Talk:Main Page

Centralized discussion

Proposals:policy•otherDiscussions:tech•ideas•misc

• Restrict page creation in portal namespace to autoconfirmed users
• Is RfX a vote, or a consensus discussion?
• Proposed deletion of 1,165 portals (2nd batch)
• Spelling "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names
• Meta:Consultation on brand strategy (WMF)

---

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk

Main Page error reports

To report an error on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quote of all or part of the text in question will help.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones: The current date and time is displayed in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 10:40 on 19 April 2019), not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}}, which will not give you a faster response, and in fact causes problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• Done? Once an error has been fixed, or has rotated off the Main Page, or has been acknowledged as not an error, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history for discussion and action taken.
• No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
• Can you fix the issue yourself? If the error is with the content of an article linked from the main page, consider attempting to fix the problem rather than reporting it here.

Errors in On this day

Today's OTD

• Can Good Friday be added to the observancies? There's a few cn tags, but nothing major as far as I can tell. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 10:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Voice of Clam: there are 15 cn tags there, so its a bit high - perhaps this will inspire a cleanup by people that want this listed quickly? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Voice of Clam: And there's an empty section tag, which is also a no-no. —howcheng {chat} 15:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Freddie Gray: Capitalize the first word of the blurb. --173.129.158.82 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Done. Killiondude (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Errors in Did you know...

Current DYK

• (Die sieben Worte) I suggest that the link read "Seven Last Words", which is the common English expression used in the lead of that article. Jmar67 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree because without context, it might be understood as "seven last words" which we really don't know, timewise, I mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding: I changed the article, "last" is not in the title Schütz chose, and I linked to the sayings, rather than to the settings, anyway better background than other compositions. The article about the other compositions should probably be moved to Musical settings of sayings of Jesus on the cross, because titles will be different, and in many languages. Thanks for pointing this out! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said, "Seven Words" links to the "Sayings" article, which calls it "Seven Last Words". This is essentially a proper name and the hook should use it as well. It is not known in English as the "Seven Words". In the work's article, it is just a literal translation of the German. Jmar67 (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a proper name, but Schütz - and we talk about his work - didn't use that name. - Define "last", btw. There are other words by Jesus reported, and likely he will have spoken more unreported, - the Seven are a choice, and could do well without "last". - Similar : "Triumphal entry into Jerusalem", - I gave up fighting that "Triumphal" which looks like POV, but there's a tradition. There seems to be a tradition of saying "last" which comes from the Catholic Latin, but now Schütz, Protestant German, was not in that tradition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Where did the link "Seven Words" come from? What source uses it that way? It should be "Seven Last Words". See the "Sayings" article. What the main article says is just a literal translation of the German and is not what English uses to describe the sayings. Maybe you are relying on readers to recognize that "Seven Words" is the translation of "sieben Worte", but the vast majority of them will not know that. Perhaps someone else can comment here. Jmar67 (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely right that it translates the article it is about, rather saying what other traditions say. "Die sieben Worte Jesu Christi am Kreuz", - no "last" in there. The original title is longer, but also has no "last": Die Sieben Worte unsers lieben Erlösers u. Seeligmachers Jesu Christi, so er am Stamm des Hl. Kreuzes gesprochen[1] (The seven words of our dear redeemer and saviour Jesus Christ, which he spoke on the stem of the Holy Cross). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Admin needed: you are of course right that the hook also needs a change, best change "the Seven Words" to "the seven sayings of Jesus on the cross", as in the article, if character count permits, otherwise "the seven words". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Edited. It's a bit over the character count, but doesn't seem to adversely affect the page balance. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The Elephant

According to the (c) in the picture (File:Shepard elephant poster.jpg) the image File:Roger Shepard with Shepard elephant illusion March 2019 ASU SciAPP conference.jpg is a derivative work and it is copyrighted as well. On the other hand, File:Elephant legs illusion, variant of Roger Shepard's L'egsistential paradox.png seems to be PD. Although both are similar they are not the same. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I have hidden the image after a response at DYK talk. I have requested protection of File:Elephant legs illusion, variant of Roger Shepard's L'egsistential paradox.png but will probably be going offline before it is protected. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Errors in the featured picture

Today's POTD

• Change If dates... (towards the end of the text) to It dates... -⁠-⁠173.129.158.82 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hard to see, but it's still there two hours later ... If dates --> It dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Done. Killiondude (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• This time we had 12 hours to notice before it went live. Art LaPella (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Tomorrow's POTD

Per MOS:', the quotation mark in Argentina’s needs to be replaced with a proper apostrophe. Also, the comma after i.e. seems unnecessary and should be removed. RAVENPVFF · talk ~ 10:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

• The Holburne Museum of Art, the name used in the blurb and the image caption for List of museums in Somerset, appears to be a former name for the Holburne Museum. Ham II (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

General discussion

Native spelling of Pali

Someone is claiming at WP:THQ#Language name misspelled that the native spelling of Pali on the main page is incorrect. Could someone take a look at this and fix the error if there's one? Thanks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this section. I will just add that the native name for the Pali language can be spelled पालि (more common) or पाळि (less common) but the current spelling listed on the main page is पाऴि (with a dot below ळ) and that is simply wrong. Foreverknowledge (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The language is not on Main Page. Your post was not about the English main page but https://www.wikipedia.org/ as you correctly said at the Teahouse. meta:Talk:www.wikipedia.org template says "Changes are now managed via Phabricator and gerrit." I don't know Pali but {{#language:pi}} produces पालि, the first version you suggested. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my mistake PrimeHunter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Reported on Phabricator: T220998 rchard2scout (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that rchard2scout. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright discussion re File:Tottenham hotspur 1901 team.jpg

• (Tottenham) The photo is PD in the US but not the UK. Why is it eligible for the Main Page? Just curious. 72.94.18.179 (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  Fixed. It's a good point. I've replaced the image with an older team photo that has been signed off as good for Commons.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  Amakuru: Can you clarify the issue?
  Fair-use media aren't permitted on the main page, but I'm not aware of any policy (or informal convention) extending this restriction to material in the public domain in the United States, where the Wikimedia Foundation is based. The image in question is ineligible for transfer to the Wikimedia Commons, but that doesn't affect its usage at Wikipedia (beyond necessitating that it be hosted here).
  Any concerns related to downstream reuse are of far greater relevance to the actual article (where the image appears on a public-domain basis, without any reliance on – or even mention of – a fair use claim), which is vastly more likely to be republished than a TFA blurb is. —David Levy 18:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  This must be a fairly rare occurrence, because the period of discrepancy between US and other copyright laws is small. The rules governing what can and can't go on the main page seem to be murky and not well codified, or if they are I haven't found where. But the fact that the image can't be uploaded to commons should be enough of a red flag that we use other options as we did here. Much as the servers are hosted in the US, the editing community are based all over the world and an image which is copyrighted in its own country poses a legal risk that is simply unnecessary in a case like this.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru: Wikipedia is subject to U.S. copyright law. If an image is in the public domain in the U.S., no such legal risk exists. Otherwise, its transclusion in the article would be equally problematic. (It's important to avoid confusing this with fair use, wherein legality is contingent upon suitable context. That's why fair-use images aren't permitted on the main page, where the absence of the article's full prose greatly weakens this justification.)

A great deal of media appearing on our main page may be non-free to many of the site's readers. Per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights:

While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries. For example works of the U.S. federal government are in the public domain in the United States and widely used on Wikipedia, but they may not be in the public domain outside the United States.

This includes Commons-hosted media, which need only be free in the U.S. and the country of origin – and might be non-free elsewhere. This is not a rare occurrence; it's merely one that doesn't specifically preclude Commons hosting (without impacting Wikipedia hosting) unless one particular country (the country of origin) is affected.

In other words, a file bearing the template advising against a Commons transfer is not necessarily free in fewer countries than a Commons-hosted image is. Such tagging merely indicates that the material is free in the United States (and therefore free for the purposes of Wikipedia) but not free in its single country of origin. It's possible for such a file to be free everywhere else on the planet. Likewise, it's possible for a Commons-hosted file to be free in only one or two countries and non-free throughout much or all of the rest of the world. Again quoting Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights:

"it is the responsibility of contributors to determine that content they wish to contribute is free of copyright constraints in the United States and to supply as much copyright information as possible so that users can judge for themselves whether they can reuse our material outside the United States. It is the responsibility of reusers to ensure that their use of Wikipedia material is legal in the country in which they use it.

The intent behind the TFA image's replacement was laudable (and I want to stress that point, lest I come across as someone who doesn't take the site's free-content mission seriously), but the premise that it solved a problem was rooted in a misunderstanding of copyright and conflation with the concept of fair use. —David Levy 06:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@David Levy: as a Commons admin, perhaps you can tell me the background for the rule banning works that are copyrighted in their country of origin, as well as those that are non-free in the US? I am not entirely sure why a rule that would apply there should not apply here, since both are hosted on the same servers and Wikimedia and individual editors are subject to the same risk of litigation in either case. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Files uploaded to English Wikipedia are "local files" which means that they can only be used on English Wikipedia pages, whereas files uploaded to Commons are "global files" which means they can be used on any Wikimedia Foundation project page. Since copyright law can vary quite a bit from country to country, some language Wikipedias have different policies and guidelines when it comes to image use and licensing; for example, Commons doesn't accept any fair use content, but some local Wikipedias like English Wikipedia do (per WP:NFC) and others like Norwegian Wikipedia don't at all. My guess is that local Wikipedias are primarily only concerned about whether the content is being used appropriately per their respective country's copyright laws when determining how the file should be licensed on its pages. Another example of this on English Wikipedia, {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is sometimes used for files which are WP:PD in the US, but not it their countries of origin; these files are still local files, but they licensed as PD based upon US copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This explanation is helpful. The relevant distinction is that Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia, not a free media repository.

(As a minor point, the relevant definition of "free" encompasses works free of copyright and copyrighted works released under free licenses.) —David Levy 09:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

(reset) Have there been any cases where this 'multiple copyright expiration dates' has proved an actual issue (rather than 'this is slightly early in the context' and an alternative is found)? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Main apge listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Main apge. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Online Wiki name search?

Why isn't my wiki profile and bio not appearing online when I do a name search? Byron J. Walker (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Because, by default, Wikipedia uses the "noindex" function on most pages outside of the article space, that is user pages and user talk pages get "noindexed" by default. This tells search engines like Google to not use those pages in search results. See WP:NOINDEX for more information. This is because, as an online encyclopedia, only the actual, encyclopedic content (i.e. the articles themselves) are the "front facing" part of Wikipedia. The rest of Wikipedia (policy pages, discussions, user pages, etc.) aren't meant for that purpose. --Jayron32 16:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Byron J. Walker: But see also WP:NOTWEBHOST. Isa (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)