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 21:02 on 5 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.

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

Medieval garden

Original

ALT

• Medieval garden - Someone - I can't work out who or where - has changed the approved picture for the worst picture in the article. Please urgently change it back. This last-minute ham-fisted fiddling with hooks, without noting it on the template or informing the nominator, is a blight on DYK. Who did it and why? Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod, see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 3 posted by RoySmith on 29 and 30 June 2024. My impression is that hooks and images can be changed at any stage in the process so, if possible, nominators should keep an eye on their nominations until they leave the main page. Obviously this will not always be possible. TSventon (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

He didn't mention this on the nomination. It's asking MUCH TOO MUCH for people to follow noms through all the winding unlinked stages. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

What seems to be asking too much is asking people to respect your ownership of the content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for neglecting to ping you. I was going by what it says at WP:DYKIMG: images in particular must display well in the small size of the {{main page image/DYK}} template. In what way is the image I substituted "the worst picture in the article" with respect to that requirement? RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Not accepted! I'm REALLY FURIOUS about this. It's an ugly image, and aguably not on topic, which I will now remove from the article - so it will need to be changed, per the rules. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that you see it as a privilege that your hook was chosen as the image hook, Johnbod. Only one in three images nominated make it to the main page. You are especially lucky because the image you nominated is unsuitable, but RoySmith went to the effort of replacing it with a suitable one. Schwede66 17:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

How is it ugly and how is it not on topic? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring to game the system is not a great idea. I've full protected six hours to allow this to be discussed without disruption at the article. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Roy that the original image didn't display well at size. You can't tell what the heck it even is supposed to be an image of. Valereee (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hardly any images e3xcept portait heads display well at that size. So you have to look! Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have never understood the strictness of image display when one click will show the image's full size. SL93 (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If we set aside the size issue... The alt image goes much better with the text than the original image. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've added the images here so we can see what we're talking about. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• From a horticultural perspective the alt is much better, the original image doesn't actually show much of anything and the second image does. The caption is "... that much of what we know of medieval gardens comes from illuminated manuscripts (example pictured)?" and as far as I know we've learned nothing about "medieval" gardens from the original image while the alt is from the Tacuinum Sanitatis which we actualy have learned a lot about "medieval" gardens from...[1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Come on, what is this, some sort of hazing ritual? Johnbod rescued this from draftspace, spent weeks bringing it up to what is easily a GA standard, and nominated it for DYK. It is perfectly understandable that he's bothered that the hook was modified without any warning. Even if the image is unsuitable for the main page, the decent thing would to do would be to apologise for the lack of communication and explain why, not berate him for not knowing about WP:DYKBURO123, tell him to be grateful for what he's given, and prevent him from editing the page. Better yet, you could at least consider whether addressing a minor cosmetic defect on the main page absolutely has to take priority over respecting a fellow editor. Or have I overlooked the line in WP:OWN that says you must humiliate anybody who shows the slightest pride in their freely-given work? – Joe (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The only humiliation or attempted humiliation here was of "Someone - I can't work out who or where" you have the shoe on the wrong foot. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Joe, Roy did apologize and explain. Johnbod has nearly 250 noms, most regulars at DYK would expect him to be familiar with the need for images to be clear at size, which is a completely understandable requirement and not some bit of hidden-away minutia. The article is protected for six hours, just long enough to keep it stable while it's on the main page; if the hook gets pulled anyone should feel free to unprotect. Valereee (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The alt image does not depict a medieval garden. I see a bunch of pictures in that article that do depict a medieval garden (and would render fine at small size). How about we pick another pic? Levivich (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: the alt image depicts garden sage being picked in a well tended garden (you can see that there is a low wall of wickerwork around the base of the sage patch)... It was created during what we typically call the medieval period and was intended to depict a contemporary ideal garden. This is attested to by reliable sources. On what grounds are you saying that it does not depict a medieval garden? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It depicts a single garden bed, not an entire garden. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither image depics an entire garden. They both depict a medieval garden... We don't say that an image doesn't depict a figure because it cuts them off at the waist or knees. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The original image depicts multiple garden beds separated by paths, all enclosed by a fence -- this a medieval garden. The enclosure is a key part of what makes a medieval garden important (because fields and common grazing areas were not similarly enclosed or divided; the enclosure signified private property, a novel concept in medieval times). I don't think the original is the best picture available in the article because of its small size, but a picture that shows an enclosed garden (there are many in the article) is better than one that only shows a single garden bed. Levivich (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Where are you getting this history of the medieval garden from? This doesn't match what I've learned over the years (by my understanding fields and many grazing areas were in fact divided already and its the enclosure of the fields not the enclosure of the garden which matters in terms of the formalization of private property in the English but not continental systems). Enclosed gardens weren't a new thing, they weren't a defining feature of the medieval garden (a term which I will note the historians aren't really using but we are) they were a feature of all pre-modern gardens. I would also note that in neither image is the primary enclosure actually visible although presumbly based on context both would have had one... That fence is almost certainly a secondary enclosure as is the small wall around the sage patch. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We're getting way off topic for errors, but yeah, enclosure is a key feature of any garden, and gardens predate field enclosure and existed alongside open-field systems, and anyway I don't think the history of England in this regard was typical of the rest of Europe (England had more enclosure and earlier enclosure, I guess because it has less open flat areas of land, more hills and such). Levivich (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an interesting conversation and I don't strongly disagree with what you've just said... On the error side I don't think you can say that the image doesn't depict a medieval garden just because its done in a style that is less recognizably modern (I would also make a techical note that the original image based on dating is either from the very end of the medieval period or is early modern and most likely its early modern). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Reasonable point. @Johnbod, if there's an image you'd prefer that does display well at size, just tell us. No one wants to upset you. Valereee (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the other images from the Tacuinum sanitatis [[2]]? It really is the ideal illuminated manuscript to pull from. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Tomorrow's OTD

• 1777 entry: "uproar in the American public". To my British ears, "in" is the wrong preposition here. How about "among" instead? JMCHutchinson (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 5, today)

Monday's FL

(July 8)

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

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)

I'd be open to exploring that. Schwede66 04:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Some previous discussion here and here Art LaPella (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It's nice that there's been some precedent. Do you know if that ever panned out? Bremps... 06:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Good point. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 01:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

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诉 09:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support in principle. But let's see the details. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  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诉 10:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  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诉 14:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• Example If you wonder how this looked back in 2013, here's an example. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)