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 22:59 on 29 April 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.

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"

photo by Mehr News Agency

Shouldn't the Vancouver ramming attack be above the Port of Shahid Rajaee explosion since it was more recent?  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The articles both say 26 April, even if one occurred before the other (see WP:ITNBLURB). —Bagumba (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, and the picture pertains to the explosion, which means that unless they were actually on different days, it should be at the top. In theory we could swap for a Vancouver pic, but I'm not particularly minded to do that myself - the sole image at 2025 Vancouver car attack is really not very informative at all, it's just some barriers and a bunch of people standing around as far as I can tell.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the port explosion pic is more meaningful. If there isn't any newer within the next day or two, we can reconsider. Schwede66 21:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Let me restore this item / query and post an additional thought. The Mehr News Agency—the semi-official news agency of the government of Iran—publishes its content, including images, with a free license suitable for use on Wikipedia. We have over 200 files on Commons, with the majority appearing to come from that agency, and the photos are professional! They do have a watermark, though, which is discouraged. However, I suggest that we swap in one of their photos and give their watermark some prominence (call it IAR). The worst that could happen is that other outfits would also like to be in on the game and start publishing their materials with a free license. Any strong feelings on this? I've picked a photo (shown here) so that there's something specific to discuss. Schwede66 08:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The worst that could happen is that people argue anything from the government of Iran is bad/POV and try and get them all removed. We don't want to encourage watermarks really. Secretlondon (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(May 2)

Monday's FL

(May 5)

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.

General discussion

Active editors

How do you define "active"? The 118,000 figure is wildly exaggerated and seems to be full of newbies and vandals. I doubt there's more than a quarter of those we could truly consider active and productive. It was 124,000 a few days ago. I'd rather see an accurate and useful figure of how many articles of quality we have. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

"Active" is defined as "Users who have performed an action in the last 30 days". It appears it does not include IP editors. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You can actually see the list at Special:ActiveUsers. The exact number is meaningless for a variety of reasons, but the order of magnitude gives people a rough idea that "many" people write Wikipedia. Kind of like the article count, actually, which isn't particularly meaningful either. —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

What percentage of the 118,000 would you guess are what we would consider truly active/productive contributors, adding meaningful content regularly? Good point on article count too, also wildly inflated, over half are still stubs! Article count, of which xxxxx are Featured or Good Articles would be more honest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Stubs are still article, they may not be the best but they still are. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we have more than 5,000-10,000 truly active contributors, but it is hard to find out. 28,000 have at least 5 edits (in 30 days?) —Kusma (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Recent deaths

Should Pope Francis be in the recent deaths (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

No, because he already has a blurb just above it. When that cycles off the list, then he'll be moved to the Recent Deaths list. Modest Genius ^talk 15:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok thats what i thought (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

No, once someone has been blurbed for their death and the item rotates off the page, that’s it. Schwede66 17:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Huh (Boeing747Pilot) Boeing747Pilot (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It can happen the other way round, though. Sometimes, whether a blurb is justified for a person is contentious, and a name may be posted to the "recent deaths" list while the discussion for a blurb is ongoing. You may be upgraded to a blurb from there. See WP:ITNRD. Schwede66 19:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

On this Day: Dachau liberation

"and killed German prisoners of war." Would it not be more accurate to say 'and killed German war criminals'? They were guards at Dachau, and since 2011, the court ruling was that "hat working as a guard at a camp whose only purpose was the extermination of its prisoners, was sufficient for a conviction for accessory to murder". Seems like wording it this way is sugar-coating the conduct of these German guards, and denigrating the American soldiers (and camp inmates) who killed them. Not quite Holocaust denial, but similar to it. T bonham (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

POW is neutral, whilst "war criminals" is loaded. What we've got is in line with WP policy. Schwede66 08:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Executing PoWs are also considered a war crime regardless of context. If you wish to introduce war crimes into the blurb, then the entire sentence should be restructured to do justice. GGOTCC 17:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"Main Article" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Main Article has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 29 § Main Article until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request to complete RfD nomination

Main Article has been listed at Redirects for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:rfd|content=

to the top of the page and }} to the bottom to complete the nomination. Thank you. Duckmather (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"MAIN ARTICLE" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MAIN ARTICLE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 29 § MAIN ARTICLE until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Deeply Concerned

For a long time now, Wikipedia's credibility as an independent source for objective information has been legitimately disputed. This is well known. The articles, and the way information is presented generally, depicts a bias towards dishonesty, political hobby horses and outright false hoods. I'm calling for a review of Wikipedia's policies so it can become an independent source of truth. Right now Wikipedia is in bad shape. Less people are using it than ever before. Let's fix it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)