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 00:05 on 31 July 2026) and cannot be 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 or interestingness, or failure to divert enough DYK readers to articles that aren't new or recently improved, 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"

• ​ I specifically worded the ITN candidate regarding the 2026 Tour de France to specify the "men's Tour de France", given that the women's Tour de France will follow from this weekend (and all things being equal, it will make it to ITN again). No one raised an issue during its candidature, but this was changed after posting? I request that this is changed back to its original wording. Turini2 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Looks like @Left guide changed it from what @Spencer posted, with the edit summary "remove artificial disambiguation, "the" for specific instance" ?

  As above, I request that this is changed back to its original wording. Turini2 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's an artificial unnecessary disambiguation. The men's version is simply called "Tour de France" and the women's version "Tour de France Femmes", and that itself is a sufficient and natural disambiguation. The men's version is the primary topic for the base title. This would be akin to saying "men's NBA Finals" or "men's FIFA World Cup" (just because they happen to have women's counterparts) which we don't do. The only time we might consider adding these types of disambiguations is when it's necessary, for example if both genders are sharing a blurb and there's no other way to disambiguate. Left guide (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

...that Israeli footballer Shahar Nakav played... Since Nakav's sister had died before Nakav played, we use the past perfect verb tense to describe the action that had taken place first. Thus, we should say: ...that Israeli footballer Shahar Nakav played in the 2015 UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship in memory of her older sister, who had died of cancer earlier that year? —catsmoke ^talk 14:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• "that 60% of all timber harvested in North America before 1980 was destroyed in wood-waste burners " is cited to Mihalyo p.21 and misstates what Mihalyo actually says: "the wood burner indiscriminately devoured some 60 percent of all timber harvested through the 1970s in the Pacific Northwest and other previously forested regions of North America". "through the 1970s" does not necessarily equal "before 1980"; "some 60 percent" is not the same as definitively 60%, etc. On top of all of that, Mihalyo is an architect, not a historian, and his work doesn't maintain pretensions otherwise. In my view this hook takes a sort of arbitrary/rhetorical estimate by Mihalyo (no direct source given in his work, hedged by "some", no clear explanation of where the estimate came from) and presents it as a fact. I don't have much of a problem with the phrasing in the article, which makes it clear where the estimate comes from, but I'd like to see the hook hedged somehow - something like "one author described". Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• Per MOS:OVERLINKING, please delink London from the 1966 item. Abductive (reasoning) 05:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  +1 This has sat for 13 hours unresolved. I don't know who to ping but can an admin fix this please? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

   Done, thanks for reporting! —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether this is the right call, but I think the train fire entry should be removed due to the article having a needs-more-citations tag at the very top. Tube·of·Light 14:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  The tag was added just today. I have removed it as all paragraphs have at least one ref. The sourcing quality isn't great, but it is at least acceptable for me. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Monday's FL

(August 3)

Wednesday's FL

(August 5)

Friday's FL

(July 31, today)

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

Add number of edits to the top banner

I’m using the template above to get the attention of administrators because my previous discussion got archived, although it got some supports. Anyways, I am suggesting this edit because:

• it adds more argumentum ad populum, even further encouraging people to become editors,
• it is another interesting fact about the immense scale of the English Wikipedia,
• it further demonstrates that "anyone can edit," and
• it also aligns with the statistics shown on Special:CreateAccount.

I suggest formatting it like this, considering the number of edits (1,362,166,935, ) changes much faster than the number of articles:

• 250,139 active editors
• 7,216,407 articles in English
• 1,362 million edits

Keeping the edit count more detailed (using the millions), whilst making sure it’s not too outdated. I’ve tested these edits at WP:Main Page alternatives/(editable). 2600 etc (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Link to the archived discussion for reference: /Archive 211 § Add number of edits to the top banner. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 20:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

That discussion had no consensus. I still don't think this change is either necessary or desirable. Modest Genius ^talk 10:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Support, good idea to increase editor base HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Support the idea, but it should be formatted "1.361 billion" not "1,361 million". Buttons0603 (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Good idea (1.362 billion). 2600 etc (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, I always like to look at numbers but there's a point where adding more makes the page confusing to look at. Also I don't think the edit count really tells us anything, as an edit can be as tiny as a punctuation change or as big as the creation of a new and long article (see Wikipedia:Edit count). So I look at this 1.3 billion and ask "what does this even mean?" and I honestly don't know the answer. An active editor count though is very easy to interpret: there is a community of 250,000 humans who make edits every once and a while. So I think we're fine with what we've got. Panamitsu (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems like a nice idea, I suppose, but I'd switch the order (articles - editors - edits) and write out the billion to keep the number formatting consistent. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Nominate an article

Instead of "Nominate an article" - maybe it should be just Nominations Astropulse (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

For clarification, are you just asking about the "Nominate an article" link under ITN, or the one under DYK also? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

In the news Astropulse (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it is clearer as is. "Nominate an article" tells the reader that they can make nominations. "Nominations" might just link to a list of articles that have been nominated. The reader may or may not be able to make a nomination and may or may not be able to vote on nominations. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion either way but will note that when I was first starting out I was wary to click on "Nominate an article" because I thought it would send me to a form or something, not another link. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)