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

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 03:26 on 16 January 2021), 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 in fact causes 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

"With the southern vote split, Abraham Lincoln won the election" is a peculiar construction. It implies (without explicitly stating) that the split was material to Lincoln's victory, which it was not. Lincoln won absolute majorities in states representing 173 electoral votes (of the 152 he required). The frequency with which I hear the election described this way makes me suspect some malicious intent to cast ambiguity on the result. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

  • Please remove another item to balance out the Main Page, thanks. ! RAVENPVFF  talk  19:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Not seeing any major disjoint between the sections. Four ITNs is the norm. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
What? I've never heard of any such "four blurb" norm. The norm has been balance as long as I can remember. I've never even seen anyone object to a balance adjustment before. Link to this rule? I can't find anything. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

  • Patrice Lumumba - ironically given the subject above, the article states (a) the complicity allegedly included Belgium, the US and the UN, so why they've been left out of the blurb I know not but (b) the assertions appear to have been made in a book which Wikipedia does not currently seem to consider notable. Genuine question: are these allegations main-page-worthy? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    I've removed this blurb for Main Page balance, and to avoid multiple hooks from the same geographic region. I did reword this to mention the UN, though, so I've kept it in the eligible section barring any further issues. ! RAVENPVFF  talk  00:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Mount Nyiragongo - the damage and number of homeless is unreferenced, a basic requirement. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Reference added, and some of the citation-needed tags resolved. ! RAVENPVFF  talk  23:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(January 22)

Monday's FL

(January 18)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

"In the United States, the Democratic Party wins control of the Senate..."

Not true. They have won 48 out of 100 seats. The only thing they accomplished was preventing the Republicans from maintaining their majority, which is all they could do ever since the results of the regular elections. "Winning control" hasn't been on the table for them since then. A50E10AN500ER (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

A50E10AN500ER 48 Democrats plus 2 independents who caucus with them equals 50, plus Kamala Harris makes control- and that is how reliable sources report it. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
How does Harris make control? Does she have an overriding vote? HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, she has the deciding vote in the event of a tie. Stephen 23:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
More specifically, in a 50-50 senate, the vice president casts the deciding vote to determine who is in the majority. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Do these two independent always vote with them? That seems odd. Specific information should be listed, not vagueness. Dream Focus 01:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Nearly all RSes consider it a win for Dems being able to control the house (NYTimes, CNN, etc.), which is what we should follow the sourcing given how we reported the election results in Nov. --Masem (t) 01:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
      • This does seem inconsistent - if they're independents, they are by definition not part of the Democratic Party. I'm no expert on this topic, but would it be more accurate to say that the Senate Democratic Caucus has won control, rather than the Democratic Party per se? Modest Genius talk 12:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I think that's overly pedantic. The two did not run as Democrats, but because they caucus with them, the Democratic Party has won control.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Agreed. There is no need for any change.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to comment on the voting issue, that shouldn't really apply because even not all Democrats always vote with the party position. However, the independents caucus with the Democrats, which is why the Democrats won control, as reported by RS. It's the caucus size that matters, not the votes. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Alt texts

I think, and this also concerns the future of the Main Page (MP), we should include alt texts in images to make it more accessible to those using screen readers. I believe there's a parameter for that on MP templates. GeraldWL 15:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: I'm seeing the alt text, for example we have the image File:Peter Badcoe c.1950's P00942.002.JPG and it includes img alt="Peter Badcoe, c.?1954" . Are you seeing something different? If so, are you using desktop view, mobile view, or mobile app? ! xaosflux Talk 16:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Xaosflux, I too see that. However I don't think that is sufficient as alt text, as it just copy the caption. For Peter Badcoe I expect it to be something like "Portrait of Peter Badcoe", as screen readers probably can't render "c." as "circa." For now, all alt texts here only follow the caption, so I request a different one. GeraldWL 01:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I see you do a lot of work with MP images (esp POTD), can you comment on this? ! xaosflux Talk 01:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
POTD images have a parameter "texttitle" which I have never really known how to fill out, and have tended just to duplicate the title of the article to which the image is linked. I think I "could do better" in this respect, now that I realise what it is all about. For example, today's texttitle is "Venus with a Mirror", whereas it might be better to have "Painting by Titian showing Venus with a mirror". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: thanks for the note, the screen readers should already being identifying that there "is an image" so we don't need to do something like say "picture of ...", but if the depicted media type (like in your example a "painting") is relevant, including it could be helpful. Pings to a few other admins that deal with MP content prep for input: @Casliber, Valereee, and Maile66:. ! xaosflux Talk 14:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Elizabeth II speaking to the public.
Unless it appears in an article on fashion, the alt text for this image of Elizabeth II should not be "an elderly woman wearing a black hat"
@Xaosflux, thanks for the ping. I'd actually support all images on the main page requiring an alt text. We had a discussion about requiring alt text for DYK back in November. There was some opposition because what makes a good alt text isn't well understood by sighted editors, and I think that's a valid concern. The gist of MOS:ALTTEXT is that alt text should convey any information the image conveys to the sighted. It doesn't mean we describe what's in the image. That's not a difference that's easy for sighted people to understand. !valereee (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, commenting on the picture's caption, see my reply to Xaosflux, p. 3. GeraldWL 12:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gerald Waldo Luis, you mean that a better alt for the image of Elizabeth would be something like "Elizabeth II greeting the public"? Yes, that's what the alt for this photo is. It's a likely caption, too, and the alt shouldn't simply repeat the caption; apparently it's better to simply put "refer to caption" as the alt. Some editors might think the Badcoe photo would need an alt saying "Black and white photo of head and shoulders of a man in Australian Army officer's uniform, turned three-quarters to the right." !valereee (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, yeah, but sadly that's not how the alts for the MP photo currently is. The TFA alt simply reads "York City War Memorial", and the ITN image simply repeats the caption. "Refer to caption" could be fine, however what if the image (like the TFA) has no captions? Suggest having "Photo of the York City War Memorial", instead of just repeating the article title. GeraldWL 14:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gerald Waldo Luis: I'm certainly not the main audience for alt text reading, but I'm not following why adding "photo of the" would be an improvement here - that it is an image, and the rest of that phrase is already there - basically I don't think the fact that this image was originally produced via photography is important in this case (again, I'm not the primary audience so I may not have the best understanding). ! xaosflux Talk 14:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
undent: Photo of I would say makes it clear what kind of image of the memorial is. Is it a drawing? Painting? Closeup of a specific memorial? "Memorial" does not do a good job communicating that much as a basic level. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
A Man Was Lynched Yesterday (cropped and retouched).jpg
I think photo/painting/engraving/etching or whatever maybe has to be balanced with brevity. My understanding is that the most important bits of info should go first in the alt. The point of an alt is to allow low-vision readers to get from the image the most important pieces of info that sighted readers get. The image to the right had a hook that said * ... that between 1920 and 1938, the NAACP flew a flag (pictured) at its New York headquarters to mark each lynching that occurred in the United States? The image was captioned "Flag flown by the NAACP". It clearly needed an alt; the crucial information being conveyed to sighted readers was the words the flag had on it. !valereee (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, imagine having the screen reader read "Flag flown by the NAACP". Then the caption is read "Flag flown by NAACP". It's repetitive. GeraldWL 12:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I know. That's what I'm saying: the image needed an alt that said something like 'Flag reading "A Man Was Lynched Yesterday" or something. That's what the image is conveying to sighted readers that is not being conveyed to those who are blind by the text or caption. And of course we aren't going to write a caption that explains what the flag says; that would look very strange to sighted readers. This is an image that obviously needs an alt. But many editors would write an alt saying 'Plain black banner with silver wording reading "A Man Was Lynched Yesterday"'. Which it shouldn't; at minimum the most important stuff should be first in the alt, and the fact there are silver words on a black background is not part of the information the image is conveying to sighted readers. !valereee (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
A related issue: the alt text for today's DYK includes wikilinks. MOS:ALT suggests not to include wiki markup. (Also, one link is to the disambiguation page Joan of France, when Joan of France, Duchess of Bourbon was intended.) Certes (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Alt text cannot contain links. It is not a suggestion but a requirement. --Izno (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit number 1,000,000,000 on English Wikipedia

In about 40 hours, two days before Wikipedia's 20th birthday on January 15, we'll reach edit number 1,000,000,000. (See Wikipedia:Time Between Edits#Projections for details.) I think that's a reason to celebrate! Are there any plans to post something to the main page? I'm not acquainted with the processes for this page... ! Chrisahn (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Didn't we do something similar recently? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Last year we had a red banner underneath the Wikipedia globe logo to commemorate a certain number of articles created. ~ HAL333 14:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this is as "reader centric" as the x'th article being available for main page inclusion; I wouldn't be too opposed to maybe a short duration watchlist notice of "Congratulations on revision X, EDITOR" with a link to somewhere discussing it (WP:VPM maybe?) ! xaosflux Talk 16:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking whatever we're doing to celebrate the anniversary, just mention "and recently received its billionth edit" or something? !valereee (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@The ed17 and Ed Erhart (WMF): was WMF planning any CN banners for the birthday? ! xaosflux Talk 19:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me! Tagging the community lead for the project Selsharbaty (WMF). Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

In 20 minutes... ! Chrisahn (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

[1] We just made 1,000,000,000 edits on Wikipedia! NASCARfan0548 J 01:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

...and it was done by Ser Amantio di Nicolao, who is also the Wikipedian with the highest number of edits. What a serendipity. :-) Congrats! ! Chrisahn (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I was just trying to help get over the billion mark before the twentieth anniversary. It was a nice bonus having the actual billionth edit. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Serendipity or not, I still feel the need to give my congratulations. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: and @Chrisahn: Speaking of music: "Thank you, thank you, thank you kindly". --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
And congratulations from me as well!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: Thanks very much! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Amazing!--Berig (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I will tell my friends I saw the one billionth edit "live" (I was active on Wikipedia at the time), they'll say I'm a legend, haha ?LightningComplexFire? 15:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay responding on the question about foundation-run CN banners for Wikipedia 20. There is a CN banner running starting today for a week. It will be seen for non-logged-in users until 21 January. You can read the banner text, check out the template and get some information about it in this FAQ page. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Why is the Special:Statistics page lagging behind by more than 4 million edits? As of now, it says 995,877,695 page edits since Wikipedia was set up. Zarex (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know but it was more than 100 million ahead in 2017.[2] Special:Statistics displays the same as {{NUMBEROFEDITS}} which renders as 995,939,930. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Main page banner proposal for 20th anniversary

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) ′ Main page banner. {{u|Sdkb}}?talk 20:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the best place to mention it, but at the moment the image is slightly cropped at the top and bottom in both Firefox and IE. I'm using the MonoBook skin. It's most noticeable on the Over One Billion Edits line, where the bottom one or two rows of pixels are missing. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 23:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I came here to say the same. Also MonoBook in Chrome. Fences&Windows 23:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Yep, I'm having the same issue. We're actively working on it and should have a fix soon. Wug,a,po,des? 23:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Fixed! Thanks, Wug,a,po,des. Fences&Windows 00:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent deaths

Can you add Jessica Campbell? She is making a lot of news because of her death. She is famous for starring in Election. Koridas ? 23:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • It will need to be nominated at WP:ITN/C. It appears the death has only just been announced so it should still be eligible; however it will need to be expanded as it is just a stub at the moment. P-K3 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)