Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

Main Page toolbox
Yesterday February 23	Today February 24, 2015	Tomorrow February 25
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: suggestions · discussion · queue
Protected main page images Protected pages associated with Main Page articles
Error reports · General discussions · FAQ · Help · Sandbox Main Page alternatives  · April Fool's
It is now 05:08 UTC Purge the Main Page Purge this page

To report an error you have noticed on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below.

Please note the following:

• Where is the error?: The more specific you can be (an exact item, for example "item number 3 on DYK"; or a sentence) the faster an admin can find it.
• Be specific: Errors can be fixed faster when a correction is offered.
• References: Can be helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Consensus: Remember that the Main Page usually defers to supporting pages for accuracy or when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
• Time zones: Note that Coordinated Universal Time is used for the current date and time (05:08 on 24 Feb 2015), and this may not coincide with your local time zone.
• Should I use {{edit protected}}?: No. Using {{edit protected}} here will not give you a faster response, and in fact breaks the template when it is placed directly on the Main Page Errors page instead of on a talk page. See the bottom of this revision for an example.
• Done?: Once an error has been fixed, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history to verify that the error has been rectified and for any other comments the administrator may have made.
• No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.

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

The article Ali Akbar Aboutorabi Fard, linked to from the bold text of the 5th DYK hook, has had a maintenance template on it since Dec 2014. How did it make it onto the main page? ansh666 03:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick and dirty fix of the article. I suggest you raise the issue at WT:DYK. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll do that. ansh666 05:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

• "1920 – At a meeting of the German Workers' Party, Adolf Hitler outlined the party's 25-point programme and the party changed its name to the Nazi Party.". Erm no it didn't. 'Nazi' is an English abbreviation, the party was never called that. So we should either go with the full English name ("National Socialist German Workers' Party"), or if that is too long, the other option would be to go for the German abbreviation ("NSDAP"). Either way, the current line is not correct. 82.21.7.184 (talk)

I agree the blurb is incorrect, but I believe members of the now renamed National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) were indeed known by the slang term "Nazis" in Germany in the late '20s and early '30s – just as the Socialists were known as "Sozis." But "Nazi" was never an official term in Germany during the Third Reich.

Suggest "changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party" – space could be saved by deleting "25-point." Sca (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to this: "At a meeting of the German Workers' Party, Adolf Hitler outlined its 25-point programme and the party became the Nazi Party." 'Nationalsozialistische Deutscharbeitspartei is too long, and most readers probably aren't familiar with 'NSDAP', so I think it's better to leave 'Nazi Party' in. Although 'Nazi' was widely used in Germany at the time, it wasn't their official name. They used it very rarely in some of their official publications, but it was generally not favored by Hitler and other high-ranking Nazis.-RHM22 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Given today's column balance, there doesn't seem to be a problem with the longer version, so I've gone with the suggestion of using "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Espresso Addict (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

General discussion

Nehi (my grandfather)

I want to know how to start a page for my grandfather,he was 7"11 and wore a size 16 shoe. He famous in the town I live in and the maritime museum has a life size exhibit of him. I am from southport NC, his name is Elias G. Gore aka Nehi and he was a menhaden fisherman who met Babe Ruth while on a fishing trip. Julia Edge (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This sort of question would be better suited at the Help Desk as it does not concern the Main Page, but you can visit the articles for creation page or the article wizard for information on how to create an article. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Is he notable enough for a WP page in his own right? Is there a 'Carolina Wiki' where his significance could be recognised? 108.171.128.162 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Improving cascade protection

In discussions related to this cascade protection change, we (the MediaWiki Core Team) have determined that the method used for cacscade protecting the main page at present is not perfect. The cascade protection for Wikipedia:Main_Page/Tomorrow could be updated before the cascade protection for the actual main page, giving a brief window for main page vandalism. I'm going to add {{#if:{{Wikipedia:Main_Page/Tomorrow}}||}} to the main page, which will cause the next day's TFA/TFP templates to be continuously protected across the transition at midnight, without causing any change to the output. -- Tim Starling (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a hack... Is this a temporary measure until the linked patch is merged and deployed? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not a temporary measure. I commented that the proposed patch doesn't deal with date-dependent transclusion very well, and Aaron's response was that the existing code doesn't either. -- Tim Starling (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

All transcluded templates are protected by themselves, so none of them actually relies on cascade protection. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there any need to discuss this here? Actually, Edokter, each TFA daily template depends on cascade protection, and I think the same is true of POTD and OTD. Surely, though, if a TFA blurb is cascade-protected at "/Tomorrow" and when the clock strikes midnight UTC it gets cascade protection from the main page, where's the window for vandalism? Bencherlite^Talk 23:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Link to full Main Page for mobile users

Mobile users see a very reduced version of the main page. [1] only displays Today's featured article and In the news. It's supposed to be helpful that the page is smaller but I think many want the full version so we should make it easy to get that. [2] shows that Main Page is currently only transcluded in user pages which are hard to find, for example User:Liangent/Main Page where mobile users see the full [3]. Can we make a "Full Main Page" link which is only shown to mobile users? We should of course choose a better name than some user page but a mainspace page may be controversial. Or is there another way to give mobile users an option to see the full main page? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that what the "Desktop" link at the bottom does? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Is "Desktop" available for everybody? Even if it is, it's odd that you have to leave the mobile version to see the full main page but not other pages. Many users wouldn't expect that. I came here after Wikipedia:Help desk#On this day help where a user said: I've looked everywhere but I can't see if it's possible to view the "on this day" section of Wikipedia via the iPhone app. Is this actually possible? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the Desktop link would be visible on most mobile browsers. I suspect there's nothing on the official Wikipedia apps though, as these are intended to be somewhat self contained, but I'm not sure and I uninstalled the Android app when I was running out of space. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The iOS app only gives readers the mobile view, so OTD, DYK, TFL, TFP are all missing from the Main Page in that app. If a reader pulls up the mobile site in his or her mobile browser, then he or she can tap the link to go to the full desktop site, but this link is absent in the apps. Imzadi 1979 → 17:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Water bias

Ask and ye salt receive. Isa (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2015 (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.

---

The Main page has a history of showing unusual biases, but today's favoritism of a common solvent is pushing things. FA has a picture of showing salt water, DYK's picture shows fresh water, and FP displays frozen water. On to of this, SA/OTD lists flooding and has a picture of a lunar sea. --Allen3 ^talk 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Water we supposed to do about it?--WaltCip (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • See Poe's law for some guidance. --Jayron32 04:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Icy what you did there. Isa (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• The pro-water lobby has bought out Wikipedia! Watch out! Next they'll be censoring the article on Quantum of Solace! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Lets hope this doesn't spill out into the real world Man Over-bored (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Something to do with bio-duck? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Will the archive-bot soon Upsweep this discussion? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• . . .and there is plenty of water around Greece featured ITN! Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nasty stuff, dihydrogen monoxide. Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Today's picture for OTD is of Ritter (crater), located in (on?) the Sea of Tranquility. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

When will this discussion gurgle down the plughole? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2015 (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.

Matagorda bay

The illustration for a place in "present-day Texas" is the moon. --142.33.163.121 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry? --Allen3 ^talk 19:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, please search the internet for the definition of the word "pictured". --Jayron32 00:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

On this day...

Today is not only Language Movement Day in Bangladesh but it is also International Mother Language Day. It is strange that International Mother Language day is not listed on "On this day...". --Sajibur (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well for a start International Mother Language Day has a big orange-level tag on it, which disqualifies it from appearing as a bold item the Main Page. I'm not convinced it's notable enough either. Modest Genius ^talk 21:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Malcolm X On this day...

"1965 – Black nationalist Malcolm X (pictured) was assassinated while giving a speech in New York City's Audubon Ballroom." - is it reasonable or accurate to describe X as a "Black nationalist" at the time of his death? I'm unsure - given just how much his views changed in the year leading up to his assassination. Just curious. --Shannon Dal (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

But he was, at significant points in his life, a self-described Black nationalist, and it's that for which he is best known. --Jayron32 22:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we adopt the main page design of Chinese Wikipedia?

Just a thought: can we adopt the main page design of Chinese Wikipedia to the main page here in English Wikipedia? Why you ask? Because it looks cleaner and more modern than tired one here (no offense). As I understand the design is based on User:Pretzels's past design proposal. -- Taku (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why would we want to put everything in Chinese? We're the English Wikipedia ... Sarcasm aside, this is better brought up wherever it is we deal with the perennial proposals (like, at least once a month) for main page redesign. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant we replace Chinese by English. I'm only talking about the "design". I thought we are "for" the redesign. Let me ask this way instead: why is the current English design better, given the two choices the Chinese design and the English design? -- Taku (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Chinese version is quite spartan, and the design that is there is rather incoherent. I have been (quietly) working on a new design (quick link) and have mentioned it several times in the past three years. However I'm afraid there will never be a consensus for a major change. I'm still planning to engineer a breakthrough somehow, I just don't know how yet. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it seems like the Italian Wikipedia's main page, often pointed to as an example we should emulate, is now using the same general idea as the Chinese main page. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Italian main page was introduced in January 2011. Many have since copied its style. However, it remains a rigid table-based design. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope you don't regard the main page redesign in general as perennial... I'm not going to let the current design rock the main page until 2035! -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Perennial only in the sense that it seems like someone proposes we change it, whether they have an idea to what or not, every two weeks or so, it seems. That doesn't mean we can't do it, ever—the fact that most of them don't even get to a serious vote doesn't mean that consensus can't change. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I support the Spanish Wikipedia '​s main page design, with the "Portals" section moved to the top right, the "Wikipedia in other languages" section moved to the section where "Portals" was, the "Featured picture" section expanded to full-screen, and the "Good article" section replaced with our "Did you know" section. Seattle (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. However, somehow no one has quite responded to my question. Why do we want to stick to the "almost-10 year old" design? If a redesign proposal feels "perennial", I would say it's an indication of desire for the change. The Chinese main page design may have a flaw but my question was if it is an improvement or not, over the current one. Also, I'm purposely ignoring any other option (which I'm aware of) in order to let us focus. So, if there is no serious opposition, I would like to suggest we conduct a poll on whether to adopt the Chinese design (which was really outs to begin with). Meta-discussion on the process is getting too tired. My hope is that some sort of success in redesign creats further interest in the incremental design improvement. - Taku (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The current design persists because every time a proposal is brought up, the discussion somehow eventually dies with no clear consensus (see also WP:MPRP for a list of these discussions). This especially happens when multiple people bring multiple ideas to the table, thus increasing the likelihood that nobody can agree. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we have a 'design a Main Page' competition. Then 'users in general' can vote on the various offerings, and the most successful can be used at least 'occasionally'. Thus everybody should be happy (including the people who wish to comment on this talk page). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You just described every failed attempt to redesign the main page. Some of us have repeatedly warned others that the "competition" approach never succeeds, but our advice is routinely ignored/dismissed (and sometimes even blamed as sabotage when the endeavor inevitably collapses, which is construed as evidence that we predicted that outcome because we set out to cause it). —David Levy 22:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The short answer is no :) The long answer has to do with the issue Zzyzx11 mentioned. We have already tried several times for years the design competitions. For whatever reasons, it didn't result in the firm consensus (in fact the process seems to always stall at some points). I once heard that the best way for failure is to try to be friends to everyone and the redesign efforts remind me of that. No design will please everyone. The simplest option I can think of is to adopt something that already exists and I think it's worth trying the option (i.e., conducting the poll I'm proposing.) -- Taku (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong question when you ask "why is the current English design better?". If you want to make progress, you really need to flip that: "Why is the proposed "Chinese" design better?" The argument "many people think the old one is bad" isn't a compelling reason to support change. Not only do you need to make the case for why the old way is bad, but you also need to make the case as to why your proposed way is the way to fix it, out of the myriad of other ways that it might be fixed. ("We need to make a change. This is a change. Therefore, we must make it.") You're ignoring other options to focus, but it's not that easy: why is your preferred option the one which gets singled out? Why can't it be some other proposal that we focus on? Additionally, in supporting your proposed change, you need to convince others that your new way is better. "Well, I like it" normally isn't compelling enough to convince others - you have to make other people like it too, and that will take more effort than nebulous talk about being "cleaner" or "more modern". (Cleaner how? More modern how? Why is "more modern" a good thing?; Kandinsky is more modern than Dürer, but that doesn't mean Kandinsky's style is better for illustrating an anatomy textbook.) Absent any convincing rationale for making any particular change, social inertia prevails, and the status quo wins; this is a rule that's actually encoded in most forms of competitive debate. - So to answer your question, the reason we stick to a 10-year old design is that no one has been able to come up with a compelling argument to change it. Most of what gets posted boils down to "I just like it", or dressed up equivalents (e.g. the subjective "it's cleaner"). -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

On this day ... (February 23)

Congratulations for this day's articles, mainly about Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil (1845-1847). We are very proud of English Wikipedia. Claudio Pistilli (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I will add my own congratulations to the editors who contributed to this article. Getting any article to FA status is an accomplishment worthy of some pride. But when the subject is a boy who died at the age of two, well, I tip my hat to you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)