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 18:19 on 8 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.
• 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"

• Despite semi-protection, 2025 India–Pakistan strikes is still unstable and is subject to the usual nationalist edit-warring nonsense (and now has a - probably quite correct - NPOV orange tag on it). I would be tempted to remove it from ITN. Black Kite (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  My goodness. Just look at the talk page. Schwede66 08:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Endorse removal. If the orange tag is addressed and the article restored, admin-only protection may be needed. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

   Pulled per the above.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Pope Leo XIV - per the ITNC, I see two main problems with this currently.
  • Put Pope Leo XIV in bold.
  • The consensus to post was shaky - me and some others had some real problems with the quality of the article and I noticed a lot of the support !votes didn't cite anything - the typical "Support obviously" trap these ITNR items fall into. This is a much larger systematic issue though. Departure– (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Also, one more factual error - "Provost" is spelt as "Prevost" in the article - one of these is wrong. Departure– (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Fixed Provost->Prevost. I thought the thinking is that the papal enclave article is in better shape, so that's why it's bolded for now. More relevant though is that saying he is "of the United States" is not a great treatment - he is a Peruvian double national, and his work in Peru is more substantial than any of his U.S. work. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree - that's, what, four issues now? This blurb definitely needed longer to simmer. Departure– (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Possible rewrite: Robert Francis Prevost is elected as Pope Leo XIV, becoming the first North American-born pope. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Why not just becoming the first American pope? (Or first pope from the United States if you want to claim "American" would be confused with being 'of the Americas' not 'of the US'? I haven't seen any sources emphasizing that he's the first pope from North America, but rather that he's the first from the United States. (In the same way that our blurb noted Francis as the first pope from Latin America, even though he was also the first from all the Americas). DecafPotato (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  The problem is he is also a Peruvian citizen and his bio seems to indicate the bulk of his ecumenical career has been in Peru and South America. Therefore, emphasizing United States seems like WP:UNDUE weight in such a short line of prose. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Well Peru isn't in North America, either, so I don't see how it's necessarily relevant to our phrasing. And WP:DUE means we follow sources; we can see that the New York Times writes "First American Pope" in big banner text, as does the BBC, while The Times of London calls him an "American" and the CBC also calls him the "first American" DecafPotato (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  "American" is contentious since those of Francis' homeland of Argentina would argue that he was the first American one - remember, English Wikipedia is not exclusively viewed from the US. Departure– (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Agree, the ambiguity and imprecision of "American" means we should likely avoid that term in such circumstances. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Does the "first" aspect even need to be relevant here? That isn't the story here in the first place. Departure– (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Those of Francis' homeland of Argentina would argue that he was the first americano, because they speak Spanish, which English Wikipedia does not. "American" means "from the U.S." even outside of the U.S., as seen in the Canadian CBC headline that calls Leo XIV the "1st American to hold the role" and the British BBC that calls him the "first American pope" and the Australian ABC that calls him the "first American pope" as well DecafPotato (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  I doubt those from Argentina would speak Spanish in encyclopedic English writing. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Be that as it may. We have found "American" to be sufficient when used to identify nationality in innumerable articles, for example Donald Trump is called an American politician. Thus, it is sufficient for Leo. Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  I would agree, but we have space for "North" here, and I have never seen any piece of English writing refer to people from South America as "americano". Aaron Liu (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  India's The Hindu also labels him an "American", New Zealand's RNZ says he's the first American to ever become Pope, The Irish Times calls him an "American cardinal", Nigeria's Guardian calls him an "American" as well.

  The only exception I could find was South Africa's SABC, which just calls him a the "first US pontiff" but nevertheless doesn't refer to him ever as a "North American" and only emphasizes him being from the US. DecafPotato (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  "American" in English almost always refers to "of the United States", even our own article on the subject states this. While you are correct that English Wikipedia is not exclusively viewed by those in the US, it is exclusively viewed by English speakers. PolarManne (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Rewrote as:

  Robert Francis Prevost is elected as Pope Leo XIV, becoming the first North American-born pope of the Catholic Church.

  - Fuzheado | Talk 17:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Seems reasonable to me. (I also wonder if we need the -born; I don't see anything about renouncing US citizenship.) Aaron Liu (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  He is an american citizen who was naturalized as a Peruvian in later life. His americanness takes precedence. Wkjekf (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  There is no Wikipedia policy basis for that conclusion. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Can someone change the Friedrich Merz photo to one of the photos of Robert Prevost on wikimedia. Wkjekf (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  We currently do not have a good free image of him --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Per Fuzheado please don't bold Pope Leo XIV's article. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  My issue is that, yeah, it should be bolded per the blurb, but the article isn't of quality. This really shouldn't have been posted when it was. This is not a pull !vote. Departure– (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(May 9, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(May 12)

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

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)

While there was a gas chamber at Dachau (as anyone who's toured it learns; we have a picture in the article), it wasn't really used IIRC until the end of the war, when prisoners who had survived the death marches from further east ahead of the Red Army were brought there and, as they said, "reselected". Thus for most of its existence Dachau cannot be said to have been a camp whose "only purpose was the extermination of its prisoners", not in the way that Treblinka or Sobibor were. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

June 20 TFA and PotD: Jaws (film)

On June 20, the 50th anniversary of the release of the film Jaws, both TFA and PotD will mark the occasion. As the TFA scheduling coordinator for June, I picked a different image from the PotD to avoid duplication, but their text is similar to ours. I'm being proactive and asking for ideas as to how best to do this and avoid later criticism of duplication, etc. Potd: here; TFA here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Dream out loud, who scheduled the POTD. Perhaps the POTD could be bumped back to 2026 (or even 2030 or 2035 for a round-number anniversary) to avoid duplication. Jay8g [V•T•E] 21:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it's OK if multiple projects feature the same theme as long as there is different content. I'm not suggesting any changes in the choices autonomous main page projects have made.Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy links: Template:POTD/2025-06-20 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 20, 2025. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I like the call out to POTD in the TFA. If there was a similar call out in the POTD to TFA - Jaws is an American thriller film (see today's Featured Article) released June 20, 1975, directed by Steven Spielberg - we'd have fewer complaints, if any. Stephen 04:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I like Stephen's suggestion, and I think the conjunction is fine as is or with that tweak. My preference would be to rework the POTD blurb to focus more on the poster itself. There's interesting and relevant content to adapt in Jaws (film)#Marketing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

And the fact that the poster, one of the most iconic movie posters ever, is in the public domain due to being published without proper copyright notice per here, could be discussed. The publication without notice was the paperback that is illustrated in the TFA, tying things even closer together. Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's try having the two, with references to both, and see what the community thinks. If there is backlash, we know never to do that again. I like the idea of the POTD blurb focusing on the poster and not the actual movie. Z1720 (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, I've taken a swing at it. If people like it, we have plenty of time to fine-tune it. Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I’ve made a minor wording change to the TFA. I like what we’ve got now; it goes well together. Schwede66 21:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I think swapping for a different POTD would be a good idea, and then reusing this one in future years as Jay8g suggests. Next year or 2030 would both be fine. It gives the FA another day on the main page without being pointlessly duplicated, and means we can use a proper summary blurb for both. I know we have very occasionally done custom special occasion days, like the Apollo 11 anniversay in 2019, but these are very much IAR and I don't think apply here.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it would be better to defer the image for a year than to feature the same topic twice on the same day. OTD items are swapped out to avoid duplicating the TFA, so I think POTD should do the same. Modest Genius ^talk 14:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)