Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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 21:13 on 30 October 2024) 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)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Hathumoda

• ... that an attempt to portray Abbess Hathumoda as a Christian saint after her death failed because everyone knew that she could be quite petulant?

The hook seems to place undue weight on the issue of petulance. The article doesn't put this so strongly and, in any case, the claim does not seem definite. For example, see The problem of female sanctity in Carolingian Europe which suggests that there was a double-standard in which women were discriminated against for sainthood. There therefore seem to be multiple factors, not just petulance. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Surtsicna, Silver seren, AirshipJungleman29, and Crisco 1492: who nominated or approved this and @Hydrangeans: who commented. This issue was raised at DYKT here and I don't think it was resolved. TSventon (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That discussion also says she wasn't actually proposed for sainthood either. Secretlondon (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Also a little concerned about the imprecise wording in everyone knew that she could be quite petulant. Who is everyone in this case? I'm guessing this means everyone in the community, or everyone in the church? But even then that's a hard statement to prove. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Why not just reflect the text of the article? ... that a hagiography of Abbess Hathumoda was tempered by its audience's knowledge of her flaws? Not nearly as "hooky", but it addresses all of my comments at WT:DYK. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  That would at least be a better hook, I think. "Everyone" is rather broad, when what Paxton apparently means is 'the community of people who knew her'. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That previous discussion showed that there were significant issues and that there was no consensus to run this hook. I came fresh to it and likewise spotted similar issues. It's remarkable that it's still on the main page after all this. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Does the hook say that she was actually proposed for sainthood, Secretlondon? Does the article? Surtsicna (talk)

The hook claims that this was an "an attempt to portray Abbess Hathumoda as a Christian saint" which failed. My impression is that author's exact goal is conjecture and not definite. It appears that they wrote a reasonably honest account and this can only be considered a failure if it was a formal attempt at canonisation. If it wasn't such a formal attempt then the hook's claim is a straw man. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Presumably not, from your non-question, however it's clearly misleading. Secretlondon (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

From reading other sources, I think that multiple scholars characterize Agius's biography of Hathumoda, while honest and well intentioned, as having been well within the genre of hagriography—in other words, of depicting the biographical subject as a Christian saint. Any issue with the hook or article isn't with the description of Vita Hathumodae as being, in terms of genre, a hagiography. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

suggests that there was a double-standard in which women were discriminated against for sainthood. There therefore seem to be multiple factors, not just petulance: Agreed that while Paxton concludes that the audience's familiarity with character flaws inhibited veneration of Hathumoda, it's not the only reason provided in the literature. Julia M. H. Smith (author of the article Andrew points out) also talks about the Carolingian practice of cloistering women religious (contrasted with Merovingian norms) preventing women from being as active, and the genre convention of Carolingian women biographies that focused on portraying women in terms of role models and domesticity rather than as miracle workers.

Additionally, while WP:Writing about women is about articles rather than hooks, I am a little concerned that this plays into perpetuat[ing] sexist stereotypes, howsoever unwittingly, since the hook sort of ends up being 'did you know that actually she was kind of a brat?' (especially since 'petulance' has a connotation of childishness, perpetuating an association of women with infantilism). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 to Hydrangeans' comment about the phrasing here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 Also plus one. When concerns about phrasing are brought up, and the author's response is ""Occasionally petulant" or "could be quite petulant" makes absolutely no difference. Put whatever you like.", it's not a good sign.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Internet phenomenon

• ... that Michael Sugrue became an "internet phenomenon" during the COVID-19 pandemic for his lectures on YouTube, recorded in 1992, that covered "the last 3,000 years of Western intellectual history"?

The first quote is from the New York Times, the second is from himself. Scare quotes like this look strange. Secretlondon (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Thriley, GuardianH, Etyuxdy, Sammi Brie, Hawkeye7, Crisco 1492, and DimensionalFusion:.--Launchballer 18:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think the quotes are needed here. Thriley (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

But then it is being said in wikivoice? Secretlondon (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I’d try to sneak in “according to The New York Times”, but it would go over the character limit. Thriley (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe keep the quotes for internet phenomenon, but remove the other quotes. I don’t think there is any debate what his videos are about. Thriley (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the phrasing is generic enough to be fine to just drop the quotes without changes, but if there's concerns about using the exact same phrasing it could also instead be rendered as that covered 3,000 years of Western intellectual history?. (And on an extremely technical level, I suppose a lecture series from 1992 can have covered 3,000 years of history but technically not our "last 3,000 years" of history, leading up to 2024 rather than 1992, since it would have to leave out the last 32 years of history, not that such a rounding error is really a problem.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Tomorrow's OTD

• 2015 entry. The blurb says that "Metrojet Flight 9268 (pictured) exploded", and the caption to the picture is "Metrojet Flight 9268". But this is surely the name of the flight (which on different weeks might involve different aircraft), rather than the name of the aircraft. In the bolded article the caption to the same photograph refers to "EI-ETJ", the actual name of the aircraft that crashed. The photograph was taken when the aircraft was serving a different flight (7K9213), so the present caption in OTD is plainly wrong. I suggest that in the text we write "(aircraft pictured)" and that the caption is something like "The aircraft that crashed". JMCHutchinson (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• I have a separate issue with this, though. The lead paragraph says "In March 2020, an Egyptian appeals court ruled the crash was not an act of terrorism" yet this is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, which says that it was caused by a bomb. My instinct is to pull this. Anyone else? Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, this is not good. Pulled, image added to the Reuben James hook, and Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape (which is a GA) added. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 1)

Monday's FL

(November 4)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

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.

General discussion

Turquoise protection lock

A protection symbol should be added to the top right corner of the main page, because the page is cascade-protected.(turquoise lock for cascade or gold lock because page is fully protected too.) RaschenTechner (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Mostly it isn't there because we don't want it there - this is a special page. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This page is not labelled as a special page, it is just the "Main Page" RaschenTechner (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be formally marked as special to be special. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

But usually, all protected pages that are not formally marked as special have protection locks in the top right corner, even redirects. Except for the main page. RaschenTechner (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The main page is not a usual page. It is not an article, and does not need a lock icon. CMD (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

But non-article pages also have protection locks (like Wikipedia policies). RaschenTechner (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Why should a padlock be permanently displayed on the Main Page when it doesn't need to be? Many who arrive there are casual readers and won't know what that means. If you really want to be formal about this, consider it an WP:IAR exception. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

But this rule doesn't prevent you fom improving or maintaining Wikipedia. RaschenTechner (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Please tell us how your idea improves Wikipedia. Again, Why should a padlock be permanently(because this will never be unprotected) displayed on the Main Page when it doesn't need to be? Many who arrive there are casual readers and won't know what that means.

If you want policy to formally state that the Main Page doesn't need a padlock icon, then go to the policy talk page to propose that(but not everything needs to be written down, see WP:CREEP) 331dot (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The lock should indicate that the page is protected. Also, if casual readers want to know what it means, they can go to the Wikipedia protection policy page and figure out what it means. RaschenTechner (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That's what you want to do, but you don't indicate why this is a needed change. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I already said this: Usually all protected pages have the protection icon RaschenTechner (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This one has never had it, again, why is this a needed change? What's the benefit? 331dot (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

People would know that this page is protected. They would also know what kind of protection is in place without needing to access the protection log, which is not accessible for unregistered users RaschenTechner (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

But what's the benefit to that? I'm honestly not clear on what the problem is that you are attempting to remedy. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

People who are unregistered can not see that the page is cascade-protected. It's only a problem for those who are interested in Wikipedia protection but aren't registered yet. RaschenTechner (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Is that a large number of people? It seems more hypothetical; I've been here for 12 years and you're the first I've seen that claim this is a problem. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not a large number of people. This is not the main problem, it's just that every non-special page has a protection icon when protected. Except the main page. RaschenTechner (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I too think a padlock is not necessary for the Main Page, which is uniquely exempted from MOS, standard layout rules for articles etc. It's pretty clear that the page is protected, obvious why, and adding a padlock wouldn't help anybody. It would just mess with the design for no useful purpose. Modest Genius ^talk 18:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the lock shows when you click the edit button, together with a huge warning that you have be careful. If you are an admin, that is, otherwise you probably cannot even do that. So, no need to add it extra. Tone 21:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I do sympathise with the OP somewhat. The Main page is special. On mobile, if you are logged in there is no edit button at the top (if it was there, clicking it could give you a popup telling you the page is protected) and the Talk page button is hidden down the bottom.

Logged out on mobile (don't test this is you don't like ads, I am still recovering) there is still no edit button and I couldn't find the Talk page button anywhere (might be a browser issue).

The presence of an edit button would help introduce the concept of protection to new editors.

This may all be by design, we don't want too many suggestions on this talk page, it is more convenient to have a barrier to entry for people who want to "improve" the Main page.

Having said all that, the status quo is not too bad. The experience on desktop is more like a regular article page, but most of our readers (and perhaps one day editors) are on mobile. Commander Keane (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)