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.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209

Main Page error reports

Shortcuts

To report an error in content currently or imminently to appear on Main Page, use the appropriate section below. Reports should contain:

  • Where is the error? An exact quotation using {{!xt}} of the text in question helps.
  • Offer a correction if possible using {{xt}}.
  • References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
  • Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 02:38 on 11 September 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.
  • Actual errors only. Failures of subjective criteria such as interestingness are not errors.
  • 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)[reply]

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Israel

  • Israel attacks the Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, marking the first known Israeli attack on the country.

There's lots of problems with this – mostly the latter half:

  1. An attack doesn't mark an attack; this doesn't make logical sense
  2. "First known" seems tendentious, suggesting that there have been unknown attacks, which we obviously don't know.
  3. "The country" is not clear as Hamas and Qatar are different countries. A reader who doesn't already know these things might suppose that Hamas leads Qatar.
  4. The attack seems to have been targeted at the Hamas leaders rather Qatar. The attack was in Qatar rather than on Qatar.

It's tempting to editorialise or embroider but it seems best to keep it simple, like just the plain fact:

The attack seems to have failed to have killed any of the leadership and so that's probably worth mentioning, if it's clear now.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, what about changing the first use of "attack" to "strikes", or the second use to "military action"?
I would disagree about the fourth point, an attack on another country violates that country's sovereignty. so the attack is against the country even if the country itself or the government is not the target. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Strikes" is more precise and less loaded Kowal2701 (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who proposed that blurb, and I don't see any errors.
1. This is not an error, but rather redundant wording.
2. Some sources do indeed use "first known", others use "first" only. Regardless, this isn't an "error".
3. Hamas is absolutely not a "country", it has never claimed to be a country and no one in the world recognizes it as such.
4. Plenty of WP:RS say "attack on Qatar"[1][2][3].
VR (Please ping on reply) 10:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'marking' is certainly superfluous & confusing, so should be removed. Modest Genius talk 13:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that simplifying the blurb to "Israel attacks the Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar" avoids all problems. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe I'm agreeing with Andrew, but I endorse his rationale/proposed blurb. The Kip (contribs) 15:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "marking" from the hook. Not sure there's consensus for any further trimming, the hook was as agreed at WP:ITN/C and doesn't seem like there's an actual error beyond that.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tbf no !votes specified support for a blurb version and this was the alt, appears to have been decided by the poster Kowal2701 (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There appears to be clear support for amending the blurb, and not much outstanding support for "the first known Israeli attack on the country." There's also support for this change in ITN. I believe it's time for an admin to fix the blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small note: it should be "in" the country, not "on" the country. They didnt attack Qatar, they attacked Hamas in Qatar. This would be similar to the Haniyeh assassination, which was an attack IN Iran, while the later strikes were ON Iran or AGAINST. On itself is kinda awkward either way. Metallurgist (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar, and most others, agree this was an attack on Qatar's sovereignty. Plus, Qatari security forces were injured in the attack, and one member was even killed.[4] VR (Please ping on reply) 19:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An attack on a country's sovereign territory is an attack on a country. This wasn't an embassy or some other territorial special zone, either. Parabolist (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was that the same thing when the US killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan? It wasn't the US attacking Pakistan, just OBL was in Pakistan. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Parabolist (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all the same thing. Qatar has said that Hamas was their "guest"[5], something Pakistan never said about OBL. Qatar condemned Israel's attack as "state terrorism"[6], while Pakistan said the killing of OBL was "a great victory".[7] Clearly, Qatar sees the Israeli bombing as an attack on itself. VR (Please ping on reply) 00:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of Andrew’s arguments seem valid (particularly point #2) & the first known Israeli attack on the country seems superfluous for the blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the "the first known Israeli attack on the country" clause, per the discussion above and no original support for posting it in the first place. Stephen 02:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything the second part mentioning it being "the first known Israeli attack on the country" is more important and newsworthy than the first, as RS coverage tends to focus more on that rather than just Israel targeting Hamas leadership AlexBobCharles (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus would need to be reached to (re)add this piece of trivia. Reliable sources also stressed that Qatar was a key negotiator for the ceasefire, and that it was a peacetime ally of the US; that it is the "first known" attack in Qatar is not especially important, considering other relevant factors. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those other things being stressed still stem from the fact that this was an attack on Qatar, it is especially important as the root of what's being discussed. AlexBobCharles (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norway

For the election result, better to put retains instead of wins since the context is that the incumbent won and no change.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:740F:FB1E:B707:BC17 (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could we also put up a picture of the Norwegian PM(the leader of the winning coalition)? It's a work of the US federal government so it's usable. I think Armani has been up long enough. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the link 'centre-left bloc' in the headline is potholed to a Red-green coalition which was dissolved years ago. We should either link to the current coalition (if it has an article) or switch to the proposed blurb that instead named and linked to the largest party. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Norwegian election article does mention "red-green bloc" (The red-green bloc won a majority with 88 seats) but there is no link for this. I am not sure if there is an article on this "new" red-green coalition, but agree that the current link is incorrect. Natg 19 (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm by no means an expert on Norwegian politics, but note in the Red–green coalition (Norway) article: After the 2013 election defeat, the "red-green parties" has continued to be used informally as a moniker for the former coalition partners, although the alliance between the parties has been formally dissolved. It does look like "red–green parties" and similar is being used in coverage of the election: see e.g. here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Kirk

The Charlie Kirk blurb should specify "Utah, United States" in line with the ITN standard of including countries after city/subdivision. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better: "… during an event at Utah Valley University". ArionStar (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Valid recommendation. Changed to "Utah, United States" - Fuzheado | Talk 01:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Nepalese protests

Why not "In Nepal, Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli and other officials resign amid anti-corruption protests, while government ministers and buildings are assaulted."? ArionStar (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Friday's FL

(September 12, tomorrow)

Lots of redirects that should be bypassed. Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monday's FL

(September 15)
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.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Shortcuts

April 1

How can I see the April 1, 2025, Main Page that I read about in the Teahouse archives?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's Wikipedia:Main Page history/2025 April 1. Art LaPella (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=1309245249"