clearly superior, I know of know reason why it couldn't be changed. I haven't seen it written in stone anywhere; so far, I've only seen it in easily-changed-if-change-is-warranted electronic text. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing inaccurate about the current slogan. Anyone can edit wikipedia. It is when they decide to not follow the rules or community norms that they are asked/told to leave. GB fan (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A reminder: just because someone is saying something silly, does not obligate you to argue with them all day. After a while, ignoring them is also an option. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2011 (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.

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:SNOW close. See the above SNOW close for the reason why. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

---

The earlier discussion seem to suggest that a slogan should be grandiose and give a neat impression on the visitors of the site. On the other hand, there are issues with the slogan being too far removed from reality, even as far as slogan goes. So, why not make a compromise? By simply dropping the false notion of "that anyone can edit" we get the much more simple and truer slogan of: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Sometimes less is more. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to propose a new site-wide slogan. You might consider a WP:RFC, posting at the Village Pump, or at Meta. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it a shot. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The truth is, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Just because you may not be able to edit a specific page on Wikipedia at a specific time does not make the slogan any less accurate. we have 3.6 million articles and I think three times as many non-article pages. 99.99% of which are wide open for anyone's editing pleasure. Also, the issue of marketing/branding is something I think is better discussed at the foundation level, since a slogan change would change how most people view Wikimedia as a whole. Resolute 21:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Offical policy now bans a whole group from editing despite them having made no disruptive editing or comments. How is that "anyone can edit"? And what does you guys stand to gain from this marketing scheme? Money? Fame? I can understand why Coca Cola or Pepsi would do it, but who would you? Why should we sell a product using false advertisement? Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:STICK. Corvus cornix_talk 21:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

To any editor who might consider replying: it is of course your own business whether you reply to this thread. You might save yourself some time, though, by reading the previous thread, closed by Floquenbeam a mere 8 minutes before Kingofthosewhoknow reopened discussion here. Flogging? Trolling? Further discussion seems pointless either way.

In other words: drop it, already. 74.176.114.157 (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• For the record 74.176, I was the one that SNOW closed the above thread, and I'm the one that is closing / closed this one for the same reason. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 01:50, 6 April 2011 (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.

Jim Calhoun is awfully happy about that shipwreck

This really isn't acceptable. I know this has come up about a million times before, but putting someone's smiling face near such news is getting close to a BLP issue. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree... Seems more like a cruel taunt, especially when seen from the perspective of the shipwreck news. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No more. If anyone wants to go find another one to add... Prodego ^talk 03:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it Prodego. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC) End Test

DYK whales link

Not sure if this is "overlinking", but in today's "did you know", "lunge feeding" could be linked to the article section we have on this behavior, so users can find out what the term means in one click. Mokele (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Bias on the main page

Just look at the list of recent Featured articles:

• The Pit and the Pendulum
• Phan Dinh Phung
• Philitas of Cos

And today's article:

• Pithole

There's a terrible case of P-bias on the main page, and somebody should do something about it! --Carnildo (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You forgot that Polyozellus came the day before! and looking at the cue for the next few days.... Populous: The Beginning, Parkinson's disease, and Pattern Recognition are next up! I think Raul is screwing with us. hahahahahaha--Found5dollar (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Peculiar. Prominent paper principal's P-propensity poses possible problems. Perhaps patterns prove prejudices, perhaps paranoia penetrates prior poster. People, please ponder. Perplexed person (ping) 00:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)