Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Template talk:MainPageIntro)
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208

Main Page error reports

Shortcuts

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 21:12 on 16 January 2025) 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)[reply]

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

  • ... that an Australian crocodile named Burt correctly predicted the 2018 FIFA World Cup final? Can we please not turn the main page into stupid tabloid journalism. We are an encyclopedia, not some outlet to repeat dumb publicity stunts for the gullible. Fram (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I'm sorry, but this DYK hook is ... not good. The crocodile didn't "correctly predict" anything, he bit one of two flags that had chicken wings attached to them. The one he bit just happened to be the one of the winning team, so a 50% chance. Notably, he got his previous "prediction" wrong! There are better hooks here - the crocodile was in Crocodile Dundee and was thought to be nearly 100 years old, for example. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lighthearted hook for a lighthearted topic, so I don't think it inappropriate to the subject matter - and I hardly think anybody is likely to be deceived into thinking a crocodile is actually clairvoyant. But if somebody wants to go to the trouble of replacing it, that's fine too. Gatoclass (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I realise it's meant to be light-hearted, but is getting a single 50/50 chance "right" even a prediction? Now if it was Paul the Octopus, I'd concede the point. Also I'm unconvinced by From 2008, he lived at Crocosaurus Cove ... where he attempted to predict election results. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, it's not a prediction, but again, I assume readers are smart enough to identify a non-literal reference when they see one. As for the article quote, I agree that is unencyclopaedic and could use an edit.
But as I indicated above, I am not particularly attached to the current hook and won't object if it's replaced. I really just wanted to make the point that I think there is a place for the occasional lighthearted hook where appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We already have the "quirky" hooks (which sometimes are quirky and not just cringey), adding more of the same seems like a bad idea. Fram (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next-but-one DYK

  • ... that Soviet studies scholar Katerina Clark rode her bicycle "just about everywhere in the New Haven, Connecticut area, well into her 70s"? Is there really nothing more inspiring, important, exceptional, ... to say about this scholar than that she rode a bike well into her seventies, something utterly unremarkable? DYK hooks are supposed to be interesting. Fram (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested alt:
ALT6: * ... that Katerina Clark wrote "a brave and intelligent study of the Soviet novel"? Gatoclass (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I have verified the above alt, but because I proposed it, somebody else will have to verify it. It's easy to do, it's the first line of this review. BTW I proposed a new alt because the other alts from the nomination page also suffer from the same rather trivial and tangential character as the bicycle one. Gatoclass (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find the original hook interesting. I get that riding a bike is more of a human interest thing than anything to do with her academic/professional life, but it's still interesting to me. Perhaps because I'm a cyclist and while I'm not yet "well into my 70s", that's not too far away and I hope I can do the same when I get there. RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heaps of people ride bicycles into their 70s. By definition, something that is commonplace is not interesting. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting is in the eye of the reader. RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Up to a point, sure. But again, the commonplace by definition is uninteresting. That's why our guideline says a hook should highlight a fact that is unusual. Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed unusual for people to be riding a bike "just about everywhere" in their 70's.

In the US, cycling falls sharply with increasing age. According to the 1995 NPTS, the bicycle’s modal split share is 3.3% among those ages 5-15, but falls to 1.0% for ages 16- 24, 0.5% for ages 25-39, 0.3% for ages 40-64, and just 0.2% for those 65 and over.[1]

RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That might be true in the US, but not in Europe. For example, in the Netherlands the age group 65-70 cycles more than any other, and the 70+ age group are the biggest users of electronic bikes. See Fig 7 and associated text in [1]. Modest Genius talk 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the Netherlands is more enlightened (about most things) than the US, but the hook is talking about New Haven, Connecticut, which is in the US. RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. We cannot assume that all our readers are in the US. Many readers will see that blurb and not find it at all surprising (or interesting). If this is unusual behaviour in the US, the blurb should say so, to give sufficient context to those readers. Or pick a different blurb. Modest Genius talk 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding it difficult to disagree with that, so I've replaced the hook with ALT6. RoySmith (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same here since our audience is readers, not just editors let alone DYK regulars. But if there is good reason the hook should be changed, as has been provided above, I'm cool with that. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ John Puchera , Charles Komanoffb , Paul Schimekck. "Bicycling renaissance in North America? Recent trends and alternative policies to promote bicycling" (PDF). vtpi.org. Retrieved 16 January 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

  • attacked the British's amphibious evacuation: the possessive reads oddly, and I think is ungrammatical: the more usual phrasing would be "attacked the British amphibious evacuation" or, even better, something like "attacked British troops being evacuated...".
Separately, not an error but a comment: we have five hooks here of which two are focused on England/Britain; one of the other two is focused on the United States; of the four anniversaries, two are Europeans and one a Canadian of European ancestry. Seems a bit narrow in focus, given that there are a lot of significant anniversaries of people and events today centred on the wider world? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Friday's FL

(January 17, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(January 20)
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.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Shortcuts

Usability and discoverability

I would expect the main page of the encyclopedia to prominently feature both a table of contents and a search feature. This page has a lot of trivia, which is a nice secondary function, but no longer seems to serve its primary functions very well. It does have a search feature, but it's a small icon up at the top in a bar of icons, rather than being front and center and already open with a box to type in words (in the style of a search engine, like [2]).

It's a bit weird we visibly link to Wikipedia:Contents/Portals, but the only link to Wikipedia:Contents (which is important enough it's linked to from every page on the site) is hidden behind the pancake menu icon in the upper left. We do have templates like Wikipedia:Contents/TOC navbar that could be used directly on this page as a better gateway to actual articles, for those that are curious but don't have any particular query in mind or are looking for inspiration. Beland (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about the trivia, but remember opinions here come from the trivia writers. Last time I looked at portal usage statistics, it looks like a few people click to see what they are, and most of them don't click anything further. Art LaPella (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an objection to the WP:SKIN, not the contents of Main Page itself. The default skins on desktop and mobile both have a large search box or icon right at the top of every page. The desktop skin also has a link to Wikipedia:Contents in the menu shown on every single page. If you don't like the way that requires opening the menu before that link is visible, I suggest you bring it up on an appropriate talk page for the skin (perhaps Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022) or at the village pump. Modest Genius talk 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm objecting to the fact that the primary functions of the main page are hidden in a menu and in an icon rather than being directly on - if not the most prominent things on - the page.
Wouldn't changing the skin change all pages? That seems like the wrong answer, since it wouldn't make sense to put the Contents listing on every page, nor would it make sense to have an open search bar on every page. Unlike the main page, I would expect the primary means of navigation to be clicking on links to related articles, as opposed to browsing through topics. (Search is sort of intermediate on those pages, so an icon seems like a good compromise.) -- Beland (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why we can't have in the top box "Welcome to Wikipedia" a visually predominant search bar. Doesn't touch the skin. Masem (t) 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have whipped up a search box at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox. How does that look? -- Beland (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea but your design makes the page header (including the recently added editor count) take up 30% of content height on my display, with about 50% of that header wasted grey emptiness. Some smarter (responsive) design will be needed. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about moving the "Other areas of Wikipedia" into that box to fill some of that space?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that list considered more or less important than the featured content and news sections? -- Beland (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the size of your display? Desktop or mobile? -- Beland (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland: large tablet, laptop and phone; it's the first which was problematic, but that's not the point. Good design will accommodate varying display sizes and orientation so as to maximise usage of space and readability. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with responsive design; I just wasn't seeing what you were describing and needed to know how to replicate it. I do see what you are saying when I view the site in landscape orientation; my desktop monitor and phone are both portrait. I will try a flex container layout which will make better use of the space. -- Beland (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you describe what you would expect in a table of contents for the site? I'm struggling to see how it would work. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Above, I suggested using Wikipedia:Contents/TOC navbar. -- Beland (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably similar to the old layout that had the list of major portals at the top? That's kind of a table of contents. I think as close as you could get, anyway. ApLundell (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That raises an interesting question: the old layout links to portals like Portal:Mathematics, but the modern navbar links to contents pages like Wikipedia:Contents/Mathematics and logic. I'm assuming the contents pages are more appropriate than the portal pages? IIRC there was an attempt to drop portals from the project entirely (partly because they weren't being maintained?), and perhaps they were removed from the main page for some reason related to that? -- Beland (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Birthday

Since it is Wikipedia's birthday, shouldn't we add that to the "On this day" page? SuperJames888 (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit late to suggest that, don't you think? It's now the 16th of January in some countries. MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 15 lists Wikipedia's anniversary as ineligible (in the collapsed staging area) because the Wikipedia article is outdated and its inclusion would be navel-gazing. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=1269870774"