Page semi-protected

Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205

Main Page error reports

To report an error in current or upcoming Main Page content, please add it to the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quotation of all or part of the text in question will help.
  • Please 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 11:47 on 12 August 2022), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not give you a faster response; it is unnecessary as this page is not protected and will in fact cause problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • Done? Once an error has been fixed, rotated off the Main Page or acknowledged not to be an error, the report will be removed from this page; please check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the relevant article or project talk page.
  • Please respect other editors. A real person wrote the blurb or hook for which you are suggesting a fix, or a real person noticed what they honestly believe is an issue with the blurb or hook that you wrote. Everyone is interested in creating the best Main Page possible; with the compressed time frame, there is sometimes more stress and more opportunities to step on toes. Please be civil to fellow users.
  • Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, consider first attempting to fix the problem there before reporting it here if necessary. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. In addition, upcoming content is typically only protected from editing 24 hours before its scheduled appearance; in most cases, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

the release dates mentioned in the blurb do not appear to be sourced in the article. i think the one for japan is accurate, but the one for north america may have been a week earlier (as noted in the metacritic source that was cited for its rating, not the release date), and i am not sure about the one for europe. i would recommend either dropping "and on 22 February in Europe and North America", or simply replacing the part of the sentence after "released" with "in early 2012" (which is sourced, even though the source mentions a u.s. release date i have not seen elsewhere).

courtesy pinging fac nominator Jaguar. further details can be found in my post on Jaguar's talk page. dying (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

update: Jaguar has added sources which support the release dates mentioned for japan and europe, but the release date mentioned for north america still appears to be questionable. dying (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I've deleted "and North America" from the blurb. Once it's cited / confirmed, we can put those words back. Schwede66 23:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thanks, Schwede66. dying (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

  • "...against the wishes of its lyricist?" "Its" could refer to The Red Flag or to O Tannenbaum. I suggest to change "its" to "the former's". Jmchutchinson (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think this is needed as "O Tannenbaum" is ancient and thus whoever the lyricist was could not have possibly objected. I'm happy to make the suggested change, though, if others here say that there is still room for confusion. Schwede66 23:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
According to our O Tannenbaum article, its modern lyrics were written in 1824 by a lyricist who died in 1861. That was indeed after the tune was "stolen", in the 1890s, but the casual reader is not going to know these timings even approximately (e.g. Schwede thought that the lyrics were from ancient times). It is anyway poor writing to leave an ambiguity, even if only some moments of reflexion would be sufficient to resolve it. Jmchutchinson (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
1824 – that’s ancient! Schwede66 07:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Missa brevis in C (Brixi)" any reason this isn't in italics on the main page, as it is for the actual article? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
    As per WP:NCMUSIC, I'd argue that this shouldn't be italicized as a generic title, and have done so in the article. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

  • Following the discussion at the end of this talk page [just now removed; now back again!], we have now "The last known quagga (colourised example pictured) ..", which suggests that the quagga was colourised rather than the picture! Better would be to put the "colourised" in the caption, where it would be more obvious to the casual skimmer of the page. Also better would be to write "(another example pictured)" since the photo is not of the last-known quagga (and note the hyphen between last and known!). And actually, I read the majority opinion (8:2) in the discussion as being to swap this colourised version for the original black-and-white one. Jmchutchinson (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 12, today)

Monday's FL

(August 15)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Missing mobile link to Wikipedia:Contents

I was on my phone today trying to get to the project-wide table of contents, and I realized there isn't actually a way to do that. On the desktop version of the site, there is a link from the left-hand menu to Wikipedia:Contents, which is what I was looking for. To get the menu on mobile, you have to touch the pancake stack icon, but on desktop you can find "contents" by searching or eyeballing the page without clicking on anything. The mobile version also doesn't link to Portal:Current events, which many visitors might find interesting. What do people think about either adding these to the mobile menu for parity with desktop, or migrating one or both to the main page content? -- Beland (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Beland: i feel like this would be better suited to the village pumps. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 13:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Beland there are a lot of ways this page can display "on my phone" - if there is a single line missing in some menu posting over at WP:VPT would be good, especially with screenshots. If there is an entire menu you are trying to add somewhere WP:VPI would be a good place to review options and build a potential proposal for change. — xaosflux Talk 13:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the pointers! -- Beland (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

1 September TFA

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.

I note we're putting September Morn on the main page. This has previously been explicitly rejected. Have things changed? Because that discussion is also the reasoning behind WP:POTD/Unused's rejection of putting the image itself in POTD. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 12:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You link to a TFA discussion; September TFA discussions are at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Are you sure? 1 September's TFA is currently Benedict Joseph Fenwick. Where are you seeing that September Morn is appearing? --Jayron32 12:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jayron32: it was changed. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, then it is no longer a problem, n'est çe pas? --Jayron32 12:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
probably. @Adam Cuerden, it's fine now, right? lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Never mind. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 01:16, 9 August 2022 (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.

Crummy TFA image

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.


It's almost pointless to have it on the main page. At thumbnail size, the labels are nearly unreadable; at full size, the image is so poor quality that it's undecipherable. It also seems like it's false-color as well. I would consider removing or replacing it. -- Veggies (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I've added the other image of that article to the media protection page. Once it's protected, I'll swap it over. Schwede66 02:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66 I swapped it in, feel free to improve the caption. — xaosflux Talk 10:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: You reintroduced inaccurate information when you reverted my reversion of the picture. The gristmill is another enterprise of the monastery and is not connected to the brewery. Further, one complaint shouldn't be enough to change the picture of the featured article. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@Guerillero thank you for the note and the updates, feel free to revert if you think this makes things worse - pending more discussion. I do agree with the original poster that the first image is problematic, especially for mobile viewers in that that labels are rather hard to read. — xaosflux Talk 12:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the new picture is better; the image has a caption that explains the relevance in context, which ameliorates any problems understanding why it is there, and it solves the problem that the prior picture was, even on a high-quality monitor, basically an indistinct blob of colors with hard-to-read low-resolution text. There's a very good reason why we normally don't post map images as thumbnails for main page postings, and that applies even to legible maps. At the sizes and scales of these images, even really good maps can be hard to interpret beyond "random blobs of color", and this blurry aerial image was less-than-useless. The new image at least provides a context for the former location of the brewery, an aid to people who may know or visit the area. --Jayron32 15:19, 9 August 2022 (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.

Colorized images on the main page

Do we have a policy on this, either specific to the main page or in general? User:Hogyncymru recently replaced our original black-and-white photo of a quagga with a version he had colorized himself at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/August 12 (set to feature on the main page tomorrow), with "better image" as the edit summary. I disagree with this, and think an actual black-and-white photograph is pretty much always going to be a more encyclopedic representation of a subject than an artist's interpretation of how it might have been colored. This feels like something that must have been discussed to death already, but all I can find is a Commons essay on it, which is quite pro-colorization, but also uses "Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia" (emphasis in original) to justify its stance (and seems to be mostly the work of just one editor anyway). So, can anyone point me to anything relevant? And if not, how do others feel about reverting this? -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with you. Original, black and white photo should be used instead of Hogyncymru's particular impression, which as respectable as it is, is not necessarily a "better image" in his own words. Bedivere (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure I saw a discussion regarding the general use of colorized images in articles fairly recently, where the consensus was that it wasn't often appropriate. And if anything, this would seem more true for images on the main page, given that colorized images inevitably involve a degree of WP:OR/personal interpretation. Far better to use an unmodified image in such circumstances. Furthermore, the Quagga photo is essentially unique, and a historical artefact itself, so definitely needs to be shown in its original form. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I strongly agree with not using a colorized image in this instance. I wouldn't like to say never, but I can't envisage a situation where I would prefer a colorized image to the original. Jmchutchinson (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
It depends on the purpose of including the illustration. If it's to illustrate what the animal looked like, then a colourised picture can be helpful: in this case, we can quickly tell the quagga's back was dark brown rather than, say, dark red, or deep purple, or any of the other colours which appear to be dark grey in a monochrome photograph; and it's legs were not yellow. It goes without saying that there should be confidence that approximate colours for the main subject used are correct. I would like to see a mandatory indication in the caption that the image has been colourised; nothing complicated: Quagga mare at London Zoo (colourised) would do (with spelling to reflect the artist and subject). Bazza (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Don't have an issue putting a colorized image on the MP. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Like Jmchutchinson I don't think we should have a policy on no colorized images, but in this case the actual photo seems a better option for the main page. CMD (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
There's no policy I'm aware of, and it surely needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. We've frequently used paintings, illustrations etc. on the Main Page, which are even more subjective, so a colourised photo seems fine if it's appropriately sourced and the colourisation is stated in the caption. The problem I have with File:Equus quagga quagga, coloured.jpg is it appears to be original research - if it was taken from a reliable source I would be happy with using it, but being made by one of our users makes me uncomfortable. How confident are we that the artist is an expert on quagga appearance? Modest Genius talk 11:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Colorization can potentially create a new copyright on the work (the US Copyright Office has granted copyrights to those that have recolorized works), so this should be treated as a non-mechanical change to a work, in contrast to something like a simple crop. While the original work is free and thus modifyable, a user making a colorized image would have to make sure they license their image under a free license as well to release the copyright issue.
But now we're left with the question if the colorized version is accurate, and that's one thing we can't assure a user-colorized image would be, even using "standard" colorization approaches. On the other hand, if an expert source created a colorized image, and published it under a free license, that would absolutely reasonable to use. Masem (t) 12:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • It's a fake image. Of course it shouldn't be on the MP. If there aren't any colour images of quagga, then we shouldn't be using one. Either use a painting or the stuffed one that is featured in the article. Fgf10 (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
    It's no more a fake image than all the paintings you suggest should be used instead. (If anything, it's a more accurate depiction than they are.) Bazza (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
A painting is normally immediately recognisable as such. The colourisation of an image may not always be immediately obvious to readers. In this case it is misleading, since no colour photographs of live Quaggas even exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Which is why I wrote what I did above. I would like to see a mandatory indication in the caption that the image has been colourised; nothing complicated: Quagga mare at London Zoo (colourised) would do (with spelling to reflect the artist and subject). Bazza (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on the specific quagga image itself. I do not believe that there is any problem whatsoever with using colorized images in general on the main page. Seems like a non-issue for me. At best, we can indicate something in the caption if it is necessary. But in general, I don't think it's a deal breaker.--Jayron32 12:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

So, despite a clear consensus here that at minimum the colourised Quagga photo should be labelled as such, it is now there anyway, with nothing in the caption. What exactly was the point of this discussion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed quite incredible. Seems like accuracy and truth don't matter on the front page any more. Fgf10 (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Adding (colourised). That's an easy fix. Tone 08:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Actually, where is the exact code to get to the Main Page box? It seems a bit confusing. --Tone 08:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Here Tone, Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/August 12, did it for you. Stephen 08:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Ah, it was there after all, I though it was hidden under some inline templates. Tone 08:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that this discussion is being held in the wrong spot. As it says above, Main Page errors: to report errors in current or upcoming Main Page content. I’ve amended it. Schwede66 08:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)