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 22:07 on 28 April 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)

Today's FA

An editor has pointed out at Talk:Lemurs_of_Madagascar_(book)#"2010_reference_work"? that this book was not first published in 2010. I recommend removing "2010" from the FA blurb. Toadspike [Talk] 10:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I cannot see that as an error. The book, as the blurb says, is in its third edition. If you were to use this reference work, you would use the newest edition, given that the knowledge that it covers has advanced greatly between editions. Therefore, the blurb rightly talks about the latest edition. Schwede66 10:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

You're both right - the 2010 date is valid, but its current placement in the blurb is ambiguous and misleading. I suggest:

Lemurs of Madagascar is a reference work and field guide that provides descriptions and biogeographic data for the known lemur species on Madagascar. ... Currently in its third edition, published in 2010, the book ...

Modest Genius ^talk 12:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I like your rephrasing. We should probably fix the article, as well, as it has the same mistaken phrasing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The third edition is a 2010 work. But the general topic (including all editions) is not. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Pinging TheTechnician27, whose input should be considered before any changes are made. (My thoughts are along the lines of Schwede66, and that this isn't an error, for what it's worth). - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  They have opined in the talk page section I linked above and reverted my edit to the lead of the article. [1] Modest Genius has now made the change they suggested above, which I support. [2] The issue in the article is resolved. The issue on the Main Page remains. Toadspike [Talk] 18:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, they have put forward a very good case as to why it should remain 2010. Per STAUS QUO I've put the lead back to the previous version while the discussion on the talk page continues. This isn't something that should be edit warred over in the article or rushed through on the MP: wait until there is a consensus on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  No, they did not put forward a good case as to why it should remain 2010. To state that about the work in general (and not the specific 3rd edition) is a blatant falsehood. If I have a copy of the first edition, I have a copy of Lemurs of Madagascar (the subject of the article) that is obviously not a 2010 work. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  After reading the lead, I understand that the book, hence its first edition is from 2010. That is incorrect, which is not a good look in a featured article. I will remove the "2010" from both article and blurb but welcome non-misleading suggestions to include the date. —Kusma (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  We’re in mid-discussion and you supervote to change without waiting for the editor who took it through FACR to chip in? That’s not great when there is no consensus either way. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  When there is a completely false statement that needs correction, we don't need to wait on their input. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Bollocks. It’s not a false statement and a few people have given their reasons. Just because you disagree doesn’t mean you’re correct. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  So you are saying that Lemurs of Madagascar was first published in 2010? That statement is bollocks. As long as you are referring to the work in general and not the third edition, it is not a 2010 work. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  The blurb didn't say it was first published in 2010. Personally I would have gone with Modest Genius's wording, but it wasn't wrong as such. Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  There was an interpretation that made it correct, but it was not the standard interpretation, so it was highly misleading. Using the Modest Genius version now. —Kusma (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  To call something a "2010 work" is to say that it was first published in 2010. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Modest Genius already provided such a rewording. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Implemented now, both in blurb and in lead. Let me know if it needs further tweaking. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• This should NOT have been changed. I am extremely angry about this change which should not have taken place. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  The blurb contradicted the article and now no longer does so. The "2010" is not true without qualification. —Kusma (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Personally, I hold the view that we should not change the TFA blurbs without the specific approval of the relevant TFA coordinator, or at least the other coordinators if the author is unavailable. After all, they prepare their work with great care. They need to be given respect for what they do. Coming in mid-discussion and changing things steps outside the behaviour that I agree with. Schwede66 20:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Nobody owns the blurbs. I believe in fixing things when I can; I may have overstepped in my first attempt but there has been no point made against the Modest Genius version that is now on the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  There was nothing to fix. There was also disagreement on this thread and the talk page about the wording, so your supervote to your personal preference against the wishes of the editor who rescued the article at TFAR and the TFA coord is not ideal by any stretch of the imagination. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Errors with "In the news"

Shouldn't the Vancouver ramming attack be above the Port of Shahid Rajaee explosion since it was more recent?  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The articles both say 26 April, even if one occurred before the other (see WP:ITNBLURB). —Bagumba (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, and the picture pertains to the explosion, which means that unless they were actually on different days, it should be at the top. In theory we could swap for a Vancouver pic, but I'm not particularly minded to do that myself - the sole image at 2025 Vancouver car attack is really not very informative at all, it's just some barriers and a bunch of people standing around as far as I can tell.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the port explosion pic is more meaningful. If there isn't any newer within the next day or two, we can reconsider. Schwede66 21:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that Abbot Donato Ogliari is expected to deliver a meditation to the cardinals of the Catholic Church before the beginning of the 2025 papal conclave? No need for uppercase "A", "abbot" will do just fine here, it's a generic job description, there are hundreds or thousands of abbots at any time. Fram (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Abbot" is also commonly used as a title, though, not unlike "President" or "General". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 08:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  My reading of MOS:JOBTITLE says we've got the capitalization right, although it does say they can be considered to have become part of the name which also says to me we should move the Abbot inside the link, so I've done that. RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• ... that British composer Havergal Brian described his Symphony No. 2 as "Man in his cosmic loneliness: ambition, loves, battles, death"?

  that's the most interesting hook I've seen in a while (and then inspired by a person known best because his name is used as a euphemism for a vulgarity), but can we really say "described a symphony as 'Man ...'"? I have no good solution, but tried it this way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I like your reformulation, the only change I would make is "man in his cosmic loneliness..." Thanks! NeoGaze (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  so: ... that Havergal Brian described his Second Symphony as dealing with "man in his cosmic loneliness: ambition, loves, battles, death"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I've adopted that but wasn't sure that "Second" needs to be capitalised, hence I haven't. Happy for others to change that if they feel it's necessary. There may well be music conventions that support capitalisation. Schwede66 20:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• ... that the independent video-game developer Re-Logic cancelled the Google Stadia release of its game Terraria after its Google Account was suspended?

He canceled the stadia port but then he had is account reinstated so the port happened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraria#:~:text=In%20February%202021,%5B78%5D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.209.62.201 (talk)

In other words, the hook is correct as Google suspended their account, and the developer cancelled the Google Stadia release. No hook will ever provide all aspects of a lengthy development. Schwede66 21:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Next DYK

• ... that both Bill Clinton and the painter of his official portrait, Simmie Knox, grew up in poverty in the American south? Did Clinton though? Reading his article, they weren't rich, but I see no mention of real poverty either, with his grandparents (with whom he lived first) owning a grocery store, and his stepfather (where he lived later) owning an automobile dealership. Fram (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  The source says that the two men grew up poor in the South.[3] The problem seems to be that the hook's poverty, i.e. lacking in even bare essentials, is a step further down from just poor. Suggest rewording the article and hook to poor or equivalent. Pinging from the nom No Swan So Fine, Antony-22, 4meter4 and SL93. —Bagumba (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  But even the "the two men grew up poor" is something said by the painter, not something which seems to be true (at least not from our Bill Clinton article). Not that his childhood was unproblematic, but "poor" isn't a description which matches the circumstances described. The opinion of a non-expert shouldn't be presented as historical fact in Wikipedia's voice, as this hook does. Fram (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I took the source at face value. Re: your example of family members owning a business, not all business are necessarily successful, and one can be heavily in debt. —Bagumba (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  True, but in any case my argument stands; a comment by a non-expert (in this case, the painter) should not be repeated in Wikipedia voice in general, and certainly when the article (Bill Clinton doesn't really confirm the claim either. Like PBS says[4], he "grew up in an extended family of modest means". Fram (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree on not stating poor in Wikivoice. I got sidetracked on the other points. —Bagumba (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I can save this, but here's a suggestion.

  ... that Simmie Knox, painter of Bill Clinton's official portrait, felt connected to Clinton because both of them grew up in modest surroundings in the American South?

  Certainly the original hook can't stay as is, by Fram's well made point. —Kusma (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Humble" is another option from a different quote from Knox: "We're both from the south, from very humble beginnings. His background was probably a little different - if you know Alabama, as a black boy, you were just a small step away from being property yourself. But as kids we both didn't have a lot of the things we've ended up having."[5] —Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Johann Friedrich Riedel: needs a comma after Indonesia as per MOS:GEOCOMMA. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 08:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Added. Schwede66 10:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(May 2)

Monday's FL

(April 28, today)

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

Active editors

How do you define "active"? The 118,000 figure is wildly exaggerated and seems to be full of newbies and vandals. I doubt there's more than a quarter of those we could truly consider active and productive. It was 124,000 a few days ago. I'd rather see an accurate and useful figure of how many articles of quality we have. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

"Active" is defined as "Users who have performed an action in the last 30 days". It appears it does not include IP editors. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You can actually see the list at Special:ActiveUsers. The exact number is meaningless for a variety of reasons, but the order of magnitude gives people a rough idea that "many" people write Wikipedia. Kind of like the article count, actually, which isn't particularly meaningful either. —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

What percentage of the 118,000 would you guess are what we would consider truly active/productive contributors, adding meaningful content regularly? Good point on article count too, also wildly inflated, over half are still stubs! Article count, of which xxxxx are Featured or Good Articles would be more honest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Stubs are still article, they may not be the best but they still are. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we have more than 5,000-10,000 truly active contributors, but it is hard to find out. 28,000 have at least 5 edits (in 30 days?) —Kusma (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Recent deaths

Should Pope Francis be in the recent deaths (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

No, because he already has a blurb just above it. When that cycles off the list, then he'll be moved to the Recent Deaths list. Modest Genius ^talk 15:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok thats what i thought (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

No, once someone has been blurbed for their death and the item rotates off the page, that’s it. Schwede66 17:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Huh (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It can happen the other way round, though. Sometimes, whether a blurb is justified for a person is contentious, and a name may be posted to the "recent deaths" list while the discussion for a blurb is ongoing. You may be upgraded to a blurb from there. See WP:ITNRD. Schwede66 19:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)