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 12:05 on 22 November 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 taste 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 the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 28)

Monday's FL

(November 24)

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

The short description is Wikimedia template

The short description in the app says "Wikimedia template" ImMrCarZigzag (talk|contribs) 19:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

For future reference, this happens when one of the templates used to construct the main page has a {{short description}} outside <noinclude>...</noinclude>, as Tamzin just fixed. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa Ohh, that's why it happens, thanks! ImMrCarZigzag (talk|contribs) 23:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Change "From today's featured article" to "Today's featured article"

I think the title "From today's featured article" should be changed to "Today's featured article" to match other titles, such as Main Page § mp-tfp-h2 ("Today's featured picture"). I've implemented the change in Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/(editable) FaviFake (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@FaviFake: What's on the main page is not today's featured article; it's an extract from it, with a link to read the full article at the end. So "From today's featured article" is correct. Bazza 7 (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 I know it's technically correct, but the distinction feels obvious. Of course a featured article isn't 1 paragraph long... FaviFake (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

It isn't obvious. The word "from" was added after I asked my wife to show me Today's Featured Article, and she pointed to the blurb, and was confused when I said "wrong". Why shouldn't she? It said "Today's Featured Article". Only Wikipedia insiders have any reason to know or care if an article is featured or not, or to know how many paragraphs it should have. Ask somebody who doesn't use Wikipedia much. Art LaPella (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah i get it, as its from an artical that exists, and not a new one VZ9999 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose To expand on Bazza_7's point, the distinction between today's featured article and the blurb of today's featured article is neither philosophical nor academic; it acts merely as a conduit to another page. A similar distinction exists, for example, between the names of things and what things are called. The difference with TFP is that the image is shown in its entirety, not a portion of it. Frankly, this smacks rather of WP:BIKESHEDing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Jeez, my suggestion wasn't that serious. FaviFake (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

If it wasn't "that serious", why make the edit already; yes, WP:BOLD lets you, but doing so implies a certain seriousness of intent. Kudos on "Jeez", though. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

To show people how it would look. FaviFake (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• @FaviFake: The last sentence of @Fortuna imperatrix mundi's comment was a little unkind, I thought. Your suggestion was succinctly and politely made, and deserved consideration. I'm always happy to give my opinion, read others', and see a consensus build, regardless of the outcome; it beats reading the news elsewhere. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

If it was a one-off, or only occasional, the description might be unkind; but it follows a recent—final—warning from an admin concerning precisely this kind of thing (specifically, ill-advised unilateral undiscussed changes to pages in project space). But no offence of course. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Right, because we are clearly not discussing this right now. FaviFake (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Ypu mean: you're not. —Fortuna, imperatrix 22:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure. FaviFake (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support. The difference between the article itself and an extract is academic. "Today's featured article" is far clearer, less confusing, better-looking, and more concise. Should we also retitle "In the News" to "events in the news" since all the blurbs aren't direct quotations? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  That's actually a good point! FaviFake (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Cleaner, shorter, simpler and I don't think anyone will be confused — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per above: it's a reasonable suggestion, but I think a lot of uninitiated readers will be confused into thinking that the blurb is the whole article -- the only clue against that will be the "Full article" link at the end, which isn't particularly prominent. I would expect a small but regular trickly of WP:ERRORS reports saying "how come this "Featured" article is so short and doesn't have any references?" UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• I've notified WT:TFA and I'm also pinging @TFA coordinators . Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've been watching, thanks. Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Likewise. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Ditto (although I find myself utterly disinterested with the possibe outcome...) - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose; the blurb is not Today's Featured Article -- it's a summary FROM it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support. The main page serves primarily to guide readers to linked articles, and the top left section is the section which guides us to today's featured article. The blurb is a handy primer to whet people's appetite for the TFA, but it is not the TFA itself, not is it the primary thing that we want readers to look at in that regard. The caption at the top should describe the purpose of that section, not a literal description of what lies below it. Take a look at the YouTube website for example. On my version I see a section near the top called "Shorts", with a number of large photo thumbnails underneath. Are those photos the shorts? No, of course not, they're just clickable tokens that take you through to shorts. Should YouTube change the word "Shorts" to say "Thumbnails for shorts" to be accurate? No, if course not. We need to come at this from the POV of a reader-focused Web designer, not a literal-minded encyclopedian. 🙂  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - it is not a featured article, it's a promotional statement for one. Graham Beards (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Did you read Amakuru's excellent comment above and if so, why do you disagree? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes and I disagree for the reason I gave. Graham Beards (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  I understand Amakuru's point about Youtube, but many people don't understand what a Featured article on Wikipedia is, and may think the blurb is the FA; I don't find the comparison valid. I agree with Art LaPella 1:05 16 November. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's only a short extract from the TFA, not even the full lead. Modest Genius ^talk 15:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  I think the supporters aren't trying to argue that's false, which it technically is, but that it is obvious. FaviFake (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  It might be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to readers. TFA is unlike the other parts of the Main Page in that it contains an extract of an article, not merely a blurb linking to an article. Now whether anyone notices 'From' is another matter, but it's better to be accurate and it only costs four characters. Modest Genius ^talk 20:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  FaviFake, please read WP:BLUDGEON and stop responding to every post. You've already been given a final warning by an admin for your adventures; now would be a good time to step back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  ... what does that have to do with anything in this discussion? I've never been warned about my behaviour in discussions; this is completely irrelevant.

  I'm trying to understand why some editors are !voting by stating a fact we all agree on. Is it because it's clearer? Less likely to be confused? The (Full article) isn't enough?

  Three oppose !votes are just votes. FaviFake (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree about the confusion that the absence of "from" will cause. And I don't see any problem with retaining the "from" for clarity; it is only 5 more characters. JMCHutchinson (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: I doubt that most readers understand what a featured article is, as I have seen some people think that it means just a random article that is featured on the main page. To be clear, I can understand the logic behind this suggestion, but I think that "from" is helpful in at least hopefully conveying that the blurb is part of a larger article. I just think that a lot of readers are not as familiar with Wikipedia jargon and procedures. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: (duplicated for !vote from my original comment) What's on the main page is not today's featured article; it's an extract from it, with a link to read the full article at the end. So "From today's featured article" is correct. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: In today's world where AI-generated short summaries are becoming thought of as the facts themselves and not an invitation to look at what sources think, I think it's important to continue to encourage our readers to look beyond the first glance. "From today's featured article" invites the reader to see more -- "Today's featured article" is a means to an end and will result in less link clicking and exploring. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^blather 21:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: As a courtesy, here is the edit that originally made the change from "Today's featured article" to "From today's featured article" in 2012. The original relevant discussion can be found here. Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic

• EVERYBODY, ITS TIME TO END THIS. WE ARE NOT GOING TO WASTE OUR LIVES ON SMTH THAT IS A MINOR CHANGE. Please do not harass @FaviFake, as he or she did NOT do anything to harm us. Please end this. (My mailbox is full please) VZ9999 (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  @VZ9999: I can hear you well — there's no need to WP:SHOUT. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  ……… 🤨 VZ9999 (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t need Behaviour guidelines VZ9999 (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• I think you meant to link to Special:Diff/520454687 :) FaviFake (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed, sorry for the confusion! Fixed it in my original post. Thank you :) Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Interesting ... apparently it was me who made the change that I'm now arguing against — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fortuna. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic

• Please my mailbox is full😭 VZ9999 (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  You can turn off your email notifications or unwatch/unsubscribe from this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support, the Full article wikilink on the bottom and the bolded wikilink of a FA itself already show it's an excerpt from the whole article, it's also rather clear that the FA box can accommodate only a fraction of the entire article. As such, "from" is redundant. Also, the emphasis would correctly be on "today" rather than "from" and consistent with "Today's featured picture" per OP. Brandmeister ^talk — Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Support removing Today's Featured Picture from the main page entirely as merely shilling for Commons on valuable en.wp real estate :p —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Fortuna imperatrix mundi, that appears to be a misunderstanding at your end. Wikipedia:Featured pictures is different from c:Commons:Featured pictures. Hence, some of the images are "featured" on Wikipedia only. The documentation isn't clear about it, I admit. Thus far this month, we've had images not of FP status on the homepage on 3, 7, 10, and 15 November. Schwede66 21:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Schwede66, I think FIM is posting this a bit tongue in cheek—thus the :p at the end of his message. - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Dead right, SchroCat, I was just pointing out that as TFP links to Commons it effectively draws readers away from our site without reciprocation. Apologies for any confusion  :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 21:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  It does not link to Commons (unless you click the picture itself and then also go on to click the View in Commons button. The picture of the day is always linked to a Wikipedia article which that picture helps to illustrate, and the bold link is to that article. Page views tend to show that it's a reasonably popular feature - the linked article almost always gets a significant spike in views on the POTD day. See figures for Dust Bowl, which was TFP on 18 Nov for example.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree it's better than what Commons is better known for. —Fortuna, imperatrix 06:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic

• Yeah my iPhone is not survive this😭😢🥺 VZ9999 (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• The whole featured picture is shown on the main page. The featured article is not. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic

• its still from, and not nothing VZ9999 (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks everyone for literally CRASHING MY IPHONE 📱. I’m on iPad now lol VZ9999 (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Also one more thing: one the bottom of every page there’s page last edited. If u open it it’s says u can either get points or lose points. Wut do they mean 😪 VZ9999 (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Your continued comments are becoming disruptive. Stop now. Stephen 00:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  And increasingly bizarre. —Fortuna, imperatrix 06:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  @VZ9999: This is why you and everyone else do "need Behaviour guidelines", despite your earlier protest. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Please also Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors § Working with other editors FaviFake (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: the first section with "From . . .", indicates to the reader, the function of the page as a portal, a digest navigation page to other pages, inviting the reader to go there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)