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 23:02 on 27 May 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)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• And speaking of the Jean-Mohammed Abd-el-Jalil hook, shouldn't it say that he was allowed to keep Mohammed (spelling, italicized) as his baptismal name? —⁠71.105.243.101 (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  I can't see why the name should be italicised. Regarding the spelling, I refer you to what is current reference number 8 with the title "Massignon – Abd-el-Jalil: parrain et filleul, 1926–1962". Hence, the hook spelling is aligned with what the pope authorised. Schwede66 05:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Looking at MOS:WAW, I could see an argument for italics. RoySmith (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• The Gammarelli hook states that they are "the official tailor of the pope", but though "the official clothier of the pope" is mentioned in the lede, uncited, the term doesn't reappear anywhere else in the article. Reading the article, it's not clear that the pope has an official tailor, or what that title would mean if it existed. The article states that the pope can choose other clothiers, and that while the first vestments usually worn by a newly elected pope tend to be made by Gammarelli, in the most recent conclave, not all of the vestments that could have been chosen were made by them. Pius XII used a different tailor, Benedict XVI split his orders with another tailor, and John XXIII either didn't get through as many vestments, or was also using other tailors in addition to Gammarelli. It seems more that the popes commonly choose to place orders for particular garments from the shop, without conferring any official status on that, unless I am missing something? Spokoyni (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Article claims that Gammarelli [the business] was appointed as the papal tailor in 1813, by Pope Pius VII. However, the source (from 1961) says something fairly different:

  Bonaventura Gammarelli, 61, belongs to a family that has been making clothes for clerics (small, medium, and large) for nearly two centuries, spanning the reigns of 12 Popes. His great-greatgrandfather, Giovanni Battista, started as an ecclesiastical tailor in 1780. In 1813, Pope Pius VII officially appointed him papal tailor. Bonaventura treasures the yellowing document that registers the honor. The name on the document, however, is Gambarelli. "That was our real family name," Bonaventura explains. "But in the old days, for some reason, everyone called us Gammarelli, so to make it easier all round, we changed to that."

  theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Was that to be tailor to Pius VII personally, or intended to be for all popes in perpetuity? Since that 1813 reference, there doesn't seem to be any use of "official tailor of the pope" for the next 200 years. Spokoyni (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  He eventually decided to order a zucchetto, a small skullcap worn by Roman Catholic clergy, from Italian tailoring house Gammarelli, which is the official tailor of the Pope., is the official tailor of the pope, and Pope's official tailor. SL93 (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  I take it that sources are using this term, but there's nothing official either from Gammarelli or official papal sources about this. I'm just a little concerned that we may be repeating a canard that a lot of sources are swallowing unquestioningly. There's ambiguity in the sources as well over whether they are talking about the official tailor to the pope at the time of writing, vs to all popes (we don't seem to have any information about the new pope's choices). I don't intend to die on this hill if people believe the matter is settled, but the only official document we seem to have is from 1813 with unclear meaning, and also clear indication that popes can and do choose other suppliers, it just seems like the term 'official tailor' is a nickname rather than something official. But at the very least, this needs sourcing in the article if it's to appear on the main page. Spokoyni (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Pulled. RoySmith (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• "that fighter pilot Morton D. Magoffin made pilots in his group sprint around an airfield for not saluting him?" is sourced to a master's thesis, cited in our article to a republication by one of many un-reputable on-demand printing companies. It was first released by the Air University Press as a CADRE paper, but there is no indication that this was equivalent to true publication (ie getting peer review/substantial editing). Does this source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  There's also a lot of text taken almost word-for-word from the source. Earwig didn't pick it up, but it's obvious if you read the source and compare to our text. It's not clear what the copyright status is; https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/AUPress/CADRE-Papers/ says Copyright Notice: Authors may retain copyright on this material. For more information contact AU Press at <email address elided> RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Hal Hanson

• Minnesota team of the century. It may be a deliberate omission to encourage clicks, but I would prefer that the sport is mentioned in the hook. It is American football. JMCHutchinson (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  This was discussed recently at WT:DYK#"Football" hooks. I'm pinging the participants (and my apologies if I miss anybody) @Narutolovehinata5 @Theleekycauldron @Art LaPella @Kusma @Bagumba @Black Kite @AirshipJungleman29 @Amakuru @Gonzo fan2007 @Gatoclass @Horse Eye's Back @Joseph2302 RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  This seems to be arbitrarily applied w.r.t. DYK. For example, it recently had ... that Sheffield Wednesday required a "miracle" to qualify for the 2023 EFL League One play-off final?, and I didn't know Sheffield nor EFL. Isn't clicking on the bolded link the point anymore? WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE reads:

  Intriguing hooks leave the reader wanting to know more – we want people to see the new articles our volunteers have put time and effort into crafting, and a hook that excites the reader into wanting to know more goes a long way towards that goal

  —Bagumba (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  I wouldn't consider this an intriguing hook, I'd consider it a borderline incomprehensible hook. Unlike whether or not a hook is "interesting", I think ERRORS is a good place to fix a hook that many think doesn't make sense. Couldn't we just remove everything before the comma? The confusing part is the "Minnesota team of the century", not the actual part that has to do with the bolded article. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  It does seem to strongly assume that you're both American and an American football enthusiast, for example not linking Minnesota despite that being a pretty state even for Americans. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  I assume it isn't the state team though, but Minnesota Golden Gophers football of the University of Minnesota. I still don't think the sport needs to be mentioned. The hook does enough to clarify it is about some sports so I know I probably won't be interested. —Kusma (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  I was not aware that American states fielded sports teams. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  New York Yankees LOL. —Bagumba (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) And if you argue "that's referring to NYC" Indiana Pacers. Worgisbor (congregate) 18:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe something like:

• ALT1: ... that while picking his football "team of the century" for Minnesota, Dick Cullum said that Hal Hanson (pictured) "made brave men wince"? Gatoclass (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• My perspective is that Wikipedia should be aiming to serve its readers, not to boost clicks with fancy tricks like withholding pertinent information. It is wasting my time to make me click through to discover the sport. Sure, some readers will not click through if they know that the topic is American football, and this is a good thing. JMCHutchinson (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Very well. This is more of a discussion on guidelines than on errors. This page is not suited for tweaking guidelines. Please take this to the DYK discussion page. Schwede66 19:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Tan Jin Sing

• Tan Jin Sing: I believe that that colonial-era Yogyakartan bureaucrat Tan Jin Sing's close relationship with Europeans led to him saying that he was "no longer a Chinese, not yet a Dutchman, a half-baked Javanese"? should be that colonial-era bureaucrat Tan Jin Sing's close relationship with Europeans led to the Yogyakartan saying that he was "no longer a Chinese, not yet a Dutchman, a half-baked Javanese"? as this edit by Ravenpuff was incorrect. The article describes the quote as a Yogyakartan saying. TSventon (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  @TSventon I believe you're correct but pinging @Juxlos for confirmation. RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  That’s correct. Juxlos (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Updated. I'll leave it to somebody who understand these things better to to figure out if I got the possessive 's right. RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  @TSventon: Ah, I realise that I misinterpreted the hook. Thanks! — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(May 30)

Monday's FL

(June 2)

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.

Tomorrow's POTD

• "A tugboat tows a barge in the foreground, having just passed under the Hell Gate Bridge." The barge is pointing towards the bridge and the wake also implies that both boats are travelling towards the bridge. Also the tugboat is alongside the barge: is this pushing rather than towing?. JMCHutchinson (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hey Jay8g and Rhododendrites, thoughts on this? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, the boats are headed towards the bridge. The wake does seem to make that clear, and if there's uncertainty I'm sure I have some shots before/after this one. I'm not equipped to know the correct verb to use, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Pinging @Ravenpuff, who added this part of the description. I would think "towing" is still the right word here, but you're right that the boats are clearly heading towards the bridge. Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Jay8g: I was definitely too tired to recognise the way the boats were moving when I copyedited this. Regarding "towing" vs "pushing", I simply used the word at the file-description page, which was presumably written by Rhododendrites. Maybe "guiding" could be a viable alternative word. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 20:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

General discussion

Accessibility problems

The banner is again unreadable; black on dark grey juts doesn't work. I got a screen shot this time. My most recent post was archived before anyone had a chance to respond, so maybe there's no interest in putting the effort in to making sure the page is readable to as many users as possible. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

It was explained to you last time that this is nothing that this main page has any control over. These are banners that are requested at meta:CentralNotice/Request, so best raised on the talk page there. Stephen 09:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but just to add: thanks for going to the trouble to record a screen shot and for bringing the issue up here. Please do pursue this further in the way that Stephen suggested. JMCHutchinson (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

For the record [1], it's one of the WP:Dark mode#Gadgets that causes the bad accessibility. The banner works fine in the built-in dark mode of Vector 2022 and Minerva. You need to fix your gadget, there's nothing CentralNotice admins can do. Johannnes89 (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Greek Wikipedia appearing under the 50,000+ category

The Greek Wikipedia currently includes 253,138 articles. However, it is still not listed under the 250,000+ category. Could someone move it up?

Thanks! Goombario64 (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, but this talk page is only for the English Wikipedia's main page (en.wikipedia.org). The wikipedia.org portal itself is managed by Wikimedia on Meta-Wiki. Requests for changes to the Wikimedia portals need to be done through Wikimedia's Phabricator Leventio (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

This was referring to the English Wikipedia Main Page. I have updated it as requested. The portal at https://www.wikipedia.org/ splits the languages differently (by powers of 10) so Greek is in the correct place there already. the wub "?!" 20:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah my mistake! Thanks for the correction. Leventio (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

As we are perhaps hours away from our 7 millionth article...

Are we planning to alter the logo for the 7 millionth, as we have done in the past? JayCubby 15:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this was planned out at Wikipedia talk:Seven million articles. We've been strongly cautioned to not use onwiki hacks to change the logo, so this would need to be requested upstream using the guidance in meta:Logo#Temporary_logo_variants. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

We could however quickly add {{Main Page banner}}, as we did for 6MM. Anyone got a comment on that? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

After Wikipedia:Seven million articles is properly updated of course. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I would have no objections to that. The logo testing tool appears to be broken, though. JayCubby 16:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

That's not a show-stopper. To open a site request, you will need to point to a community consensus discussion though. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Place your bets on how quickly our 7 millionth article will be sent to AFD. Seriously… milestones are nice and all, but let’s focus on quality over quantity folks. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)