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 06:10 on 1 August 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

... that Hannah Sharts played soccer for the UCLA Bruins over twenty years after her mother fought to create the team? This seems to be completely wrong. The team had existed for a long time already, what Sharts' mother fought for was to make it a Division I team. Fram (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the source says "Michele transferred to UCLA and joined the school's club program ... But Michele and her UCLA teammates wanted more. They wanted to play at the highest collegiate level."[1] Even their club sport team is referred to as the Bruins.[2] Perhaps reword to something like "... fought to create the NCAA team". The article needs updating too. —Bagumba (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Pinging DYK folks: @24Anonymous, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, JuniperChill, and Ganesha811. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, I'm a bit new to the college soccer sphere and I'm afraid I misinterpreted the articles. I do like the "... fought to create the NCAA team" correction posed by @Bagumba. I will re-read the sources and update the page accordingly too. 24Anonymous (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Added "NCAA".—Bagumba (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Next DYK

• ... that the wreck of SS Virago, which sank off Alderney in 1882 with the deaths of all crew members, was not identified for 140 years?. No, it was not identified for 13 years. Before that, it wasn't found for 127 years. Fram (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  it's too late at night for me to feel comfortable editing DYK directly, but pinging the DYK admins to let the others know that there's quite a bit that needs to be handled here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Edited to "discovered" and "127 years". Maybe there's still more to do? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  I did check this set, and I'm Not sure I'm seeing the issue here - it went down in 1882, and 140 years later it was identified. Nothing incorrect there. Not fussed about the change though if it keeps people happy.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

You can't identify a wreck without finding it. 140 is correct.--Launchballer 13:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

So if it was identified the day it was discovered, you would say it was not identified for 127 years? That sounds ridiculous. Like you say, "you can't identify a wreck without finding it"; the wreck was unidentified for 13 years, not for 140 years. Before this it was undiscovered for 127 years. Richard III of England's body wasn't "unidentified" for 500 years: it wasn't found for 500 years, it was identified after a few months. Stating that it hadn't been identified for 500 years would make it sound as if the body was visible for all, but no one knew who it was. The same applies here. Fram (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Well it turns out I forgot to actually save the change, so we're still at the status quo ante. Leaving it while discussion continues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to add to the fun, it's a bit of a stretch to say "with the deaths of all crew members" in wikivoice. We can presume all the crew perished, but lacking physical evidence, it's just a presumption. I see mention of five of the seven lifeboats being recovered. For all we know, some of the crew may have made it to land (only two miles away) in another boat. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Multiple sources, including the BBC, say the ship went down with all hands. There is no reason to doubt this. Any surviving crew would have been reported on and it would not be a mystery how the ship went down. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. Nobody would ever be presumed dead when they really made it to some deserted island somewhere. RoySmith (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

On reflection, you do have a point if a very hypothetical one. "Loss of all crew members" would be a better fit for the circumstances and is the usual term employed. Gatoclass (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, "with no recorded survivors"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

That's an awkward phrase that raises an undue question of doubt. "Loss of all hands" is the usual phrase and probably the best option. Gatoclass (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I think "was not discovered for 127 years" is more interesting. Also, the "not identified for 140 years" phrasing does give the idea that the ship sank and then people looked at the wreck for the next 140 years saying to each other "any idea what that is?" ... "Nope, it's a mystery to me". Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, well. I've changed it to " ... that the wreck of SS Virago, which sank off Alderney in 1882 with the loss of all crew members, was not discovered for 127 years?". Hopefully that suits everyone...  — Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• "August 1: Lughnasadh in the Northern Hemisphere": The islands Ireland, Man and Britain are indeed in the northern hemisphere, so this isn't wrong -- but it's an odd (and I think hugely exaggerating) way to express it. "The British Isles" used to be the conventional term, but it seems to be regarded as insulting to the non-British. "In Ireland and Britain"? (I doubt that Manx readers would much mind, though I could be wrong.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  Any Manx readers around? Or anyone with a view on the above? Schwede66 01:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  Looks like some people in the Southern Hemisphere celebrate the same event but on a different day. Seems like a useful distinction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  Ah yes. I suspect that from Ostend to Vladivostok the celebrants are scattered rather thinly; but however few they are, I wish them the best for their celebrations. (Namibians and others have to wait half a year. But I wonder what Ecuadorans do: can they drive across the ecuador and celebrate twice a year?) Niggle withdrawn. Thank you for your time. -- Hoary (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 1, today)

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.

Tomorrow's POTD

There's a grammar problem.

"It grows with square stems to 5 to 20 centimetres (2 to 8 inches) in height"

should probably be either

"It grows with square stems from 5 to 20 centimetres (2 to 8 inches) in height"

or simply

"It grows with square stems 5 to 20 centimetres (2 to 8 inches) in height"

ShoneBrooks (talk) 04:21, 1 August 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)

Broken link

I figured this well get noticed quickly, but it's 10am where I am - the current page (1st August) has the article written as [[SMS Hindenburg|SMS Hindenburg]] as though the code was written in the visual editor. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 00:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Just so you know, in the future, these kinds of issues should be raised at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors instead of here. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I've checked ahead as far as we are scheduled and I've fixed the one time this might pop up again, and will keep an eye open as we continue to schedule.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we want categories on the main page, not even hidden categories, so I added nocat=y to three other uses of {{lang}}.[3] This issue is hard to spot in advance because the category is only added in mainspace. Here is a link showing how Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow will render on Main Page. It would have shown the Hindenburg rendering error yesterday, and if "Show hidden categories" is enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering then it would have shown the hidden category I removed. Should we add the link to {{Main Page toolbox}}? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a great idea to me. {{lang}} isn't the only template that adds categories only in mainspace; recently {{m}} caused a similar issue on ITN. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It was my understanding that we should avoid using templates in TFA blurbs anyway? Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I was confused about where to raise it so just did my best chance at the time. Good to know in future though. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 03:11, 1 August 2025 (UTC)