Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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 03:41 on 31 July 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 with "In the news"

• Can the Hulk Hogan blurb get a picture? It never got a picture previously. Football's Hannah Hampton [1] [2] and cycling's Tadej Pogacar [3] already got over 24 hours with a picture, and it's back to Hannah Hampton again. [4] starship.paint (talk / cont) 01:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Not an error, bring it to discussion here: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted_as_RD_and_then_blurb)_RD/Blurb:_Hulk_Hogan ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Darth Stabro: - an IP already brought this to discussion at 14:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC) with no response. That said the ITN nomination is at the bottom of the page and will vanish soon. starship.paint (talk / cont) 03:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that the Tres Marias cottontail (example pictured) does not fear humans? why not just (pictured)? ie why is the "example" used? Also this dehumanizes the rabbit. we didn't use "example" for the mountain cottontail hook. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Not sure this one is an error. According to the guidelines at WP:DYKMOS, "Lead hooks should contain a media marker, usually after the bolded article, signifying the connection to the shown piece of media. For an image, this is usually (pictured), but this marker can be moved or edited depending on exactly what is being shown." I suspect the reason for "example" is that "the Tres Marias cottontail" could be plausibly misread as a proper noun referring to a single rabbit. Also, I'll drop a courtesy ping to the hook's author, Reconrabbit, in case they want to offer their view, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Not an error... it's an example of a Tres Marias cottontail, not the only one. Rjjiii's assessment is correct. Also, that which is human can't be dehumanized. Such a strongly worded objection to such an insignificant thing is not needed. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Generally, rabbits (and other non-Homo animals) are discussed using non-anthropomorphic terminology, particularly in scientific contexts. This hook set also features something of an exception to this rule, wherein a notable individual turkey is discussed less clinically. Wikipedia sits downstream of reliable sources, so its tone differs somewhat where tone in RS coverage differs. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 1, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(August 4)

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.

Today's POTD

The image description says the dorsal (back) color is yellow. Dorsal is the wrong word there - it should be ventral (front or belly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8880:4F10:5CE2:7630:295E:CED0 (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

General discussion

The Hulkster

Can you update the news section with Hulk Hogan's death news please? Marvelvsdcvscapcomvssega (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

It's bogged down at WP:ITN/C mostly with people arguing wrestling is fake and/or Hulk was not "transformative" enough or that his field where he was important is not major enough. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Let's stop worrying about Hulk, instead, worry about Ozzy Osbourne, his been all over everywhere ⟨⟨BeastBoy-X-Talk!⟩⟩ 00:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

It's already been suggested to be added to "In The News" here: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted)_RD/Blurb:_Hulk_Hogan. We just need to wait to see how the result of that discussion will go.

He was already in "Recent deaths" a few days ago at least. ApexParagon (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe WP shouldn't feature murderers?

Why glorify murderers? Is this truly random? There must be some code, right? Seananony (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to the featured article about an assassin of a King of Italy. If you want to categorically prohibit historical figures who killed someone from being featured(like John Wilkes Booth or even Marcus Junius Brutus), you need to participate in the processes that determine what articles appear on the Main Page. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@331dot What are the processes? How would I participate? Thanks. Seananony (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the main point of the Featured Article box(as well as the other sections of the Main Page) is to motivate the improvement of articles. Perhaps the article about Bresci wouldn't have been improved if it was barred from the Main Page. You can express concerns about the TFA process at WT:TFA, but to be honest, I highly doubt proposing a ban like you describe would succeed. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article is not random, but selected from the list of our best articles. —Kusma (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Featured articles are based on article quality, not the person's quality. Wikipedia isn't glorifying murderers, it's an encyclopedia providing neutral and unbiased accounts of the world. jolielover♥talk 09:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It would a very unencyclopedic reason for exclusion. Genghiz Khan and Blackbeard to be kept as our dirty secrets? DeCausa (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

This isn't just murder, it's regicide, a kind of high treason if perpetrated by a subject, which is the case here. This is by the way not the only killing "glorified" in the Main Page. The "On this day" section includes the sack of a populous city by Saracen raiders in 908 and "a four-day massacre" of South Koreans by U.S. forces in 1950. Nxavar (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

There have been discussions about the morality of tyrannicide at least since antiquity. I don't see how neutrally mentioning killings is glorifying them. History is not pretty. —Kusma (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The article is certainly written in way that creates affection for the perpetrator. The lead tries to paint his character in positive colors talking about "His experience of being exploited in the workplace as a young weaver" that "News of the Bava Beccaris massacre motivated him", he then "gained the status of a martyr" and " inspired some anarchists to carry out their own acts of propaganda by deed". One could suspect that the choice of this particular article was promoted by the "No Kings" political opposition to Donald Trump. Nxavar (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

People who think everything is connected to Donald Trump sometimes come up with far fetched theories. —Kusma (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I concede some of the wording might be adopting his own POV in the Wikipedia voice, when it should instead denote that these are his views and feelings. Thus I've tweaked some of the wording in the article by changing it to be his experience in textiles led to him feeling he was exploited. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Lets not WP:CENSOR the main page in this way. You can probably come up with a reason why every Featured Article isn't suitable if you try hard enough. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a bit like the confusion over Time's Person of the Year awards, where originally it was an attempt to highlight the most impactful person of that year, rather than pass judgments on their achievements. That's why Hitler was named person of the year for 1938, and Stalin for 1939 and 1942. Over time, it shifted to more of a celebration. For WP, Featured Articles only denote that it's well written and passed through a review process. It's not "Today's featured articles on people we morally celebrate as good and kind hearted people" as that would massively narrow the list of historical figures to post, and introduce a highly subjective moral element that we should ignore entirely. We've literally ran nazi officers in the past. We just give people information they can decide what to do with it.

For Gaetano Bresci, the article's date was chosen because it was the 125th anniversary of the event. It was either run it on the event, or the anniversary of his birthday. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Feeling distressed by the subject of the Featured Article is completely human. Negative backslash is to be expected now and then. Nxavar (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The question is whether an emotional response warrants a policy or process change. By and large, it does not. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)