Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

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 18:55 on 16 March 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.

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]

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Errors in "On this day"

add Purim in Jerusalem, see Purim#In Jerusalem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esotericmadman (talkcontribs) 09:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we having a "remembrance day" for a Waffen-SS unit? Again? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, it's a recognised (but controversial) national observance that has a sufficiently referenced article. I think that featuring the article in OTD can in no way be construed as Wikipedia celebrating the day itself, in the same way that featuring any historical anniversary as an OTD blurb (including of some very controversial events) can't be taken as a sign that we as an encyclopedia support the events mentioned. In my opinion, the linked article (Remembrance Day of the Latvian Legionnaires) provides a nuanced view of the controversy surrounding this observance, which readers might otherwise miss out on learning about. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is Latvia celebrating it. As it does, the entry is factual. Secretlondon (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that it is not officially recognized by the Latvian government, although it is celebrated by some people. While I agree that the entry is factual, showcasing it on the Main Page could still be interpreted as tacit support by some readers, and we do have less controversial picks that might make for suitable replacements (including, if we want to stay on a Baltic theme, the Lithuanian Day of the Book Smugglers, although it doesn't have a full standalone article). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise it wasn't officially celebrated. I agree that we shouldn't be highlighting it in that case. Secretlondon (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Latvia isn´t celebrating it since 2001, just a few hundred neonazi´s celebrate it. And every year the English Wikipedia, proudly and bolded, as if it still is an official remembrance day. A complete disgrace. Fram (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I thought it was official. Secretlondon (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(March 21)
(March 17, tomorrow)
  • The disc is an early example of movable-type printing: in our article on movable type, we categorise this and similar examples (where stamps were used to press designs into clay) as precursors to movable type rather than the thing itself. Here, the label seems particularly inappropriate given that the symbols are not certain to be writing (or even genuinely ancient, but that's a separate problem) -- our article on the disk is unfortunately rather overconfident on this point. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion