Welcome! This page is for discussing the contents of the English Wikipedia'sMain Page. For general questions unrelated to the Main Page, please visit theTeahouse or check the links below. To add content to an article, edit that article's page. Irrelevant posts on this page may be removed. Click here to report errors on the Main Page.
If you have a question related to the Main Page, please search the talk page archives first to check if it has previously been addressed:
References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
Time zones. The Main Page runs onCoordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 17:12 on 23 November 2025) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually onlyprotected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you canbe bold and fix any issues yourself.
Do not use{{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which willnot get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems.(See the bottom ofthis revision for an example.)
No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
Actual errors only. Failures of subjective criteria such as taste are not errors.
Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment.Be civil to fellow users.
Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Checkthe revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; noarchives are kept.
... that Rosa Dubovsky admonished male anarchists for misusing free love to justify promiscuity: both cited sources use the term "indiscriminate sex", which is quite different from "promiscuity", and it's clear in context that they're talking about sexual exploitation -- essentially, saying that the principle of "free love" removes any ethical barriers to having sex with anybody. This is a problem: it means that the hook is not, in fact, cited, as it is not stated in the cited sources. As "indiscriminate sex" is not particularly clear out of context, I've changed to that in the article body and to "sexual exploitation" in the hook. Very happy to workshop alternatives. Courtesy pings toDclemens1971,Maximilian775 andGrnrchst.UndercoverClassicistT·C13:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not exactly, it'sengaging in sexual activity frequently with different partners or being indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners (emphasis mine). The expected interpretation of "...to justify promiscuity" is something like "to justify consensual sex with lots of people", not "to justify sexual exploitation and coercion". Plus,since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, we could look at dictionaries:Merriam-Webster has "promiscuous" ashaving or involving many sexual partners : not restricted to one sexual partner or few sexual partners;Cambridge has(of a person) having a lot of different sexual partners or sexual relationships, or (of sexual habits) involving a lot of different partners. Neither is compatible with the sources here.UndercoverClassicistT·C13:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article is citing a source for that definition though... it'sThe Free Dictionary:pro·mis·cu·ous (prə-mĭs′kyo͞o-əs) adj. 1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners." --Grnrchst (talk)13:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist I was just typing the same response as @Grnrchst. The source doesn't use the term "sexual exploitation" either, and I agree with Grnrchst that "promiscuity" gets at the spirit of "indiscriminate sex" better. IMO, "sexual exploitation" reads more interpretation into the source than the original framing. Thus, I don't think this is an error and I don't think it should have been changed prior to consultation.Dclemens1971 (talk)13:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source (in the Spanish version: the book source seems to be a translation, but I can't view p. 150) hasSandra McGee Deutsch ha señalado que “Chanovsky intentó frenar la explotación de las mujeres a su alrededor.Para prevenir el abuso sexual, advirtió a los hombres anarquistas que el ‘amor libre’ no significaba sexo indiscriminado.. In my schoolboy Spanish, that's something likeChanovskytried to prevent the exploitation of the women around her.To prevent sexual abuse, she warned anarchist men that "free love" did not mean indiscriminate sex. Again, emphasis mine, but I can't see the usual meaning of "promiscuity" here -- it's very obviously about sexual exploitation, and the source puts those things together (twice).UndercoverClassicistT·C13:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tarcus is literally quoting McGee's book! The book isn't a translation, it's the other way around. I quoted the passage from McGee in the talk page:"To prevent sexual abuse, [Dubovsky] admonished male anarchists that "free love" did not mean indiscriminate sex." --Grnrchst (talk)13:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so we do have "to prevent sexual abuse" in both -- which is very clearly being equated with "indiscriminate sex" in the source(s). Again, that's very much not the same thing as "promiscuity". If I was spot-checking the article forWP:V at GA or TSI, I would not pass "to justify promiscuity" as a reasonable reflection of the source.UndercoverClassicistT·C14:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up several definitions of both promiscuity and "indiscriminate sex" that defined them synonymously, but if you think it is unreasonable for me to have understood it that way, then I won't push back any further. --Grnrchst (talk)14:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist I do think this conversation reveals there is no consensus for your change and that your change was contested. I don’t have the ability to revert on the homepage but in the spirit of BRD I think you should revert until a consensus for your view emerges.Dclemens1971 (talk)14:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
@FaviFake: What's on the main page isnot today's featured article; it's an extract from it, with a link to read the full article at the end. So "From today's featured article" is correct.Bazza 7 (talk)21:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't obvious. The word "from" was added after I asked my wife to show me Today's Featured Article, and she pointed to the blurb, and was confused when I said "wrong". Why shouldn't she? It said "Today's Featured Article". Only Wikipedia insiders have any reason to know or care if an article is featured or not, or to know how many paragraphs it should have. Ask somebody who doesn't use Wikipedia much.Art LaPella (talk)01:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To expand on Bazza_7's point, the distinction between today's featured article and the blurb of today's featured article is neither philosophical nor academic; it acts merely as a conduit to another page. A similar distinction exists, for example, between thenames of things andwhat things are called. The difference with TFP is that the image is shown in its entirety, not a portion of it. Frankly, this smacks rather ofWP:BIKESHEDing.—Fortuna,imperatrix17:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FaviFake: The last sentence of @Fortuna imperatrix mundi's comment was a little unkind, I thought. Your suggestion was succinctly and politely made, and deserved consideration. I'm always happy to give my opinion, read others', and see a consensus build, regardless of the outcome; it beats reading the news elsewhere.Bazza 7 (talk)19:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a one-off, or only occasional, the description might be unkind; but it follows a recent—final—warning froman admin concerning precisely this kind of thing (specifically,ill-advised unilateral undiscussed changes to pages in project space). But no offence of course.—Fortuna,imperatrix19:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The difference between the article itself and an extract is academic. "Today's featured article" is far clearer, less confusing, better-looking, and more concise. Should we also retitle "In the News" to "events in the news" since all the blurbs aren't direct quotations?Cremastra (talk·contribs)21:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above: it's a reasonable suggestion, but I think a lot of uninitiated readers will be confused into thinking that the blurbis the whole article -- the only clue against that will be the "Full article" link at the end, which isn't particularly prominent. I would expect a small but regular trickly ofWP:ERRORS reports saying "how come this "Featured" article is so short and doesn't have any references?"UndercoverClassicistT·C07:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The main page serves primarily to guide readers to linked articles, and the top left section is the section which guides us to today's featured article. The blurb is a handy primer to whet people's appetite for the TFA, but it is not the TFA itself, not is it the primary thing that we want readers to look at in that regard. The caption at the top should describe the purpose of that section, not a literal description of what lies below it. Take a look atthe YouTube website for example. On my version I see a section near the top called "Shorts", with a number of large photo thumbnails underneath. Are those photos the shorts? No, of course not, they're just clickable tokens that take you through to shorts. Should YouTube change the word "Shorts" to say "Thumbnails for shorts" to be accurate? No, if course not. We need to come at this from the POV of a reader-focused Web designer, not a literal-minded encyclopedian. 🙂 — Amakuru (talk)14:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to readers. TFA is unlike the other parts of the Main Page in that it contains anextract of an article, not merely a blurb linking to an article. Now whether anyone notices 'From' is another matter, but it's better to be accurate and it only costs four characters.Modest Geniustalk20:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... what doesthat have to do with anything in this discussion? I've never been warned about my behaviour in discussions; this is completely irrelevant.I'm trying to understand why some editors are !voting by stating a fact we all agree on. Is it because it's clearer? Less likely to be confused? The (Full article) isn't enough?Three oppose !votes are just votes.FaviFake (talk)16:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree about the confusion that the absence of "from" will cause. And I don't see any problem with retaining the "from" for clarity; it is only 5 more characters.JMCHutchinson (talk)17:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I doubt that most readers understand what a featured article is, as I have seen some people think that it means just a random article that is featured on the main page. To be clear, I can understand the logic behind this suggestion, but I think that "from" is helpful in at least hopefully conveying that the blurb is part of a larger article. I just think that a lot of readers are not as familiar with Wikipedia jargon and procedures.Aoba47 (talk)18:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: (duplicated for !vote from my original comment) What's on the main page is not today's featured article; it's an extract from it, with a link to read the full article at the end. So "From today's featured article" is correct.Bazza 7 (talk)12:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: In today's world where AI-generated short summaries are becoming thought ofas the facts themselves and not an invitation to look at what sources think, I think it's important to continue to encourage our readers to look beyond the first glance. "From today's featured article" invites the reader to see more -- "Today's featured article" is a means to an end and will result in less link clicking and exploring.✨ΩmegaMantis✨blather21:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a courtesy,here is the edit that originally made the change from "Today's featured article" to "From today's featured article" in 2012. The original relevant discussion can be foundhere.Staraction (talk |contribs)01:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic
EVERYBODY, ITS TIME TO END THIS. WE ARE NOT GOING TO WASTE OUR LIVES ON SMTH THAT IS A MINOR CHANGE. Please do not harass @FaviFake, as he or she did NOT do anything to harm us. Please end this. (My mailbox is full please)VZ9999 (talk)02:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the Full article wikilink on the bottom and the bolded wikilink of a FA itself already show it's an excerpt from the whole article, it's also rather clear that the FA box can accommodate only a fraction of the entire article. As such, "from" is redundant. Also, the emphasis would correctly be on "today" rather than "from" and consistent with "Today's featured picture" per OP.Brandmeistertalk— Precedingundated comment added19:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dead right, SchroCat, I was just pointing out that as TFP links to Commons it effectively draws readers away from our site without reciprocation. Apologies for any confusion :)—Fortuna,imperatrix21:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not link to Commons (unless you click the picture itself and then also go on to click the View in Commons button. The picture of the day is always linked to a Wikipedia article which that picture helps to illustrate, and the bold link is to that article. Page views tend to show that it's a reasonably popular feature - the linked article almost always gets a significant spike in views on the POTD day. Seefigures for Dust Bowl, which was TFP on 18 Nov for example. — Amakuru (talk)00:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also one more thing: one the bottom of every page there’s page last edited. If u open it it’s says u can either get points or lose points. Wut do they mean 😪VZ9999 (talk)00:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the first section with "From . . .", indicates to the reader, the function of the page as a portal, a digest navigation page to other pages, inviting the reader togo there.Alanscottwalker (talk)23:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks for noticing this.Z1720 (talk)15:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]