Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

Main page: Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

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 16:51 on 27 October 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 item has been addressed, determined not to be an error, or 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"

• Serbian election- it seems odd to have a picture of the loser; is there no suitable image related to the winning side? 331dot (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

  I have swapped it out for a pic of the second hook for now. I agree we shouldn't have a pic of the losing candidate, particularly when the image in question doesn't even appear in the linkjed article. And the winning side has no single winner or obvious pic relating to them.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

"Michael D. Higgins (pictured) was elected President of Ireland with far more votes than any politician in the country's history." to "Michael D. Higgins (pictured) was elected President of Ireland with more than one million votes." In the 2025 Irish presidential election, Catherine Connolly received more first-preference votes than Higgins. Sahaib (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

• Added "at the time". Probably worth switching that one out for next year. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

you are wrong ~2026-57367-91 (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's helpful. If you'd explain how it is wrong we could fix it - as it is, we can't. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@Black Kite: This blurb seems to be comparing apples and oranges. The linked 2011 election article shows his votes as 1st preference 701,101, and 2nd and final count 1,007,104. The subsequent 2025 election's article referred to above shows her 1st and final count as 914,143. The wording needs to be clear what's being compared: so

* 2011 – Michael D. Higgins (pictured) was elected President of Ireland with a far greater final vote count than any politician in the country's history at the time. might be better.

Bazza 7 (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Replaced I'm going to swap this out - just waiting for the replacement image to be protected. Black Kite (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Errors in "This week's article for improvement"

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Monday's FL

(November 2)

Wednesday's FL

(October 28, tomorrow)

Friday's FL

(October 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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Adding AFI to Main Page

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Adding AFI to Main Page. Articles for improvement is preparing to implement the results of the RfC adding TWAFI to the Main Page. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 04:57, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

This re-design significantly reduces my (and many others?) use of the main page. At work I could very quickly load the main page (despite work VPN servers being on the other side of the world) and right at the top see links to ongoing wars or significant events I need to have overview on. Now I have to scroll down and find links in a sea of links. But I guess for the diehard wiki editors this AFI section is important song congrats on your victory and making it worse for everyone else.Oathed (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Why is there a new panel on the main page?

Why is there a new panel on the main page showing the current AFI? Was this subject to any significant discussion? If so, where? I sure never saw it...granted, I don't see everything, but I've gone looking for where it might have taken place, and I still can't find anything. It's hard to imagine the usual crowd here would have been all that enthusiastic about it. I kind of think it's a bad idea, and I think it should be undone. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:08, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

There is a panel because consensus was found for the idea. This consensus emerged from a significant discussion. This discussion was held on the Proposals pump (later moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adding this week's article for improvement to the Main page), shared via T:CENT, and discussed post-close on this talkpage. Consider adding your thoughts to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Brainstorming ways to deal with the super ugly blank space to the left of OTD now that AFI is on the main page to keep discussion together. CMD (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

How about my thoughts about how to get rid of this horrible idea entirely? (there is no blank space) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:49, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

The linked discussion includes such thoughts. CMD (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it should be put below the News panel, not above it. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree, it should be below the News panel. It just looks out of place where it is at the moment. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I also agree, it is extremely out of place, i don't support it MazurTutejszy (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I fully agree with this! As an editor who relies on Ongoing, Recent Deaths, and everything else in this panel, it's becoming very inconvenient to use. I've already accidentally clicked "For new editors" many times out of habit lol. I'm happy with this new feature, but I think it would be better to place it between "In the news" and "On this day."  PLATEL  (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

+10000 - Having it above "In the news" is ridiculous. — Longewal (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Note for everyone replying: there will be an RfC on this, see the discussion here and the draft RfC here. 7amiþ = reform(solidarity).__init__(t, c) # Leave a talkback, TWAfI's wild rn 23:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Seeing this is a nice surprise, particularly as it is so hard to get people to do something new around here - organizational inertia has really set into Wikipedia. Kudos to all who pushed this through _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

What an unprofessional look for Wikipedia's main page. Might as well start up the daily crossword puzzle and a horoscope to further downgrade the encyclopedia. And no idea why the above discussion was closed, even if other discussions exist this is where topics about the main page should be commented on. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Comments like your have already been shared elsewhere. The discussion was closed because WP:MULTI doesn't allow starting similar discussions on multiple pages, and says If you find a fragmented discussion, consider closing the old discussion or moving all posts to one location and linking from the old locations to the new one.. Please d not continue this duplicate discussion here. FaviFake (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

A major change like this should also be discussed here, the talk page of where the change occurred. Nothing wrong in grumbling about adding an unprofessional look to this esteemed encyclopdia in more than one place. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Two comments:

- Regardless of whether you're correct about WP:MULTI, you are WP:INVOLVED. I really don't think you should be speedy closing talk page discussions which are critical of your position. If it's truly a speedy close scenario due to duplication concerns, someone else will do it.

- The talk page discussion at Village Pump is expressly about the "super ugly blank space". Yes, some editors are complaining about AFI generally, but there is not (to my knowledge) any targeted discussion yet about whether the RFC was premature, improper, and/or had insufficient consensus more generally. I don't think WP:MULTI applies to prohibit broader discussions about the main page just because there is an ongoing discussion about a very specific blank space somewhere else. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 14:55, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Technically there's also a couple threads at WT:AFI that are identical to this one, but since this flood of comments can't be governed I've reopened it. Just know that there will be an RfC about the placement of TWAFI in the coming weeks, so these comments won't really have much effect. FaviFake (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of the WT:AFI threads. I'll have to have a look through them. No harshness or criticism intended, your and the AFI teams passion for improving the project is really great and commended by me and many others. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 15:01, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

It looks great! Good to see some progress to the Main Page when it's been stagnant for two decades. Maybe put TWAFI below ITN, as others have suggested, but I'm otherwise glad this change has happened! :) Acalamari 14:54, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

FWIW I completely agree with this, I'm not trying to be critical and grumpy for no reason. I think TWAFI is a great initiative. I just don't understand why we knowingly added something to the Main Page that wasn't ready and which we seemed to know going in had only a very weak consensus at best. If there's any single page on Wikipedia which calls for a strong clear consensus and a higher standard of quality before rollout, it is the Main Page. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 15:00, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

why we knowingly added something to the Main Page that wasn't ready
We intentionally rushed it because the project stalled and no progress was being made. See my comments.

we seemed to know going in had only a very weak consensus at best
This was explained in the RfC closure. Since the closure was not challenged, it remained in effect:

There is a world where establishing firm consensus on this crucial matter would be required, and thus the implementation would be delayed. This was not the case here. Given the commentary for this proposal overall, even by those who expressed serious concerns about P2 and/or who wanted an alternative not originally listed, there seemed to be enthusiasm for moving forward, and thus no consensus to delay pending a firm decision on this issue.

FaviFake (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

We intentionally rushed it because the project stalled and no progress was being made. I'm just looking at that sentence and I suspect my eyebrows are higher than they have been for a very long time. Seriously? Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Fewer things were fixed during the two months of implementation compared to the first 24 hours on the main page, imo.

Once it's on the main page, more people will come, enraged that the project is in such bad shape, and they'll help fix everything.

I think my prediction proved correct. At some point you need to ship something even if it's not perfect.

Besides, the main complaint that people have concerns TWAFI's placement on the main page, which we were not able to change as it was decided two months prior at the RfC. FaviFake (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not against TWAFI, I think it's a good idea, but I can't help thinking that its introduction could have been handled somewhat better. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Of course it could have. If more than 50 people had participated in the RfC, we could've reached consensus on the placement before the actual implementation. FaviFake (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

In hindsight, the RfC should also have had more placement options. InfernoHues (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Either that or a second RFC to determine placement. Even then it was admitted that there was a very weak consensus as to where on the Main Page the new box should have been placed. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:09, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. This was definitely a learning experience for me on how to propose changes (TWAFI was the first RfC I ever started). InfernoHues (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry, it was a good one! My first RfC was started during a RM because I didn't understand what RfCs were. Maybe @The Grid remembers it, they thought I was a SPA! Lol. FaviFake (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Considering there was what looked like off-wiki canvassing, it was hard to AGF. It's water under the bridge. 🙂 – The Grid (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Of course! It's hard to follow a guideline while being unaware of the existence of such guideline :)   FaviFake (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

It should be removed pending the proposed clarifying RfC decision, not placed there before the RfC process has run its course. Horse backwards, especially for a change at the top of the showcase page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

p.s., how about one or two days a week and not daily. What put me off earlier was the exclamation point, like a supermarket sale, but upon looking at the history page of the article of the week it seems lots of editors responded to this appeal and have edited the page. Also noted that many editors support this idea. So, how about one or two days, maybe Monday, or Monday and Tuesday, every week, and remove it from the daily main page the other six days. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Agree with this. Having such a prominent piece of the main page which stays static for a whole week is not ideal, and does not fit with the other sections which are designed to update frequently. Either we should rotate the AFI daily or it should come off after a couple of days. The original RfC did not even address the duration that AFI would stay on the main page, so there is certainly no consensus that it should stay up for a whole week. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:53, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Rotating is good, but with similar "get involved" sections. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Like advertising uploading images to Commons, etc. It is high time we used the Main Page for something benefiting Wikimedia, increasing activity here, not just directly benefiting the readers. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Staying up for 1 week is far too long. We're not short on articles requiring improvement. If other components of the main page changes daily, so should TWAFI. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:21, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree; the intention was always to revisit the timing once the project had gotten going. The weekly schedule was kept from the original WP:AFI in order to minimize the number of changes happening at once, and since the RfC came to "no consensus" on the timing. I think daily might be a bit much (the article now is much better than it was after one day), but I could see a change happening 2-3 times a week. InfernoHues (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Definitely not daily, too short. FaviFake (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Fair, I meant that we should have 2+ elements like this and alternate daily. The simplest idea is to have several articles for improvement running concurrently and advertising one, but we should also prioritize advertising other stuff like various Wiki competitions and such, which sometimes get banners (Wiki Loves Monuments, but there are also dozens smaller ones that are usually poorly advertised). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:41, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I think we either move the panel below the news panel or we get rid of it because it's placement is too inconvenient and frustrating to many users. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I was not aware of the discussion as I was inactive at the time, so I am taking some leeway to share my view. While the initiative is commendable, the execution is not, and I would have opposed at the time. It simply looks unprofessional in its current state and messes up main page balance. Curbon7 (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I !voted against this addition and am disappointed to see that it was implemented with such poor formatting and placement. Putting something that won't change for a week in the second-most prominent spot on the MP, with formatting that doesn't mesh with the other items around it, is a very poor design choice. If there's really site-wide consensus to feature TWAFI on the MP (which I doubt), it should be down the bottom and limited to one or two days per week. It could share the TFL slot, running on days that TFL does not. Modest Genius ^talk 17:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

From your !vote,

I have no objection to TWAFI existing, ... but I don't think it should be on the Main Page or otherwise advertised to readers.

It does sound like you do object to TWAFI existing. The central goal of TWAFI is to turn readers into editors, not to improve articles. We have a dozen other processes to do the "improvement" part. FaviFake (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I think TWAFI should be on a page that is aimed at editors, not readers. Perhaps in the Signpost, not the Main Page. Modest Genius ^talk 13:03, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

And how will that help us turn readers into editors, exactly? FaviFake (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of the Main Page. Modest Genius ^talk 16:24, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I think the execution setup of it was piss-poor on everyone's part. Something should improve of this because the placement of it is not good and if you can't or won;t see it that way, then we should consider setting up a discussion to amend the location of the TWAFI penal. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

BattleshipMan - that discussion is already occuring here. InfernoHues (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah, yet another discussion hidden away on an obscure page, that hasn't been advertised here (the talk page for the article it affects!) and has expanded well beyond the subject in the heading. That is not a good way of getting input from the users who are affected, and is something that should have been decided before implementation. Modest Genius ^talk 13:03, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

This. The sheer amount of twists and turns I've had to take just to find the discussions about this whole matter have been frustrating. It's very much the sort of thing that only super-active users would know about; even casual (but experienced) editors like myself don't often have time to get involved with that. It feels like a small group of Wikipedia ultra-nerds decided this thing for everyone, in favour of an article that only ultra-nerds would care about. It certainly doesn't inspire me to go and improve any new articles simply because of the frustration and helplessness it engenders (I only improve articles I have some knowledge about, or just fix typos). There really should've been a banner to the relevant discussion on the front page to inform the vast majority of users who wouldn't have found the discussions otherwise and who were just smacked in the face with this thing without warning.

Right now, it makes Wikipedia look amateurish, in a way that prioritises hobbyists (the kinds of people who edit Wikipedia all the time) and their projects beyond much bigger stuff, like major world news. The people who'd be interested in getting involved in improving articles is a small handful of folks, and all power to them. But most people who come to the front page, I presume, do want to see the news first, and most never will become editors any more than most newspaper readers want to become journalists. It's a bit like if I wanted to know the Latin name of a bird and went to an online bird encyclopedia to check, but were pestered to join a birdwatchers' club before I got there, and it'd make the site look like it was primarily for birdwatchers, instead of just distributing information about birds for everyone who's curious. I can't help but feel that some people would read that as alienating. Sure, it's not as bad as those sites that kick you out for "inactivity" if you happen to have a life and can't contribute on the same level as the people who maintain the site all day, or sites that require you to create an account you'll never use again if you just want to access one small thing on their site. But still. It's a bad case of tunnel vision on part of whoever voted for the current placement. Especially what with the "surely, this'll help everyone become as nerdy as I am about Wikipedia editing!" attitude among some of the people involved--well-meant but kind of unrealistic, given the huge number of people visiting the site who come from all walks of life and who aren't necessarily of the editor type.

And all of this is just due to the placement and the somewhat pestering flavour I get from the whole thing. If it'd been added to the bottom of the page, it wouldn't have been as intrusive, nor would it give the same effect. Like others have said, it'd be like putting the crossword on the front page of a major newspaper--it'd make it look like a crossword magazine. If it'd been underneath ITN I wouldn't have given a fig. Snowgrouse (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Like others have said, it'd be like putting the crossword on the front page of a major newspaper--it'd make it look like a crossword magazine.
No it wouldn't. People completing crossword puzzles do not help WRITE the newspaper itself. If you want to use this analogy, it would be like inviting readers to submit a story they wrote so that it can be reviewed and published on that same newspaper. FaviFake (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Which is why I edited to add this bit:

"The people who'd be interested in getting involved in improving articles is a small handful of folks, and all power to them. But most people who come to the front page, I presume, do want to see the news first, and most never will become editors any more than most newspaper readers want to become journalists."

Don't get petty, please; it doesn't help. It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously thanks to how hard you're pushing this particular choice of layout and the way you needle every single person who's criticised it, over and over. Thanks to that, it's starting to look less and less like a group effort, and more and more like FaviFake's Pet Project Which Nobody Is Allowed To Complain About. I doubt that's what you want. You can't force people to like it, and pushing harder is just going to have the opposite effect.

Again, I have no problem with the box existing. Just its placement in the layout. Snowgrouse (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

What? I don't like this particular choice of layout, I think it looks terrible and it should be changed. Which is why we'll have an RfC about it, which will hopefully attract more participants. FaviFake (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

As I see it, though I'd love for TWAfI to be up atop the MP, any TWAfI spot would be better than none. I came into this project as a new editor who was genuinely interested in Wikipedia, but who was only slowly convinced to stay to edit (and had to dig my own way through the depths to learn how to properly edit). Even if TWAfI is the very last item, having something there for engaged readers/down-scrollers like me to hook them would be great. (We might filter out some of the crasser vandals, too.) 7amiþ = reform(solidarity).__init__(t, c) # Leave a talkback, TWAfI's wild rn 18:33, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• The main page currently looks like shit. The web designer in me is banging his head on the desk. Please move the new module below Today's Featured Picture and make it full width, and that will be fine. Currently the page is unbalanced, and the priorities are all wrong. In the News is serious business and shouldn't be below the pitch for new editors. The logical progression is to highlight our best stuff and our newest stuff, and then make an appeal for readers to help improve articles. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

  The panels have always been unbalanced and I haaaaaaaaaate it. I have no idea why they couldn't make it balanced years ago. Now it's even MORE unbalanced. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Good job to those of you who pushed for this change. If you can reprocess all of the "this is not what I'm used to and it's the worst thing that's ever happened" comments as "the execution could be a bit cleaner; let's brainstorm ways to improve it" this seems like a good experiment so far. It looks like there have already been more than a hundred users with less than ten edits who have edited this article since it appeared on the main page. Not all of them are going to be great, of course, but anything that's not a net negative is what we're going for here (and arguably, even the good faith negative edits introduce people to the edit of editing and give us a chance to welcome them). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:38, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. Bottom line: ignore the whining of "in my days, the Main Page looked different" crowd, and focus on the fact that we are getting new blood and improving the target article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

• I'm glad we added it, and it looks great on mobile. Though on desktop...it does not look like the version that consensus was found for. User:Chaotic_Enby/Main_Page_rebalanced, with equal width columns, got the winning vote (even if weakly). But the current page...does not look like that. The column widths are out of wack. Whats up with that? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:52, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  I answered my own question, its being discussed in several places, like Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Update_and_summary. But I still think its wack we immediately went to a different layout that...frankly kinda ugly. Weird width. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Well, I don't use the mobile version of Wikipedia. That penal is a massive disapprovement to some veteran users on here. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the warning at the top of this thread - I don't want to hide it; I just want ITN and OTD back where they were. The warning does not help in this regard. ―"GraveDragon-X" _(hihi) 06:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this user. Hiding that stuff does not help anything and I don't use common.css on anything. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Undue to include the same link on a daily basis. Just noticed that the link to this week's article is still there and has been up all week and is prominently displayed along with the feature article. This seem's like putting extreme undue emphasis on one article, day after day. If this feature must be kept please limit it to one day a week (and it seems that deciding what is on the main page should be the responsibility of this talk page and not random discussions elsewhere). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

The village pump has much better visibility than this page, so it makes sense to have discussions there. Given that a large one has already started, it's probably best to move over there. InfernoHues (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I hate it and it's ugly and I have to look at a single stupid article for a whole week. The ITN is far more interesting, dynamic, and useful. It also links to more articles that are also relevant. AFI would seem to be way less important than featured list, featured article, ITN, etc. It shouldn't be at the top. I do have a habit of checking the main page, and glancing over to ITN to get a quick recap of news stories I may have missed. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

ITN regularly leaves stale blurbs up for more than a week. I'd support restoring ITN to its former place if, and only if, there were real structural change to accelerate the cycling of blurbs on ITN. Einsof (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

We are having a mega-RFC on ITN reform soon, that will hopefully try to address this. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:29, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! For anyone else looking for the pre-RFC discussion, it is here: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/ITN reform RFC workshop. Einsof (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

• And now Mechanic is being given daily quasi-feature status, as WP:UNDUE as anything I've seen on the main page. This talk page should be able to decide here to take it down or, at most, put the ArticleForImprovement there once a week and not feature it daily. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Error regarding Urdu

At the bottom of the page Urdu Wikipedia is under the section of 50,000+ articles, however it has 700,000 articles? گ-ژ-چ-پ-ڤ (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

This is correct. Apparently since 19 April 2026, when it reached 300,000 articles, it has gained 400,000 articles; it reached 200,000 in January 2024. I assume this is the result of some bot mass-creating stubs, like on Cebuano Wikipedia. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

If it's the case that we discount bot-created articles, then I'm also unsure whether Swedish Wikipedia possesses more than a million human-created articles either (more information here). It does not seem reasonable, but rather Western-centric, to exclude the Urdu and Cebuano versions while keeping the Swedish one listed. BasicWriting (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Swedish Wikipedia seems to roughly possess 1.5 million articles not created by Lsjbot by looking at the more recent statistics referenced in that article. 1brianm7 (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2026 (UTC)