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.

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

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 11:56 on 24 July 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.

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"

(July 26)
(July 29)

General discussion

Straw poll

Would most people be willing to entertain a weekly article for improvement on the main page? Several kinks must be worked out, but I think it would be a great idea (well duh, I'm the guy bringing it up...) Bremps... 03:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to exploring that. Schwede66 04:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some previous discussion here and here Art LaPella (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice that there's been some precedent. Do you know if that ever panned out? Bremps... 06:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a "Today's Article for Improvement" section added to the main page for a few weeks in 2013. It didn't last long and was pulled in May 2013. The subsequent discussion is here. Stephen 07:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea, but it's possible that it would draw more vandalism to the chosen article and do more harm than good. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 19:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have long-established processes of dealing with vandalism, like WP:SEMI. Therefore, I don't think that this worry should stop us. And if it were a real concern, why would the same not also apply to the rest of the main page? Schwede66 00:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 01:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the distinction is we're explicitly (or nearly so) asking people to come help out. If we do that and they can't, that would look a bit silly. Remsense 09:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. But let's see the details. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this could work out if we're clever; I'll offer the following points:
    • Maybe the pool should be restricted to Vital articles or some other deliberately collated set: articles should be prioritized that people are likely to feel are both important, and that they might already feel they can help with.
    • We should absolutely go out of our way to grease the wheels with the articles: perhaps a AFI coordinator who volunteers their particular attention to editors engaging with them? Definitely helpful and specific maintenance tags and banners, and maybe even a short write-up on each talk page providing concrete ideas for every level of improvement.
    • I actually think leaning towards thematically relevant articles would be huge for engagement. If we did this yesterday, we should've had John F. Kennedy up there.
    Remsense 10:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another idea I perennially tinker with, though it's tangential, basically amounts to "organized gnoming drives"? We pick a few concrete but discretizable tasks for some set of articles: my favorite is Copyedit the lead of every Vital Level-2 article. I think it'll attract a different crowd than existing drives do because it's communal and we can have a fun progress bar that fills up for each task. Remsense 14:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be a great idea. Encourages contribution because it appears on the main page, i.e. visibility! SWinxy (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example If you wonder how this looked back in 2013, here's an example. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. I suppose the caveat is that we expect everything on the Main Page to be "presentable", so there would have to be a good vetting process to make sure that the articles were fine enough to put in front of non-Wikipedians while also weak enough to justify asking for help with them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, a direct link to an article without any comment on what is wrong with it is unlikely to help much (and seemed not to attract many edits in the examples given by Andrew). I am happy for us to have a flashing "Get involved!" section of the Main Page to attract people into editing (for example, we could make the Community Portal more prominent), but just a few links to articles in need of improvements will not do that. Random drive-by newbies usually "help" by overlinking, removing valid redlinks or by violating ENGVAR; if we want actual improvement from people who are not already Wikipedians, we need to do more than just say "hey, edit this article". If we want Wikipedians to help, perhaps the Main Page isn't the greatest place for this. —Kusma (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this went very badly in 2013, so what makes you think it would work now? How would it be organised, where would it go on the Main Page etc.? Why weekly? There's far too little information to make an informed !vote. Modest Genius talk 13:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewing the discussion following the 2013 trial, there does not appear to be anything near a consensus that it "went very badly". People seem to have thought that it went well but needed adjustment. Here are some representative views from editors that are still active:
    • I would suggest that if it be reinstated, we have some blurbs about what those articles are about and what needs to be done with themDaniel Case
    • Wouldn't it be better to try and improve this from where it is rather than starting over again?Kvng
    • [...] many articles received noticeable increased contributions during the time they were listed on Main page. I agree with the notion of moving forward, and reinstating TAFI on Main page would be a great way of doing so.Northamerica1000
    • I would like to see TAI return to the main page, but like others I did not find the way it was being presented to be very engaging.Just Step Sideways
    In fact as far as I can tell, the only reason that TAFI didn't become a permanent feature was that one single admin blocked it. – Joe (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I barely remember this, but I think it may have been yet another case where we decided to try something new without determining how we would evaluate whether it was actually working, so instead of data, we got opinions. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For better or worse, that's kind of what happens with English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions, where it's hard to get editors to focus on one question at a time (such as the goal of a proposal) and supporters of a proposal almost always span a wide range of views on why they support the proposal. The articles for improvement section was removed by one of the admins involved with the initiative because there was a process problem in keeping the queue filled. It was never restored as the viewpoint that prevailed in the subsequent discussion was that for a main page section to be warranted, the section should be attracting new editors, instead of just having the same participants from the articles for improvement project being involved in making improvements. However the articles for improvement project continued, since the participants found it useful, whether or not there was a corresponding main page section. isaacl (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, I've always supported this and I brought up shutting down AFI a couple years ago here in village pump because of its inactivity, and I don't think they've made any more progress up bringing it back since then. I think this would be a nice way to help bring back AFI. Lallint 00:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. That's one of the intended functions of the DYK section, though it's been a bit obscured by the incorporation of new GAs with the new articles and new expansions. Unless specifically protected, nothing linked from the Main Page is excluded from editing—I've made copyedit and clarificatory changes to TFA a couple of times, some of them are a bit dusty when they run—but the new articles at DYK are particularly an invitation to tweakage, intentionally so. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would go farther to say it is not really communicated at all to the average reader that they are encouraged to any special extent to help out with the articles listed at DYK. Remsense 23:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yngvadottir For what it's worth, I had no idea that DYK mostly consisted of scrappy articles that needed additional editing until I became a better established 'pedian. Bremps... 11:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've mentioned several times in the past that this needs to be made clearer. As I've said before, we could do this by adding a final blurb saying "...that the above facts were taken from new or improved Wikipedia articles?" --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I 've been as critical as anyone of the WMF's various projects that have been imposed on us, but newcomer tasks actually seems to work, I've seen newbies pop up on obscure articles within hours of them being tagged for various issues. I think this is a better tool than inviting the whole world to focus on one crappy article. Perhaps we should add links to that on the main page? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think putting newcomer tasks on the main page would risk splitting focus from the personal newcomer home pages. The WMF growth team has been investing effort into making them the starting point for newcomers, so I'd prefer to get more new users looking at their home page than the main page for suggestions on what to do. isaacl (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One distinction I'd make clear is: I don't think this only has to be something meant for new editors. I for one would be interested in a daily list of pages that I may find engaging to hop into collaborating with others on. Remsense 23:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can opt into having a home page and thus have a list of suggested tasks shown. (Not everyone gets a mentor displayed on their home page due to a shortage of mentors). I just call it a newcomer home page to try to clarify that it's the one developed by the WMF growth team. isaacl (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but we usually don't. There's a special centrality to the Main Page. Remsense 02:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think many editors never visit the main page. If we're trying to build up new habits, personally I feel it's better to unify the initiative and encourage users of all tenures to use their home page. isaacl (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to be a dinosaur, but... what the hell is a home page? – Joe (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Homepage. Described on enwiki and on mediawiki.org. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think it is a very good idea to highlight that Wikipedia is a work in progress on our most visible page and the last time this was tried it seems to have worked quite well. Learning from that trial, we should probably a) focus on one article and b) include a blurb and/or explanation that gives newbies tasks that they can do. But as always the format can be refined as we go and doesn't need to be fixed here. – Joe (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the AFI feature was abruptly pulled over concerns that the WP:TAFI project would not reliably deliver content. I believe this is no longer a concern. Other concerns exist but can be addressed as we go. The featured content on the main page deserves to have something to help with editor engagement and collaboration as this is the lifeblood of the project. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support investigating this idea further per my musings above, in hopes of hitting on a design that could really improve the Main Page and better facilitate our project and community goals. Remsense 14:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as I feel that this would be a great idea for engagement and show folks what pages that need improvement look like. Ktkvtsh (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Don't see why not. Give it a go, see what happens. Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Always wondered why we didn't have something like this on the main page. Everything is about articles that have already been improved. C F A 💬 00:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If any one wants a mockup, please see User:Bremps/This week's article for improvement. Input on design welcome! Bremps... 21:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. What you've presented is a block of article text, that looks a bit similar to a TFA. But it gives no clue as to what to do. It's an article for improvement, but what improvements does it need? As a new editor looking at this what can they do to help? If I know nothing about applied science then I'll just continue scrolling. Stephen 01:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a little box with tasks, to try and make it more clear what needs to be improved. Feel free to edit the page. Bremps... 04:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I was trying to get at before: if we want this to work, we have to really try something new design-wise. Remsense 01:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the call to collaborate on improving specific articles should be placed on Wikipedia:Community portal, not MainPage, where the product of such collaborative efforts may be featured, perhaps with a slot on DYK (like recent GAs). --PFHLai (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This would unfortunately seem to negate the core motivation for this exercise: the Main Page receives hundreds of millions of page views per month, while Wikipedia:Community portal receives tens of thousands. Remsense 21:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't think very many people, including experienced editors, visit the community portal very often. It's really quite useless. It only receives around 1500 views a day compared to the Main Page's 5-6 million. The point of this (I thought), was to get new editors or casual readers into editing (similar to what the Homepage does) because they might see an article that actually needs work on the front page; it's much harder to do that with only articles that are already in good shape. New editors are certainly not the type to visit the community portal: I didn't even know of its existence until earlier this year. C F A 💬 00:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We should be putting our best work on the front page, not our worst. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    )
    15:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably there can be no form of protection on the article, as that would negate the point of the exercise. The inevitable result: in 9/10 cases, reverting the article back to a previous revision. Seems a waste of community time, but still WP:CRYSTALBALL, eh? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose you can reject the premise of the exercise, but 40–75% of newbie edits should probably be reverted: the point is largely to structuralize and centralize onboarding. Remsense 21:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bremps' mockup features a link to a page with a three-word task mentioned. That is not structuralising and centralising onboarding. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Remsense 02:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the likelihood of lots of edit conflicts as everyone piles into editing that day's chosen article. That is a confusing and demoralising experience for a new editor. My suggestion would be to have a list of several articles to work on, and leave that list up for a few days or a week. Another issue is that at some stage all the highlighted jobs to do on an article may have been done and then the list of jobs will be out of date and confusing; so someone needs to be continuously curating this list. I am rather pessimistic how it will work out. JMCHutchinson (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am not opposed to the idea, but I think there needs to be more work done on how it would look and be handled on the main page. I appreciate the intention, but I am not confident that the proposed mock-up would work out. That being said, I think that the main page is quite opaque to most readers (like "featured articles" not really being defined and it can come across more like random articles on the front page). I believe there is potential to this idea, but a lot more work will need to put into it first. Aoba47 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a nice idea, but functionally would not work well. Likely to involve significant number of edit conflicts, which would frustrate newer users and make actually crafting any serious content extremely difficult. The only way I would support this would be if the articles are randomized and each reader would see a different list each time the Main Page is loaded. Maybe compile a large list of articles from some clean-up category and write code to randomize. Would functions something like Special:Random. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you looked at the edit history of those articles that were featured on the main page in 2013? Or are you just making this problem up without any evidence? I find it hard to believe that we would manage to attract that much attention that edit conflicts would be common. Schwede66 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a newbie but I think that sounds cool. I’d imagine it would be more interesting for people to edit than the random flagged articles in the little portal we have. It would also be in a place for more experienced Wikipedia’s to view that way any issue or mistake would be noticed, rather than hoping someone looks at an obscure article. ChocolateCharcuterieBoard (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]