Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Main Page/5)

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 18:41 on 7 November 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"

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

(November 7, today)

Nominator of the article here. Its entry on the Main page says "All stations are elevated and have barrier-free access and fixed platform screen doors", but the source says "platform barriers", which are essentially platform screen doors without the doors. I didn't realise this until I reviewed Punggol LRT line and must have forgotten about this until the list appeared for TFL. Would appreciate the correction. Icepinner 01:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would leave us with "barrier-free access and fixed platform barriers" -- is that right? It seems to contradict itself? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds weird, but it's not actually a contradiction. The "barrier" in barrier-free access refers to accessibility barriers, not safety barriers. I will change the text to say "platform barriers"; after all, the picture associated with the TFL blurb clearly shows no platform screen doors. -- tariqabjotu 10:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we would be wise to do a bigger rephrase to avoid the apparent contradiction? Is there another word for "platform barriers" or "barrier-free access"? Alternatively, can we leave out the fact that the platforms have safety barriers -- is that all that unusual? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a modern safety feature in the same way that '"barrier-free" access is an accessibility feature. Perhaps renaming "barrier-free" to some form of "accessible" is the solution here. CMD (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never heard of "barrier-free" meaning accessible, in a transport context I would assume that meant either no ticket barriers or no platform doors. So I definitely think this should be amended in the article and the blurb. Saying it's "barrier-free" in the same sentence as saying it has "barriers" is clearly rather odd.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might be specifically Singaporean terminology. Would suggest per [1] that someone boldly replace with "wheelchair accessible" (old meaning) or just "accessible" (wider meaning that I'm unsure of a general term for). CMD (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Singaporean terminology; it's pretty common civil engineering/design terminology. But, yes, there are alternate ways to say this, especially since it sounds like "barrier-free access" was apparently not understood by a number of people in the first place. -- tariqabjotu 18:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monday's FL

(November 10)
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

Boring

This is my opinion, but does the "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit" heading look plain? I mean, it has no interesting fonts and style etc. The one at simple:Main Page looks better in my opinion. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 04:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think less is more, especially in the case for a home page of one of the most visited websites in the world. Simple isn't as visited, and a more interesting presentation is necessary there since it makes the text stand out more and makes it easier to comprehend, and that's the entire goal of that particular edition. jolielover♥talk 14:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolielover I agree that the one here is more iconic, I just think the one at simple.wiki is more arty. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 21:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which, in my opinion, gets in the way of its function. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could consider using the serif title font for the text "Welcome to Wikipedia"? It would arguably make it a bit more official while keeping the simplicity and function of the current version. BappleBusiness[talk] 01:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BappleBusiness maybe. IDK though. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 01:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Simple Wikipedia welcome seems to be in shouty all-caps. Not sure that's something we'd want to copy.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru I agree. But I would like it if it was in the simple wikipedia font but not shouty and large, just the same size and uncapitalized as the english Wikipedia one. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 21:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the uniformity is an important part of the main page. Much like signatures, making something stand out draws attention away from the information and visually disrupts the page. GGOTCC 23:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer if we just used serif fonts everywhere. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can change how the site appears for you by editing your user CSS page; see Wikipedia:Customisation § Personal CSS. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already have. I just think that the site should do it as default. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The mixed fonts was done against protestations, including mine. Glad I don't have to see it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 12:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image of U2 in TFA

Can we swap out the photo of U2 in the "Slug" TFA for a better one in which we can see all the band members? There's hundreds of professional quality choices available in Wikicommons, and this image looks like one we would have resorted to 15 years ago when there weren't many options. I recommend either of the following:

Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer the quality of the current photo, and can see the four band members clearly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=1320949134"