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 11:52 on 26 January 2026) 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 with "In the news"

In the caption for the image of the new Bulgarian president, it should be spelled Iotova not Yotova. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 08:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Changed to Iotova, consistent with blurb. —Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

The selected photo (File:The Goddess Bhairavi Devi with Shiva MET DP257990 (cropped to include only the goddess).jpg isn't a great image for the main page. The other image in the article (File:The Goddess Bhairavi Devi with Shiva MET DP257990 (cropped to include only Shiva).jpg or even better File:The Goddess Bhairavi Devi with Shiva MET DP257990 (closer crop).jpg would be easier to recognize at small size. RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith: the hook is highlighting the skirt of skulls, which Bhairavi is wearing; they don't appear in either of the crops with Shiva. We could swap the image anyway amend the hook slightly to ...that a 17th-century painting (detail pictured) depicts...? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it's fine as is, the skirt of skulls is the interesting feature here and it can just about be seen.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Surely our criteria for picking images to go on the main page should be better than "can just about be seen". RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, AmateurHi$torian, and Hteiktinhein: pinging for input. This would require a new hook. The image is a bit busy as a thumbnail but does depict the hook. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

i made the image larger, does that help? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Not really. How about change the hook text to "... that a 17th-century painting depicts the god Shiva wearing a necklace made of skulls (pictured)?" RoySmith (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron I've never been confident that I understood the image protection magic, so could you do that for the other images? That doesn't commit us to the change, but if we do decide to do a swap, it'll be ready to go. RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, why are we doing this? The current image is good, the most interesting aspect of the subject, and was the one agreed at nom page and posted by those who promoted the queues, and there's no consensus that a change is needed. ERRORS should be for factual inaccuracies and major problems, not for pointless last-minute tinkering. For the record, leeky's change to make the image bigger makes has my support.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I consider it a major problem that low-quality images are being put on the main page. RoySmith (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

In future, feel free to raise such issues at WT:DYK before the hook runs then, and see if you can gain a consensus if you think that there's something that needs changing. This is not within the scope of ERRORS though, and the consensus formed through the nomination phase should not be upended just because one editor decides they don't like the chosen image.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

There is an extra ellipsis in the fourth hook. Can someone remove it? –CopperyMarrow15 (talk • edits) 01:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@CopperyMarrow15: done. Thanks for catching it! Probably from a copy and paste error somewhere. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• ... that it rained pineapples during a Takanashi Kiara performance? I thought DYK hooks weren't supposed to be purely in-universe? This is a description of what appeared on a screen during a show, "the number incorporating an entire visual scene where it rained pineapples behind her. "[1] In what way is this interesting (another DYK criterium)? Wow, it rained pineapples on the screen behind the virtual singers during one song. I'll remove it from the article as completely unimportant trivia, can someone please then pull the hook? Fram (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Since the hook fact is no longer in the article, I've Pulled the hook for procedural and verifiability reasons. On the wider question, I would agree that the backdrop of her show having a "raining pineapples" montage is not of sufficient notability for inclusion in either article or hook, and it was already raised at the nomination page that the wording was misleading and only acceptable for an "April Fools" hook.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Question: Since the hook has been pulled, would that allow the article to be eligable for a hook in the future should the article either become greatly expanded or become GA? CaptainGalaxy 11:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. Fram (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

2001 – An earthquake in the Indian state of Gujarat killed at least 13,000 people. The article has The earthquake killed at least 20,023 people... --Cavrdg (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The Hutchinson image has been nominated for deletion. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

For reference, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 January 26. It needs to be determined if WP:SK#6 applies or not. —Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Monday's FL

(January 26, today)

Wednesday's FL

(January 28)

Friday's FL

(January 30)

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

Why is the main page in the category "Articles containing German-language text"?

I searched for previous mentions of this oddity and didn't find any. Even if there is a German word on this page, it doesn't seem like the category applies. Ike9898 (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

There’s a German title in OTD. Schwede66 16:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I have amended this to eliminate the category and also eliminate unnecessary module running for main page content, by declaring it in html only, which I think is usual practice. Hopefully this still works for screen readers while speeding up loading etc. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Was it also in Category:Articles containing Finnish-language text? —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

No, nobody has marked the Finnish proper names with any lang=fi markers. I suppose they should be too, for the benefit of screen readers again, although I think this is something we rarely think about across the project. I have added html spans for the three Finnish words in question, but not sure this will be a recurring thing going forward.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I admit I am keen on MOS:ACCESS, but that might just be with my eyes going manky. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Are those really Finnish words? All three appear to be names of people and places, which are spelled the same when writing in both English and Finnish, and do not have a translation. Would we really tag e.g. 'Berlin' as being German text, or 'Picasso' as Spanish text? If 'Paris' was tagged as French it could be pronounced differently than the same spelling in English, but using the French pronunciation might seem jarring in the middle of an English sentence. MOS:LANG and MOS:FOREIGNITALIC only give examples of marking words, not names. Modest Genius ^talk 17:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Paris, Berlin and Picasso aren't really good examples here, as they all have well-established English pronunciations. Köyliönjärvi and Köyliö are nothing like that though, they'd likely sound completely wrong if pronounced using English norms (not that I know what they should sound like, but I'm guessing it's not a homophone of Coolio).  — Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Consideration for Wikipedia's 25th

For the next year, could we maybe add "25 years of" before "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? This could be great instead of the banner added underneath (especially after the 25th anniversary celebrations wind down). Aasim (話す（はなす）) 16:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it’s time to remove the 25th anniversary stuff

Wikipedias 25th anniversary was more than a week ago, so we should restore the logo and remove the banners and remove the 25th anniversary notice on the Main Page. CaptainShark49 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Think of it as a good way to remind readers and others that Wikipedia is 25 years old this year. Maybe, as Aasim suggests, change the wording. "Celebrating..." to '25 years of...' something something. On the other hand, if you look at the 25 as just meaning one day, the January 15th birthday, your point makes sense. If kept just have to make it clear the 25 means the amount of years and not a 24-hour long birthday. I'd lobby on the side of keeping it for awhile longer, but a good point though, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

How does this look? (Minus the banner which is added by {{Main Page banner}}) Aasim (話す（はなす）) 18:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

One week? Let us celebrate. I'd keep it up at least a month. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Old FA articles

Articles that passed FAR over 15 years ago should go through the FAR process again before appearing on the front page. I am talking about the 2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. The article passed FAR in 2009 (over 16 years ago). A lot of things can change in that time. The article has neutrality issues, it gives way too much weight to Falun Gong's denials and focuses a lot on the "propaganda campaign" and what happened to Falun Gong practitioners after the event, rather than the event itself. There are WP:WEASEL words throighout the article, like "some journalists". It is full of editorialising, e.g. A wide variety of opinions and interpretations of what may have happened then emerged: the event may have been set up by the government to frame Falun Gong. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The moment I saw a weasel words tag in the lead I was shocked. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the article, but the tags were added today, while the article was on the main page.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. I added the one in the lede. While at first it looked like a WP:WEASEL issue, I think it might be WP:POV issue. I have started a discussion about it on the article talk page.

Many things can change in 16 years. There can be changes in Wikipedia's P&Gs and there can be new edits to the article. I don't think an FA designation should stay with an article forever. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it should be the whole FA process. That's a crazy high bar, and 15 years is arbitrary... Why not 5, 10? I do believe we should at least have a good look over TFAs before they go on the main page to make sure they are ok, but that is already done in theory. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure, 15 years is arbitrary, but the article has had nearly 1000 edits since passing FAR. Compare the version from 13 October 2026 to the version that was placed on the Main Page, it's practically a different article. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

15 years because that's about 2010, and 2010 is a rule of thumb for when Featured Articles seemed to come into their modern standard. We could reclassify most FAs from that time in one fell swoop. Something like "Special demotion: 2010"

And it's not all about Today's Featured Article. 2001 Tiananmen was an example of an archaic FA that is imbalanced and out of policy, and it just makes me think about the whole slew of them that need to be paid attention to. I think we may not realize that articles you'd think would be great haven't been worked on because people think ~someone else~ is updating those things and paying attention to what is classically important. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned below; WP:URFA/2020 exists for checking over older FAs. I'd recommend checking that out. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• TurboSuperA+ and other discussion participants may be interested in WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to review Wikipedia's oldest FAs. Since WP:FAR limits five open nominations per editor, and only one nomination a week per editor, more help is needed to improve articles, post new FARs and give opinions on which ones are ready to keep and which ones need to continue in the FAR process. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  en-wiki has over 7 billion articles, do we really have to recycle old FAs? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• @TurboSuperA+: Only featured articles are eligible to be posted at WP:TFA. According to WP:FANMP, 656 featured articles haven't been TFA yet. According to WP:FAS, only 266 articles were promoted to FA status in 2025. To have a new FA for every day at TFA, WP:FAC would have to promote more than 365 articles in a year, which hasn't happened since 2013. Reusing FAs has been the chosen solution to ensure that there are enough FAs for each day at TFA while still maintaining topic diversity. Z1720 (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• Indeed, but if we are reusing them, especially things like politics and BLPs (and especially if they're things that might have fallen out of the news cycle and therefore be much less edited) it may certainly be a good idea to get some subject experts to cast an eye over them before we do that. Most will be fine. Some may need work. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: I agree, and I encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD, review the articles scheduled for TFA and post concerns in the appropriate places. While editors will review articles before they are scheduled, more reviewers increase the likelihood that errors will be discovered. Z1720 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Trump election 2o25

As best I can tell, the main page of Wikipedia did never mention Trumps election in 2025. Why not?Rick Norwood (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The election was in 2024, and was posted in ITN. [2]. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps Rick is referring to Trump's inauguration for OTD, which did occur in 2025 but is also not as groundbreaking as Obama's(which was posted on OTD on the 20th). 331dot (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

why is the inauguration not news? Rick Norwood (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It was a routine event, I suppose, telegraphed far ahead of time. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you personally think that? Do you think any other American election in the past hundred years was less important? Rick Norwood (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to gain here? The ITN process is based on people submitting articles for inclusion. We're a year on from this event. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Rick Norwood Leaving aside you're a year late, ITN does not post inaugurations or similar routine formalities. The actual election was posted.

If you are referring to the On this day box, Trump's election was no more historic than any other(unlike Obama, the first black president), but that's a matter for thr OTD discussion area. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

There are some editors who camp at ITN and often try to keep US news out. See "NTRUMP" should be explicitly banned at ITN for some pushback. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Do we really need to have the full, uncensored "The Bather" painting on the Main Page?

Per reasons in Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page, most people aren't looking for pictures of naked women's breasts when they visit Wikipedia. Does this really have to be on the main page? I think a picture of the artist, William Etty, would be more fitting. - ExcitedA. It may be a good idea to look at this. 15:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@ExcitedA The article is about the painting, not the artist, no? And the page you link to is an essay, not a guideline. And even if it were the guideline, the examples used as pictures to avoid are far more explicit than the painting in question. Furthermore, I'd assume that our readers are already aware that women have breasts, as roughly 50% of them will probably be women. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I might find this more problematic if it were a photograph, but it's a painting. I don't think it's that bad, That said, it's not censorship to minimize shock value. It's at the top of the Main Page and difficult to avoid. I don't know if this crosses the line, but there is a line. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

IMO, artistic representations of nudity are acceptable. BorgQueen (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

It’s an artistic representation of it. I’m not a huge fan personally, but this site is WP:Uncensored. Regards, a most likely very cozy Cooldood5555 ✈️ (let's talk) 17:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and additionally it's such a small picture that most readers won't notice it. Even me as an editor who also looks closely at the MP a lot almost missed this. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:34, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

As I understand it, situations like this are exactly the point of why NOTCENSORED became policy in the first place.

Furthermore, After reading it, the essay you linked does not seem to actually support your argument. The essay acknowledges that nudity or breasts should not be banned outright, and suggests that images should be reconsidered if they're "shocking" or "pornographic". It's tough to claim that a thumbnail of a 19th century classic painting is "Shocking" or "pornographic". Especially when the article itself explains that one of the things that makes the painting notable is that it *wasn't* considered shocking or pornographic even it its own time. ApLundell (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Important things that happen seldom appear on the Facebook front page

Why do we even pretend to have news on the Facebook front page when the most important things are so seldom listed? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not Facebook, and ITN is intentionally meant to be diverse. What may be important to your community may be irrelevant to others, and people tend to like it when the section covers more topics then the most recent global elections. If you feel something is missing, you can nominate an article at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates GGOTCC 16:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the president of the US and murder by Ice Agents is "What may be important to your community may be irrelevant to others." And what community do you imagine is my community. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

If you don't like what is posted to ITN, you may play a role in what is posted there by participating in WP:ITNC. It's only as good as those who participate. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Worth noting that the very topic was rejected at WP:ITNC as an individual example of police brutality in the United States is not notable in a country where such events are common. Perhaps you could nominate an article about the ongoing pushback in Minnesota against ICE? With another Trump-related topic already listed at ITN, I do not see other users wanting to have excessive converge of Donald Trump for the sake of avoiding American centralism. GGOTCC 18:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I do not see other users wanting to have excessive converge of Donald Trump in an effort to avoid American centralism.Rick Norwood (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

What have we got to do with Facebook? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times at WP:ITNC, once received overwhelming support. Was anything done Rick Norwood (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't understand. What has been discussed? What does the Wikipedia main page have to do with Facebook? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I have been asked this exact question many times. My answer is always the same. I did not mention Facebook in the post you replied to. Any advice? Rick Norwood (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1334771477 – this edit by User:Rick Norwood has added two mentions of Facebook to this talk page. One mention in the section heading and one mention in the post under the heading. People got repeatedly confused by these mentions of Facebook, because the main page of English Wikipedia has nothing to do with Facebook.

Other people assumed that mention of news in the same post had something to do with Template:In the news, which appears in the top right corner of the main page on desktop version of the website, and they have correspondingly tried to redirect you to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, where the contents of this template are discussed, because this talk page is the wrong venue to discuss it. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I know there are services that repost things from Wikipedia onto Facebook, but I believe none of them are actually controlled by Wikipedia.

If you're trying to complain about one of those services you're in the wrong place. ApLundell (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)