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 12:01 on 2 November 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 in "Did you know ..."

Errors in "On this day"

Tomorrow's OTD

The top says Dominican Constitution Day was November 3, 2025, not 2026. I'd fix it, but like the U.S., they move some holidays to Monday. Sources disagree on whether the real 2026 Constitution Day is Friday Nov. 6, Monday Nov. 9, or other combinations, and nobody says Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026. I almost deleted it, but the invisible comment says "Please do not delete, but update when it is appropriate to do so." How? Art LaPella (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, this was wrong last year as well, because the holiday was November 10! Consititution Day itself is always on November 6, as the article says, but the holiday to observe it is on the Monday before or after the 6th (this year it's on the 9th) . So I'll move it to the 6th, and it should stay there. We are not interested in the bank holiday, just as we don't say that New Year's Day moves to the 2nd when it is on a Sunday, even though the holiday may be taken then. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Errors in "This week's article for improvement"

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Monday's FL

(November 2, today)

Wednesday's FL

(November 4)

Friday's FL

(November 6)

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)

If you want to hide it, you can add #mp-afi-h2, #mp-afi { display: none; } to your common.css page here. Cheers! RemoveRedSky ^[talk] 16:28, 28 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)

I agree. PLEASE AT LEAST MOVE IT — Ultimate Ultimatum (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

MOVE IT BELOW CURRENT NEWS BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE DONT WANT TO SCROLL DOWN TO SEE CURRENT NEWS — Ultimate Ultimatum (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, keeping it above Current news implies Wikipedia asserts dominance over important events. What if a war was getting worse and Wikipedia thinks an unimportant article which needs improving such as "Mechanic" is more important? I DEMAND Wikipedia move Help us improve this article! below Current news — Ultimate Ultimatum (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded rude. 😓 I don't know what I was thinking. — Ultimate Ultimatum (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@UltimateUltimatum: It's all good. You might want to comment at the upcoming Request for Comment (RfC) which should cover placement. There is also an ongoing RfC about changes to the news on the main page at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/ITN reform/RFC phase. These and similar discussions are typically announced on {{cent}} which you can watchlist. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the TWAFI should be moved below the ITN penal. It's the poor placement for it and it feels like that new penal is dominating what is going on with the world. To be frank, I don't care about the TWAFI and what it values. The placement on it above the ITN is really bad and should be moved below and if you can't or won't set up a proper RfC for it, then me or someone else will do it. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Let's jump to the facts. What if World War III started and Wikipedia suggests that editing a less important article like Mechanic is more important? I believe Wikipedia should move TWAFI below ITN ASAP. — Ultimate Ultimatum (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I agree, but TWAFI should also be below OTD.

Contributing to the Frozen Yogurt article is always relevant, but the On This Day facts are only really relevant on this day. As well, people curate both ITN and OTD, but AFI is basically a randomly selected article, so it should be given lower visibility. DrDogs (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I just want to add my support for TWAFI being added to the Main Page. I somehow missed the RfC, but I think this is a great idea and an easy way to get casual readers interested in editing Wikipedia. The implementation might need some UI tweaks but overall congrats to the editors involved for changing such an important part of the site for the better. qcne (talk) 10:36, 29 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)

RfC on reforming ITN

An RfC on reforming ITN is now open at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/ITN reform/RFC phase.

It follows an RfC on a specific aspect of ITN that digressed into various other aspects, as well as long-running disputes over how aspects of ITN should work (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments).

This RfC will not include a proposal to abolish ITN. Instead, if any reforms pass, a second RfC will be held on only that question three months after all questions in that RfC have closed, allowing the impact of any reforms agreed to in this RfC to be observed before that is discussed. If no reforms pass, the second RfC discussing the abolishment of ITN may commence anytime after that one closes. Please do not use any of the proposals to argue for that at this time. The workshop for the RfC can be found here.

Proposals in this RfC (Σ = 10)

#	Topic	Options	Result	Note
Posting criteria
1.1	Significance	4
1.2	Recent Death blurbs	2
Closing criteria
2.1	Blurb wording	3
2.2	Precedent	2
2.3	Items not at ITNR	2
2.3	Pulling blurbs	2
Reforming ITNR
3.1	Abolishing ITNR	2
3.2	Removing categories from ITNR	4
3.3	ITNR as a recommendation	2
Nomination recognition
4.1	Nomination recognition	2

02:04, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Quaking Pudding

This distracting little auto-running video is bypassing the Autorun Block settings in Microsoft Edge, and also an Edge extension designed to block videos. How, and why, is this? Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

It's an animated GIF, not a video. -- Veggies (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@MidnightBlueMan: because it's an animated GIF, an extension to block videos will have no effect. You can use something like "Animation Policy" to control whether animated images will animate as usual (default), just once, or not at all. Ad blockers like uBlock can also prevent GIF files from showing up period. Hope that helps, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Let the public vote with ease

A lot of Wikipedia decisions are done by voting. The voting although is mostly done by limited amounts of voters. Skewing the voting outcome.

Most often people are not aware of the possibility to vote for something. Only when there is a major important change to happen that involve all, then a banner will pop up on top of the screen when visiting any website of Wikipedia. For example when there is a need for cash then a donation banner will up occasionally.

In the real world similar kind of obscured voting has happened. Previously voting was done only at designated placed which are evenly spread over districts. Nowadays more polling stations has popped up at intersections of people stream: translations, cafe, schools etc. Now a similar approach is opted for Wikipedia.

The idea is to place the notification to vote at the landing page or at the main page of Wikipedia. Here are the places where people go to or initially land on when visiting. Not much is asked. Only a little section of the page, frame with a small text: "Vote of the week: 2026 feature request" or some other form of voting currently active, and a link to dedicated area.

This fit with other topics on the page such as Picture of the Week and Edit of the week. This could be extend into:

• Picture of the week
• Edit of the week
• Book of the week  

* Vote of the week

• Media of the month
• Best idea of the year
• etc. ...

( Also do take note of the fact that this is part of the broader request to enhance the voting:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Wishlist#Fair_procedure_for_a_better_voting_system )
Public-Publicity (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

except WP works by consensus discussion and no process is a vote. We have straw polls at times but thats usually to aid in determining how to frame a following RFC or similar request for input. Masem (t) 19:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Even if this is the case, even if it is not just about voting, it is about decision making for the general, shouldn't be the public be made more aware about this?

Or do you like to keep it more as back-ally voting or just somewhere else like the Community_portal?

A nudge once a while would not be so strange, would it? It gives more transparency to Wikipedia and their public what is going on. It give people/topic/ideas/etc. a more honest change. It gives people the ability to act upon or not on a low level. Etc.

Just asking ... Public-Publicity (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

This suggestion is probably better suited to one of the Village pumps, I would guess Village pump (proposals). — Fox 11:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Discussion page? You can if you like. I will not discuss any further. Made my point already and that is it. Public-Publicity (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

You can turn off donation requests in your account preferences. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

World Series

Shouldn't the Brewers winning the 2026 World Series be in the "In The News..." section? Timmy8426 (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

It's being discussed in WP:ITNC at the moment; a consensus that the article is in an updated enough state to post it has been reached and we're just waiting for an Admin to post it on ITN. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 21:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Timmy8426 (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Updating Article for Improvement image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to update the image associated with this week's Article for Improvement because editors have improved the images in the article. Please feel free to share thoughts, supports, or objections: Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement#Change image on Main Page. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: the file in use in the article's infobox has been slightly altered File:Mechanic shop 04 (cropped).jpg. (Only File:Mechanic shop 04.jpg is protected.) I would support an image change following consensus. Wracking ^talk! 22:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move the Articles for improvement section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dearest Wikipedia,

If you don't remove the Articles for improvement section entirely, move it below the In the news section. It blocks the In the news section, stalling people from finding out about current events, such as Patrick Stewart (a beloved actor)'s death. I know people can scroll down and find the news waiting, but I think it's important they find out right away. Before you start speaking against this, I want to remind you I am not the first person to speak against a company for forcing viewers to scroll down. Also, I am not angry, just pointing out human error. Not even I am perfect. — Ultimate Ultimatum (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.