Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Afterword)
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

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 19:51 on 30 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

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the link should be Protein (nutrient), not just Protein, since it's being discussed in the context of foods. The actual Stanley Green article links to the nutrient article. Jay8g [VTE] 05:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Errors with "In the news"

2025 Potomac River Crash

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Errors in "On this day"

1703 – Forty-seven rōnin (depicted)
Only 45 are actually depicted, so is that miscount too wrong for Wikipedia? Art LaPella (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(January 31, tomorrow)
(February 3)

General discussion

Alexander McQueen

I'm sorry if I'm formatting this incorrectly or putting this in the wrong place -- I'm new to this form of editing. But I have a question: why do we keep on putting Alexander McQueen's work in the featured article section? Are we an encyclopedia, or are we Alexander McQueen's marketing team?

The extent to which Alexander McQueen is featured on the main page makes it seem as if our neutrality is compromised. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if people with links to Alexander McQueen are pulling strings behind the scenes.

Featured articles are supposed to not be reposted. While posting articles on different McQueen exhibits several times a year technically respects this rule, in practice we are giving McQueen a completely disproportionate amount of airtime. Is there a way we could address this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahKidd1478 (talkcontribs) 16:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NoahKidd1478: I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. Featured articles can be reposted (a five year minimum between turns is current practice, IIRC). More importantly, you have managed to cast aspersions (that editors are shilling for fashion agents) while also assuming a massive amount of bad faith (suggesting the editors responsible for featured articles are some kind of marketing team). Editors write about the things, subject to certain policies and guidelines, that they want to. The guidelines regarding TFA can be found here.
Incidentally. Prepare to blow a gasket in the future; there are, I think around 10 AMQ articles currently with featured status. So far, only five of them have appeared on the main page. Guess we should all go buy AMQ stock. Serial (speculates here) 17:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TFA's are nominated and selected at Today's_featured_article/requests. The whole process is transparent and I can assure you that nothing shady is going on.
Today's Featured Article pulls from the list of articles with the Featured Article status which has nothing to do with being "featured" on the main page, which might be a point of confusion if you're new. McQueen articles keep showing up on the main page because an editor has put in a massive amount of work in bringing them to FA status then nominating them to show up on the main page. The best way to get more variety in main page FA's would be to bring some to FA status and nominate them, which you can do. Nebman227 (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how putting an article about a collection from 20 years ago is marketing for McQueen. I think that the TFA bias is instead towards articles on underrepresented topics at TFA that were recently promoted to FA status. According to WP:TFASTATS, in the past six months, 57 articles were promoted 100 days or less before appearing as TFA, which is a little under 1/3 of the articles at TFA in that period. 22 articles are 100-200 days from promotion which is where Nihilism would fall (about 103 days from promotion), 10 articles for 200-300 days, and then the next drop off stabilises to about 3-5 articles per 100 days. There's also a bias with the TFA co-ords to prioritise FAs that haven't appeared on the main page yet. Since WP:FANMP does not have a lot of visual arts articles that haven't appeared on the main page, the coordinators tend to schedule visual arts articles more quickly. Whether these biases should exist or not is a question that only the community can answer. Z1720 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NoahKidd1478, there isn't a problem to address. We struggle to show sufficient variety as it is and have gluts of unused FAs in some areas (milhist and modern music) and a dearth of articles in multiple areas (See here for the large areas of shortfall). Sure, we can ignore new, fresh FAs from an under-represented topic and run more milhist or music, or we can rerun even more older FAs (which carries with it a whole set of other risks and problems), but that's going to lead to many, many more complaints. It would also be unfair on the editors involved in getting these to FA if we deliberately ignore them without a good rationale. If you want us to select different types of FAs, please develop articles and take them through FAC to give us a larger pot of articles to choose from, but these are excellent articles, they've never appeared on the MP before and they will keep being selected. - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether they are excellent articles (and they are), I have to admit that seven TFAs in the last year about the same person does appear to be pushing it a bit. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does naturally lead to 'PR rep?, or perhaps, 'someone's, Mother?; At any rate, there is no need to jump on Noah for asking about it, it means they are a reader. Thanks for reading, Noah. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]