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 21:44 on 26 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 with "In the news"

For the Turkey terrorist attack item, there was some confusion about the blurb in the ITN/C discussion because users kept editing and switching the existing blurb in the template, rather than adding them as new altblurbs. Nevertheless, since this was nominated the Turkish military has conducted retaliatory airstrikes that caused more deaths than the original attack, so I think we need to mention both sides to maintain NPOV. Both events are described in the same bold-linked article. Could the blurb be updated to the one currently at ITN/C? Modest Genius ^talk 18:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Venezuelan players of American football

• ... that the only two Venezuelans ever to make the NFL, Pat Ragusa and Alan Pringle, played a combined total of four games?

It's easy to find a third – see Category:Venezuelan players of American football to discover José Borregales who played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The articles are wrong because they trust Reference.com which is obviously not such a reliable source. It's based in part on Wikipedia but doesn't seem to keep up. Andrew🐉(talk) 05:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Wrong on two counts I'm afraid. That reference is not Reference.com but Pro Football Reference, who (so far as I can tell) claim that Borregales never played a game. Pinging @BeanieFan11, Chipmunkdavis, and Crisco 1492: for their input.--Launchballer 10:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked into Pro Football Reference, and it is used uncritically by the NY Times[1], and I found good independent reviews albeit in places that I wouldn't use as RS [2]. CMD (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the hook to say "played for", which avoids the ambiguity of what it means to "make" the NFL. If you've signed for a team but never played in a game, does that count as "making" the league? Yeah, I think so. But more interestingly, https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/_/id/4046356/jose-borregales and https://www.nfl.com/players/jose-borregales/ both say Borregales was born in Miami. RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The nfl.com source says "hometown", not "born". They're two different things. RachelTensions (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

See Dolphins defeat Bucs after Jose Borregales FG hits upright. That's an NFL video which seems indisputable. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Borregales only played in a preseason game, which is generally not regarded as playing in an official NFL game. Pro-Football-Reference has generally been considered a reliable source. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The NFL clearly regards such exhibition games as official. It requires players to play in them and fans to buy tickets for them, right? If you play in such an NFL game after signing with an NFL team, then you've clearly "made the NFL". Borregales is categorised in Tampa Bay Buccaneers players and so is in National Football League players. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The NFL does have fans buy tickets and players do play in them (though its generally the rookies and players trying to make the team for the regular season; experienced players often sit out) – however, in statistics, they're generally not counted (see e.g. Borregales' statistics page which lists him as playing in no games – also not included at Tampa Bay Buccaneers all-time roster). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

"The NFL clearly regards such exhibition games as official. It requires players to play in them and fans to buy tickets for them, right?" That is what we call original research caused by lack of verifiability in reliable sources. The definition of an "exhibition match/game" is "a sports game that is not part of any league or official competition". Players can play in them, and fans can buy tickets for them, but that is not the definition of an "official" game—otherwise testimonial matches in association football would be regarded as official when in reality you have elderly men or children running around a pitch. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

"The NFL Preseason ... games do not count on the teams' official records for the season"[3]. RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

They obviously don't count for a particular season because they are, by definition, pre-season. But the key point is that they are still NFL games, being billed and sold as such. And the hook is talking about the NFL in general, not a particular season. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The DYK hook doesn't mention anything about playing in regular season games, it says they're the only two to "make" the NFL. Borregales was on the roster of an NFL team, that's "making" the NFL. RachelTensions (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Although https://miamihurricanes.com/news/2023/10/12/fb-feature-andy-borregales-family-pride/ implies he was born in Venezuela (the article is mostly about José's younger brother Andy, but mentions José as well). RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

[4] also says he moved to the US from Venezuela at age 6. RachelTensions (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

• ... that Jumbo's became the first white-owned restaurant in Miami to serve and employ black people, beginning in the late 1960s?

That's a big and hard to prove claim. One reference says that most restaurants didn't employ blacks [5]. WLRN says that the ckaim is from the owners [6]. The New York Times also says "The owners say that Jumbo’s, in Miami’s Liberty City neighborhood, was the first white-owned restaurant to employ and serve blacks.". We are saying this in wikivoice! Secretlondon (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Tails Wx, Another Believer, Prince of Erebor, AirshipJungleman29, and Crisco 1492:. Strikes me that the simplest solution is to attribute.--Launchballer 15:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Attributed, with these edits.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's enough, because not only does the article still say it in wikivoice, but the then-owners sold it to a developer in 2014.--Launchballer 15:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Article now says "Owners claimed". I didn't do that part as the article isn't protected. The sale to developer, I think, doesn't really change that the persons voicing the claim were the owners. Unless the developer took the name, too, they aren't the owners of Jumbo's... they're the owner of the site. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The NYT also has a quote "I can’t tell you for sure whether they were the first, second or third to integrate...", so yeah, saying this in wikivoice seems problematic. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 1)

Monday's FL

(October 28)

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.

Tomorrow's POTD

• "The male and female flowers appear on separate plants, with males featuring clusters that generally have four flowers together, while females appear as a raceme." The "females" at the end of the sentence implies "female plants", but it is female flowers that appear as a raceme, NOT female plants. Come to think of it, "male plants" would also be clearer than "males" here, and "featuring" sounds awkward to me. So I suggest, "The male and female flowers appear on separate plants, with flowers on male plants generally appearing in clusters of four, while those on female plants appearing as a raceme." JMCHutchinson (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Went with "Male and female flowers appear on separate plants, with flowers on male plants generally appearing in clusters of four and flowers on female plants appearing as a raceme. These flowers of a female A. negundo plant were photographed in Keila, Estonia."  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

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)