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

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 quote 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 21:16 on 22 January 2022), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}}, 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 page's revision history for any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
  • Please respect other editors. A real person wrote the blurb or hook to 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 bolded articles. 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

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

I think "Croatia became a member of the European Union following an accession referendum." (which I myself added) should be changed to something like "Croatia votes to become a member of the European Union in an accession referendum." because it is more accurate per https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23118035. Sahaib3005 (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The blurb is now revised to Croatia held a referendum on becoming a member of the European Union. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I have amended the revised hook slightly, so that the fact that the referendum was successful is still covered. It now reads: "Croatia held a referendum, in which it voted to become a member of the European Union."  — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD

  • Jan 23 1909 (Tottenham Outrage armed robbery) "...led police on a two-hour tram chase.." - the tram ride was only a portion of the two-hour chase. The chase was also on foot and involved various other vehicles including car, milk float, delivery cart. Maybe just drop the word "tram"? JennyOz (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    @JennyOz: I think the tram is what makes it special. But you are right that it is now not factually correct. "two-hour chase, partially by tram, that ended..."? —Kusma (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks Kusma, I agree, and if this was a DYK hook, as opposed to the drier selected anniversaries, there'd be many hooky possibilities (though there were tragic deaths too). Your "partially" suggestion sounds good.JennyOz (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, JennyOz & Kusma. The blurb has been tweaked as suggested. --PFHLai (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks PFHLai. JennyOz (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(January 28)

Monday's FL

(January 24)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Proposed wording change for sister projects template

 Done per strong support shown in the discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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.

Based on the above discussions, the following change to Template:Wikipedia's sister projects appears to enjoy the most support:

Current wording

Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects:

Proposed new wording (additions in bold)

Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other volunteer projects:

Shall we implement this? --Andreas JN466 16:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. There are a very large number of people who have no idea that Wikipedia is written by volunteers. Publicizing it a bit more seems worthwhile. (I'm a bit hesitant about adding the label "volunteer projects", given the current ... situation ... with Mediawiki, though.) --Yair rand (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Yair rand: what's happening at MediaWiki? — Bilorv (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Bilorv: Nothing particularly recent, but Mediawiki isn't exactly a volunteer project anymore. IIUC, volunteer code contributions are a minority, high-level decisions come from WMF technical executives, conduct issues are handled downstream of WMF groups. :/ --Yair rand (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Yair rand, uh, very much citation needed. Just take a look at the top patch contributors of 2021, the top 4 are all not WMF staff (#2 works for BlueSpice), I was the first WMF employee at #5. There are definitely significant governance problems in MediaWiki (and really the rest of the movement), but saying "MediaWiki isn't exactly a volunteer project anymore" is not it. Legoktm (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Legoktm: I was basing the volunteer-portion bit off a post on wikitech-l (which I can't find right now) from a while back, which IIRC was backed up with a link to some statistics. But, given that you are generally much more well-informed on these things than I am (you being directly heavily involved, while I'm closer to vaguely observing from a distance), I'm going to assume I either misinterpreted or misremembered the point. Now stricken. --Yair rand (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    Being more specific: I prefer the proposed wording above over the modified wording below (which I feel is a bit too wordy), but either would be preferable to the current wording on the main page. --Yair rand (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  2. This (unlike the ill-defined kitchen sink proposal above) is perfectly innocuous. It won't by itself solve our issue with the public not knowing how Wikipedia is written, but it's a small step in the right direction. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support in principle, but we need to work on the details, perhaps using Andreas's proposal below. Certes (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    To clarify: I support either version over the current wording, with preference for that below. Certes (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  4. Some version, such as the one modified by Andreas. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  5. Support a variation of the wording, as per the discussion below. Anarchyte (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  6. A small but helpful change, which avoids the implications that the WMF writes the encyclopaedia and more clearly delineates us from the sister projects. Modest Genius talk 13:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  7. Support (modulo whatever exact idiosyncrasies of wording get hashed out below; to my eye some of the proposed alternatives are hopelessly wordy, so I lean towards a shorter, sharper one). People don't know what Wikipedia is, and it's against our interests to perpetuate that. Every reader who doesn't know they can be an editor is an editor lost. Vaticidalprophet 13:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  8. Strikes the right balance between concise and informative. Informing our readers that we're a volunteer project (and implying that they can pitch in) is a good thing in my opinion. Wug·a·po·des 22:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  9. Yes please. 9 out of 10 times, when I tell someone I edit Wikipedia they typically say something along the lines of "oh neat, how much are they paying you?" or "I donate to Wikipedia every year" (with the assumption that I somehow benefit directly from said donation). -FASTILY 00:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  10. The more people that realize "that anyone can edit" includes them, the better. I would also like to see "editors" wikilinked to WP:Wikipedians, but this is not a make-or-break change. HouseBlastertalk 03:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  11. Support Andreas' modified proposal from the 31 December 2021. BilledMammal (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  12. I don't prefer any particular wording, but I support this idea. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  13. Certainly an improvement over the status quo, per the above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  14. Makes good sense, minor change but does more good than harm. Retswerb (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  15. Sounds good to me. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 13:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  16. I love the wording, and it's a nice addition. No objections. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  17. Strong support, the strength in my support being that I would support much more visibly placed and explicit prose on the Main Page. For now there is no reason to oppose this simple clarification to a(n unintentionally) misleading piece of text that unduly emphasises the WMF's role. I see the points below about inaccuracy but I would counterargue that the status quo is worse (... so opposing would be a mistake) and that "Wikipedia is written by ..." is most likely to be interpreted as "the articles and prose is written by ..." and all further nuance would need more words than we have available if we don't want to make this a coatrack. — Bilorv (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  18. Support, concise, and casual users will notice it. Abductive (reasoning) 19:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  19. Why not --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  20. Sure. Sandstein 13:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  21. Support in principle. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  22. Support in principle. The wording still feels kind of cumbersome, but good enough. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  23. Support I think this wording might be slightly better: "Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts the following volunteer projects:" Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  24. Andreas's version: "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by its users and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also provides the platform for a range of other wiki-based projects:" Levivich 22:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  25. Overdue. I've lost track of the amount of times I have had to explain this to people believing we're all paid by the donations going to the WMF. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  26. Support - hairsplitting aside, this is basically accurate, communicating something that seems to be generally true and that we don't want to become less true. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  27. yeah why not | CHANGE NICKNAME (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  28. Support Like Tobias, I keep hearing from people when I tell them I work on Wikipedia: "How much do you make?" "How'd you get the job?" "How can I get into that?" Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  29. Support, better than the current version. --Ooligan (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  30. Support the basic idea of specifying that the project is mostly run by editors. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  31. Support, to specify the projects are run by volunteer editors contributing to Wikipedia. Thingofme (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  32. Support, though if I had the choice I would only make the first change, not the second. That we're volunteers here is a big deal, what else the WMF does elsewhere is less relevant. --GRuban (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  33. Support, to better clarify how things are done and by whom. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  34. Support I think the second "volunteer" is redundant but overall I think it's a good improvement. Legoktm (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  35. I would prefer Wikipedia is written by volunteers and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects. This removes the "editors" as redundant. If someone is writing Wikipedia, and is a volunteer, they must be an editor. No need to spell it out. I think the second volunteer is also redundant. But I like the direction of emphasizing volunteers :) Hopefully we will attract more editors this way. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  36. Sounds good. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  37. Support this wording change. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  38. Support, much better and clearer as to what Wikipedia is and how it gets written. Crossroads -talk- 05:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Seems like an unnecessary level of detail for what it is, a brief introduction to the sister projects. The current text simply explains the connection between the projects, which is all you need. If this is intended to counteract the misinformation of the donation banners, I don't think adding a few words way below the fold will have much, or any, effect. Dan from A.P. (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  2. Per Dan; also, paid editing exists and is to a limited extent accepted on here, not to mention such things as the reward board. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Surely this would be a case of exception proves the rule. WaltCip-(talk) 15:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    Takes one to know one. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    I also don't see this as an issue. Paid editing is uncommon, and the community still retains the ultimate editorial control. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Any objection to linking "editors" to Wikipedia:Wikipedians in that verbiage? — xaosflux Talk 16:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection if you want to add the hyperlink, but Alanscottwalker above seemed to not like that aspect. (I'll hat the "written by unpaid volunteers" discussion above now, as this one effectively supersedes it.) --Andreas JN466 16:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Leaning support, but want to highlight some possibly unintended meanings of "volunteer-run projects". What we mean by "volunteer-run" has to do with the production and organization of the content. If I didn't already know about the division of labor, with the distinction only being between "volunteer-run" and "hosted", I'd assume that "running" the site also meant programming, web design, fundraising, and everything other than "hosting" (like GoDaddy/Gandi do). Throwing out another idea, what about something like "Wikipedia has several sister projects. All content is written or produced by volunteers, and the infrastructure maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization." A little wordy, but it divides "content" from "infrastructure" (which can be interpreted in many ways). Another try: "Wikipedia has several sister projects, all of which are supported and maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization. Articles and other content are written and organized by a community of volunteers." Wordy again. Mainly spitballing and hoping someone will do it better. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Could also consider: range of other volunteer projects. Anarchyte (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that is better than "volunteer-run". (I've dropped the -run above.) --Andreas JN466 17:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Rhododendrites How about: "Wikipedia has several sister projects. All content is written or produced by volunteers, on platforms maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization." I think people can relate to the term "platforms" (YouTube is a platform where users add content, etc.). --Andreas JN466 17:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • As I said above, I think it is not accurate enough (Reader, you should/need/must know that all these write and can write here: paid, not paid, corporate shill and not, government agent and not, educationally required and qualified and not, your little brother/sister and not, your professor and not, etc.), and I will add that to the extent it suggests anyone is volunteering for the Foundation (I think most people understand volunteering in the context of for an organization: Church, Red Cross, Food Bank, etc) I think the proposal is wrong too. I could perhaps support:
"Wikipedia is written collaboratively by people who use it and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other wiki-based projects:"
(I also tried to find a good link for "host", so if anyone has a suggestion there that would be good.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The key point is that Wikipedia is not written or curated by staff paid from readers' donations, as some might assume. As for the wikilink, the WMF provides a web hosting service (amongst other facilities). Certes (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: How about this? "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by its users and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also provides the platform for a range of other wiki-based projects:" --Andreas JN466 13:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Not sufficient - people working for a non-profit, collaboratively or not, often do get paid. We don't. --GRuban (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Meh. I get it. I do. The endless threads about "why you make me look at fundraising banner" are quite tiresome. I just don't happen to think adding a notice to the main page will stop them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Meh - I certainly agree with the principle that we should educate readers as to how Wikipedia is produced. If nothing else, it could be a great way to recruit new editors. But I highly doubt that a few extra words buried near the bottom of the main page are going to make any difference in that matter. A couple of months ago there was a proposal to remove the portal links from the top-right corner of the main page, which failed to achieve consensus partly because there was no alternative use for that space proposed. Well how about putting some sort of carefully worded statement about the volunteer community there, with some sort of helpful link for how people can actually sign up and join us? Or alternatively, amending the "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" link on the left-hand side.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'd also support making this information more prominent, but having it appear at all is an important step forward. Certes (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Well it appears to have support in the discussion above, anyway, so presumably it will go through. I just can't get terribly excited about it, that's all!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 14 January 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.

In the News

There's not much more that can be done, outside of nominating items that are in the news. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

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.


Three 'multiple deaths' and the death of a famous person listed at the moment - a bit gloomy. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Reality can be gloomy. SL93 (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
If you want to see different news stories, nominate them yourself, etc. etc. (saving 331dot the trouble of having to say this himself) --WaltCip-(talk) 16:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Too bad Tide Pods losing to cute Bulldogs was rejected. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)t

Wow, this kind of post should just be closed down immediately. "Gloomy". Wow. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:44, 15 January 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.

Removing redundant "Complete list" link

For years we have been running a javascript hack to stick "Complete list" on the sidebar of the main page, as phab:T18962 has been stalled for over a decade with mostly design philosophy reasons. This is a link to meta:List_of_Wikipedias. We also have this same link in the first line of Template:Wikipedia languages. As such, I'd like to remove the javascript hack from the language bar. Any feedback on this? — xaosflux Talk 14:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Year

I was unable to find the year printed on the National Bank Note. Was it normal to issue such without one? Jokem (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


(Moved) In the news / Article quality

Moved to WT:ITN.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When posting content to In the news, there always seems to be a barrier that the article needs to be in good shape before it can be posted. I think editors are making more of a big deal on article quality than they need to. I think that article quality should not be one of the criteria to look at before a posting at In the news. If editors still believe in the article quality principle, I would suggest skipping it for news that is really big (ex. 9/11). I would like to hear some thoughts on whether the quality of an article needs to be good before an article can be posted. Interstellarity (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I might suggest that this discussion be at WT:ITN or at least that it be linked to here from there. Articles should be of good (not necessarily great) quality to be on the main page of one of the most visited websites in the world. We can and do emphasize quality less for really big events. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@331dot: Can you please move the discussion there? I would appreciate that very much. Interstellarity (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)