Revision as of 18:05, 3 December 2010

Main Page error reports

• WP:ERRORS
• WP:MP/E

National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously: Misplaced Pages does not prefer any national variety of English. While Misplaced Pages strives to use language common to all English varieties, some spelling, grammar, or terminology may differ or be absent in a reader's preferred variety. Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see a comparison of American and British English.

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Main Page queue

In the news

candidates

discussion

admin instructions

Did you know

nominations

discussion

queue

BotErrors

Protected pages

Commons media protection

Associated

• Error reports
• General discussion
• FAQ
• Help
• CSS
• Sandbox
  • CSS
• History
• Alternatives
• April Fools'

• It is currently 13:12 UTC.
• Purge the Main Page
• Purge this page

• 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 13:12 on 22 January 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

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

• A series of attacks by the National Liberation Army in the Catatumbo region of Colombia leaves more than a hundred people dead.

The number killed in Catatumbo is erroneous. The figure of 100 comes from France 24 but that is reporting "across three Colombian departments -- from the remote Amazon jungle in the south to the mountainous northeastern border with Venezuela". The breakdown seems to be 80 in the north and 20 in the south so 80+20=100. But these numbers seem to be rough estimates because these regions are quite wild. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

Monday's FL

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

Amakuru removed View from the Window at Le Gras (File:Untitled (point de vue), Niépce 1827 — HRC 2020 (cropped).jpg) from Template:POTD/2025-01-23, and I replaced it with File:Garlic bulbs and cloves.jpg; however, both of us missed that the protected version had already been manually created for some reason. Can someone replace the protected version with the new garlic POTD? Jay8g 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jay8g: ooh, good spot, thank you.  Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

General discussion

• T:MP
• WT:MP

Jimmy Wales' photo

Am I the only one that's starting to get fed up with Jimmy Wales staring out at me every time I go to Misplaced Pages? I've already donated money, so enough! Or, is Jimmy Wales trying to compete with Bono? Anyway, let's curtail the personality cult and get back to business - drop the pictures. Otherwise, thanks to Jimmy and everyone for Misplaced Pages, a great service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.124.135.29 (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe you only see the banner if you're not logged in, but, anyway, this isn't the place to discuss it (because this page is for discussion of the Main Page) and there's not much we can do about it because any admin who removed the banner from whatever MediaWiki page is generating it probably wouldn't keep their bit for very long. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

it is on main page this is the place! 02:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.204.5 (talk)

I share the discussion-starter's opinion. Why not instead bring on the ads for 2 months; they have the same annoying, distracting effect and would maybe have raised more money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.76.27 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not part of the English Misplaced Pages Main Page. It's generated (I believe) by meta:Special:CentralNotice (which isn't even on the English Misplaced Pages, so even if I was willing to lose my bit, I couldn't do anything about it), which displays the same thing on all WMF wikis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

so WMF is forcing unwanted media on wikipedia? Does[REDACTED] have a say in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.204.5 (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The Wikimedia Foundation owns and operates Misplaced Pages (and all the other Wikimedia projects) so they can do as they please, basically. If you create an account and log into it, you can set a preference to hide the banner by default, but that's the best I can offer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that 'Wikimedia Foundation owns and operates Misplaced Pages' does not mean that they are not forcing unwanted media on wikipedia, seems to me they are. Anyway do you like it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.204.5 (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess the appropriate response there would be "no comment". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think that the appropriate response would be "Yes, of course, we need the fundraiser so that the website can stay up, and so that the foundation can keep advancing the Wikimedia movement". Does the community have a say in how the fundraiser is done? Yes. Do the Jimbo appeals do far better than any other banner tested? Yes. Is Misplaced Pages part of the Wikimedia movement and does it benefit hugely from these banners? Yes. I don't see what the problem could be. Anyway, that's what I would answer :) --Yair rand (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(And BTW, there's a little "X" at the top-right corner of the banner that gets rid of it.) --Yair rand (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There's little point, three days later it comes back again with a new picture. --86.185.250.141 (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who complained re the photos - thanks for pointing out the little "X". I really greatly respect Wales and the whole WMF crew and their achievements, just got tired of him staring out at me, think it a bit too much. The "X" solved that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.124.135.29 (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the appeals for money, but the head shots on the black banner and on the bronze banner with the closeup of a bug-eyed Wales looking toward the right of the screen look like stills from an audition to play Gollum in Jackson's Hobbit. Real turnoffs.μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This is something regular contributors don't notice, because the vast majority of them will hide the banner immediately. You could try raising your concerns at meta:Talk:Fundraiser 2010, but as HJ pointed out we have no control over the banners here. Modest Genius 22:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, you'll be getting some relief from Jimmy this week. Stay tuned. Kaldari (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that, like last year as well (I think) years before, that will only be there for a total of a month or two. GameSlayerGS (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The fund raiser is running for 2 months. I for one consider 17% of the year to be rather too long. Modest Genius 23:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It would not be so bad if Jimmy was a lot better looking. Or if there was more in the photograph than just his bearded face. Thank goodness for the 'x'. I wonder what nationality Jimmy is... he obviously likes looking at himself. I would look him up but do not want to be confronted by his features any more than necessary. :-) B. Fairbairn (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty I'd say Wales is a lot better looking that Sanger and a lot of the Wayne's World look alike four-eyed web geeks with the "my gosh he really needs to go to Specsavers look" or slobby looking trolls with greasy long hair who seems to roam the Internet these days.. At least we have somebody who looks relatively normal pictured in the campaigns....Sure the side photo is one of his least flattering photos, the one of him in the blue shirt looks decent. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I bet Wales will be running for office later on, using his pic here to build recognition. You can bet Misplaced Pages won't get a dime from me under these circumstances.-Richard Peterson24.7.28.186 (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that the foundation will allow Jimbo Wales to use foundation resources to run for office. I don't even think that's legal in the US, see . He can of course use any pictures in accordance to the license they were released under with on his own servers, the same as you or I can.

Jimbo Wales has been the public face of[REDACTED] for a long time and many people will probably ignore the campaign appeals after seeing them once or twice so it's not clear how much these pictures are increasing recognition (there's obviously some) nor for that matter how much this is going to help any hypothetical future political campaign (while I don't know about the US, often what the candidate has done can be just as important as does he look familiar?).

BTW, I would like some evidence for the claim the 'vast majority' of 'regular contributors' turn off the ads. Some obviously do, but I'm not aware there are any stats to show it's the 'vast majority'. I myself don't generally bother, I'm rarely looking at the top of a page anyway and I've never been that concerned about ads when they don't get in my way.

P.S. AFAIK Jimbo Wales has had limited involvement in the design of this campaign. The decision to use his face was made by the campaign team based on their stats it gained the most donors. I've seen some criticism of those stats, but I haven't see any evidence JW influenced them. In other words, blaming him for this, or suggesting he's using it for some hypothetical future political campaign seems a bit silly. I can't help wondering if he'd prefer they weren't using his face so external sources aren't mocking him and people aren't continuously complaining to his user page about stuff he has little involvement in and apparently little desire to be involved in

Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no stats, it's purely speculation on my part, albeit based upon a handful of anecdotal examples. Everyone I've spoken to about them (both registered and unregistered, you'd be surprised how often I end up in such real-life conversations) has complained about the pics and wanted to remove them - I think it's safe to assume that the majority of people who could & knew how will have done so. Modest Genius 22:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotally everyone I've spoken to hasn't so I don't. Perhaps the reason why most people ask for actual evidence when bold claims are made? To be honest, I'm not even sure if we can safely assume most people you know have turned them off or don't like them. To state the obvious, it seems possible that perhaps one of the reasons they came up is because the people involved didn't like them or wanted to turn them off. Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I freely admit that I'm speculating. Modest Genius 00:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

in prior years I recall having to go into settings to turn off the donation ads, but this year, after clicking the X on the box, it hasn't come back. So I imagine anyone who has clicked the X has effectively blocked the ad. I use AdBlock/Ad Muncher while browsing, so anything that's not blocked by either catches me by surprise. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

So we can have a banner ad from Mr. Wales, but we can't have normal banner ads like every other website? I know it's annoying, but you scroll down and ignore it like every other webiste... Seems ironic that we're using a banner ad to promote our fundraising so we don't have to have banner ads... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly - how obnoxious are these ads? If I click the X, I have decided not to donate. I should not see the banners again. It should be the equivalent of opting-out. Yet, visiting a new page or refreshing shows them again. I downloaded the AdBlock extension just so I could avoid seeing these banner ads on every page. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a gadget available in preferences which in theory blocks the ads now and forever (including future campaigns) Nil Einne (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. Realised I forgot to specify obviously it only works as long as you're logged in and on en.wikipedia and other wikis where you turn it on where available. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Background color

Main page is bland and white like any other Misplaced Pages page, which makes it read like a paper encyclopedia instead. Suggest some coloring scheme such as this in my sandbox. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat sick of beating around the bush to avoid offending people whenever these perenial proposals come up that don't appear to have looked in to the history at all so I'll just say it, man that's ugly! Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then, what color would you suggest? Surely something more than just white? (And no, I haven't looked at the history, so please forgive me.) :P :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

White.  f o x  16:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur. — Edokter • Talk • 19:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. —David Levy 20:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

White --Extra 999 (Contact + _contribs) 02:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Pea green and imperial purple stripes. Modest Genius 00:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for giving the main page a fresh, up to date look that doesn't look so drab, but your suggested change is awful. AD 20:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The good thing about white is, it works well with the many images on the main page, which can be all sorts of random colors. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Careful With That Axe, Eugene 09:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad that most agree with me on the proposed change and yes white works best Nil Einne (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Too much of a good thing isn't! Go into your preferences, click on appearance and then click on whichever one you want. Then you can change the look without offending anyone. Dusty777 18:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty777 (talk • contribs)

This is a better idea --Extra 999 (Contact + _contribs) 02:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammys

Donation Ads

The frequency of the donation banners was mildly irritating, but I understood it as a necessary evil. However, the one for Lilaroja can't even be closed (for me, at any rate - using Firefox). For the first time I am using Adblock Plus on anything on Misplaced Pages to block this. I understand that this is a once a year thing, I understand it gets complaints, and I hate to be "that guy" but this really is getting out of hand. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 19:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well as discussed in the earlier thread that's still on this page, there's nothing we can do about it. If you have bugs, you're welcome to go to Meta:Fundraiser 2010 and find where to report them. If you want to block the ads, as I understand it the gadget available in preferences works well and should in theory ensure you never see them again now or for any future fundraisers as long as you're logged in. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Updates

Couldn't the mian page be updated more often? Things seem to stay on it for a long long time.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Featured Article, Featured Picture and On This Day sections update every 24 hours. Did You Know updates every 6 hours. And In The News just posted 3 new items in 4 hours (admittedly there was a couple of days' gap before that). I don't see the problem. Modest Genius 22:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In theory ITN is suppose to be updated every 24 hours I believe. In reality we don't always meet that, more often we get bursts of new enteries then a lull for a variety of reasons. I suspect we do have an average greater then 1/24 hours though so if we really wanted to we could just delay enteries so it doesn't seem like we have such big gaps sometimes but that seems a little silly IMHO. Nil Einne (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Main Page