Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 02:39 on 18 June 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 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 interestingness are not errors.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Just reminding everyone of the discussion here regarding the TFA and POTD for 20 June both having to do with Jaws.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Errors with "In the news"

Minnesota shootings

Would the blurb read better reworded from passive to active voice? ... a gunman assassinates state representative Melissa Hortman (pictured) and [seriously] injures [wounds?] state senator John Hoffman. I don't know. As it stands, it feels like ...and state senator John Hoffman is injured doesn't follow on well from the previous: sounds like he could have fallen down the stairs in an unrelated incident. So, specify the agent of the _assassination_ and of the _injuries_. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

While the facts of the case seem to strongly indicate the one they captures is the sole suspect, we have to presume innocent until proven guilty, so it would be inappropriate to make that assertion in the active voice. Masem (t) 03:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, OK. Would BLP considerations would also preclude In related attacks in the US state of Minnesota,...? For "related", consider coordinated, connected... The current wording is still very odd, because there's no explicit connection between him and her. And an unqualified "injured" also fails to convey that (as the article just informed me) Hoffman took nine bullets, which sounds like a lot. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with using passive voice here. May I recommend: In the US state of Minnesota, two state legislators are targeted in assassination attempts, with Melissa Hortman killed and John Hoffman injured. That doesn't make any implication that they were assassination attempts by the same individual, thus avoiding any BLP concerns (even though the same individual is currently charged with both). I do agree that the focus of the ITN blurb could be improved to focus on the assassination attempts as a whole, rather than on the gunman. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

For clarity, the reason this is ITN isn't because they died or were injured. The reason this is ITN is because it was a result of assassination attempts - and this needs to be called out in the blurb directly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

That's it: the current blurb isn't telling the story. But keeping it succinct is where I'm hitting a brick wall. Spitballing: Targeted assassination attempts in the U.S. state of Minnesota kill one state legislator and leave another seriously injured? Lose the names; the caption to Hortman's photo could clarify that she was the fatality.

Or passive voice: A state legislator is killed and another seriously injured in targeted assassination attempts in the U.S. state of Minnesota Moscow Mule (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

As the two legislators are notable with their own pages, it seems that their names should remain. —Bagumba (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

So how about Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman is killed and state senator John Hoffmann seriously injured in targeted assassination attempts YFB ¿ 12:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

For reference, this is what is currently posted: In the US state of Minnesota, state representative Melissa Hortman (pictured) is assassinated and state senator John Hoffman is injured. The major change seems to be adding "seriously" before "injured". US should remain somewhere, as Minnesota is not universally known. —Bagumba (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not clear what "targeted" adds in this regard. Most victims of assassination are not randomly shot. Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree on 'targeted' - I was following Moscow Mule's language above but we could lose that word. I think the original point was the Hoffman's injury in the current wording is not directly tied to the assassination attempt part. Another go then: In Minnesota, USA, state representative Melissa Hortman is killed and state senator John Hoffman seriously injured in assassination attempts YFB ¿ 12:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Correct: "targeted" is superfluous. Mea culpa. Moscow Mule (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Support blurb proposal from bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez: In the US state of Minnesota, two state legislators are targeted in assassination attempts, with Melissa Hortman killed and John Hoffman injured. Natg 19 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Israel and Iran airstrikes

Based on what I am understanding from this old discussion and WP:DOFIXIT, I believe this is relevant here. (If not, please just revert.) From the text, Israel launches multiple airstrikes across cities in Iran..., the link at "multiple airstrikes" was a link to June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran. That now redirects to Iran–Israel War following this AfD. Technically, this can be fixed by changing the article link, but with the change, it might require rewriting the blurb. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Relinked to Iran–Israel War per WP:MPREDIRECT. Discussion can continue if further changes are needed. —Bagumba (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 20)

Monday's FL

(June 23)

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

Why is the main page limited to only 50 language links

Now that even 2010 Vector has a language link dropdown menu, I don't think there's a need to limit the amount of language links to 50. Every other page on Wikipedia lets the language links come from Wikidata. --Minilammas (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a 50-article limit, it's an English Wikipedia main page policy to only include interlanguage links via {{Main Page interwikis}} that meet the qualification standards at {{Wikipedia languages}}. However, I agree with your proposal. Vector 2022's interlanguage link display isn't the cluttered sidebar of yesteryear, and instead now defaults to a "search for a language" box that readers might find useful. Implementation would require removal of the {{Main Page interwikis}} template and {{noexternallanglinks}} magic word:

−

</div><noinclude>{{Main Page interwikis}}{{noexternallanglinks}}{{#if:{{Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow}}||}}</noinclude>__NOTOC____NOEDITSECTION__

+

</div><noinclude>{{#if:{{Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow}}||}}</noinclude>__NOTOC____NOEDITSECTION__

As examples, the Dutch, Finnish, and French main pages use this implementation and it seems to work fine. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yea, by "limited to 50" I meant that as in "limited to 50 [that the community has chosen]. I saw from the wikitext that the language links are manually determined. --Minilammas (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Fully-protected edit request: Interlanguage links

Given the lack of opposition to Minilammas's proposal, I'd like to request an administrator make the above edit. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I object to this. The community has deliberately chosen to include certain projects and exclude other ones, not just because there's limited space to include them but as an expression of their merit - we're not linking to wikis overrun with bot-created stubs for example. I would think those same choices should be respected here, rather than simply displaying every single one. And "proposal has been uncontested for 3 days" is a really weak grounds for requesting an edit to the main page anyway; I would think this requires broader discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

This isn't about displaying the languages, that's done by {{Wikipedia languages}}. This proposed change would only permit users manually searching in the language box for specific languages as can be done for every other page on the encyclopedia. Regarding the complaint of the low participation, this page generally gets almost no comments. Despite being watched by over 100,000 editors, the last edit request (adding active editors to the head, a much more visible and substantive edit) only got two participants. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the proposal. It's about the interwiki links in the dropdown box. --Minilammas (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Minilammas: Given the low participation on this page I think your best bet here would be to either open an RFC or bring {{Main Page interwikis}} to TfD. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't really have the time or motivation to start an RfC about this, especially as my home wiki is the Finnish Wikipedia, and I am not too familiar with how to conduct a proper RfC here, as I only edit here every so often. --Minilammas (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

RFC: Remove interlanguage link restriction from main page

On behalf of Minilammas in the above discussion I'd like to propose an RFC on removing the main page's restriction on interlanguage links. This would permit readers to use the language dropdown menu's search box to find Wikipedias in any language. Note that this proposal does not affect the links advertised in the Wikipedia languages section of the main page, which will continue to be handled by {{Wikipedia languages}}.

Editors are encouraged to visit the main page of the Finnish Wikipedia for an example of this implementation. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Template talk:Main Page interwikis#Vector 2022. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (interlanguage links)

• Support as proposer. I don't think allowing the dropdown box to appear constitutes "advertising" the less-well-established language editions; {{Wikipedia languages}} does that job and is far more prominent and includes an encouragement to visit them. I think we are doing our readers a disservice in hiding the existence of these other projects, as the dropdown's search feature allows readers to type in their preferred language and find a project written for them. Our article on Earth, for instance, advertises that it exists in 312 other languages and we're fine with readers of the article using the dropdown feature to find them. Why not on the main page as well? Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  I use Monobook. The Finnish Wikipedia's Main Page has a "343 more" button in the Languages section, after an apparently fixed list. The article on Earth has a "303 more" but when I click that, I do not get the FA and GA stars that enwiki's Earth shows me. I don't know where these differences come from but the proposed system does not seem to be working fully. —Kusma (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Pppery: You didn't even read what Dan Leonard replied to you, did you? This isn't about the languages shown on Template:Wikipedia languages. --Minilammas (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  I did read it, but I wasn't convinced. I feel the same logic behind Template:Wikipedia languages deliberately filtering out entries also applies to Template:Main Page interwikis. You obviously don't see it that way, and I suspect we won't convince each other of our positions so let's see what the rest of the community thinks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't understand why every single article on Wikipedia is allowed to show the full interwiki language link list (via dropdown menu) but not the Main Page. Not really logical. --Minilammas (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  You can't manage to filter the interwiki links of the articles since there are millions, unlike the main page. Riad Salih (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to gatekeep readers from other language editions of Wikipedia. --Minilammas (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Each local version functions independently, and every community makes its own choices. Riad Salih (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  If it were technically possible to do in a reasonable manner (it's not currently, and not likely to become possible in the forseeable future), I could totally see myself supporting excluding bot-created articles from interwiki links everywhere. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Pppery. Riad Salih (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pppery above. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Dan Leonard. Gatekeeping the more prominently displayed links makes sense. Gatekeeping what's listed in a searchable dialogue is asinine. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support, I don't think we should list all the languages on the main template. But, allowing all languages in the searchable dialog is reasonable. A new editor trying to find, say, Hindi Wikipedia (5th most spoken language), they should be able to find it. Alternatively, my preference is to include a link to Special:SiteMatrix at the dead last of the Main Page, this will provide a one-stop link to all Wikimedia sites without requiring any Main Page real estate. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 00:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Makes sense to restrict it to the most prominent ones for the template, obviously, but for a search dialogue? I don't see any real reason to restrict a function. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support agree with Tamzin. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support agree with both Dan Leonard and Tamzin. Migfab008 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedias get better the more eyes they have on them. Wikipedias that get ignored for having a bunch of bad articles will have bad articles forever. This probably won't have that much of an effect but there's no reason not to. --CharaCookie241 (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pppery. The list of other Wikipedias is an explicit section at the bottom of the page, which is actively curated. The main page should not have indiscriminate links to other projects which may be of low quality.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  That’s not what this is about - it’s about the dropdown in the corner. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, indeed. Do you want to strike your vote, Amakuru? Schwede66 23:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: This is not what this is about, and it has already been explained above. --Minilammas (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  I know what it's about, and I oppose it. Personally I don't think we should have any drop down list for interlanguages on the main page, it looks weird down at the bottom and we already have the prominent link to other languages. So if we can vote to remove that dropdiwn altogether then count me in. But failing that, let's at least not make it an indiscriminate list of links to potentially uncurated content.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  You said "The list of other Wikipedias is an explicit section at the bottom of the page, which is actively curated", which obviously refers to the language section on the front page shown by this template. And this change is not about that template, so that was the reason for my comment. --Minilammas (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Question Are we talking about the drop-down that appears in the upper-right of most mains-space articles? I have always understood that to offer the same topic, but from a different wiki, not as a shortcut to switch between wikis. If I'm understanding properly, I think that's confusing, because there is no unified "main page" topic. All the different wikis do their main pages differently. It certainly should not be implemented on only one language, giving the user a confusing asymmetric, dead-end experience. If I'm understanding correctly, this seems like a change that should be made globally, at the foundation level, or not at all.ApLundell (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  @ApLundell he is referring to the drop-down button at the bottom of the main page that links to the main pages of other wikis. Riad Salih (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, and this is already handled globally, ApLundell, through the default that any page linked to a given Wikidata item (in this case, d:Q5296) will have links to all other languages linked to it. The English Wikipedia is currently the exception in that we override this behavior for our Main Page. This made some sense back when the links were all in a column on the side of the page, but that is no longer the case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  It is if you use a proper skin (I don't understand why people use Vector2022). Can we see a mockup of what the change would mean? I just tried to make one on Wikipedia:Main Page/1, but that page is not connected to the same wikidata item so of course it does not work. —Kusma (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  As suggested in the RFC heading, see the Finnish Wikipedia's main page for a nearly identical main page to ours but without the {{noexternallanglinks}} magic word. Add ?useskin=monobook to any URL to preview skins. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  The Finnish Wikipedia looks different with Monobook than the English one. In particular, Monobook on the English Wikipedia always displays the entire list of languages for me. The only mockup I have seen (previewing an edit of the Main Page) is not available for non-admins so I think it is a very reasonable thing to ask for that one is produced that can be tested with all skins. —Kusma (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, list is far too long / Main Page is too short, looks terrible in Monobook. —Kusma (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Kusma: The links would be behind a dropdown menu... it wouldn't make the page any longer. --Minilammas (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Not in the only skin I care about. —Kusma (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Kusma: Yes they would. The CURRENT links are not behind a dropdown menu because the language links are limited by the template {{noexternallanglinks}}, which prevents the dropdown menu from appearing. But this proposal would get rid of the template noexternallanglinks, and put the language links behind a dropdown menu. The dropdown menu would be the same as it is on any article, for example Earth. It would look exactly the same as on the Finnish Wikipedia's home page. --Minilammas (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Minilammas, Earth does not show a dropdown menu for me but instead has all of the languages in all their glory. The article is long enough to support that, unlike the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  I switched to Monobook to test and for me on Earth it shows 9 languages and a dropdown menu link. --Minilammas (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  At load time, it shows me all the languages, but after a second or so, everything but the top 9 items are collapsed. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, right, it is not the skin, but the "compact language list" misfeature. It hides the GA and FA stars in the collapsed languages so I have it turned off, but it seems this is a local preference, not a global one. I also disagree with that feature's premise that there are languages "relevant to me"; what languages I am interested in depends on the article more than on my knowledge of the language. —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  The language selector is not without its flaws, to be sure, but we should be making design decisions for the Main Page that close to 100% of our readers see, not for what others see or what technical changes we might wish were made to MediaWiki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I reckon the link should be removed altogether as clutter. The section starts by saying "Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below." That provides a link to meta:List of Wikipedias which is a curated and comprehensive list of them all and explains them in English. The drop-down link is superfluous. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  While the link to the flat list is useful, it's worth reading the findings at mw:Universal Language Selector/Compact Language Links: only 10-20% of web users know how to use their browser to search for text on a page, while the drop-down box welcomes searching with a text input box. Also, the language selector actively adapts to the user's browser language setting and IP location to suggest relevant languages, which has been shown to massively increase clickthrough to Wikipedias in smaller languages. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 14:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Questionable value, and wikipedia.org already has links to other languages. The value add on this section is not that huge, and restricting this is good practice. Also, more selfishly, I too am a Monobook user and don't think we should use anything that performs poorly with an accepted skin, although I don't want to make this the crux of the argument. SnowFire (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support I forgot to add my own support at the start. --Minilammas (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support removing the 50 languages limit. It has bothered me greatly for a long time, but I was reluctant to start an RFC myself (see the end of this post for the reason). Now that it started, however, I'm supporting it. It has never been so fair that the English Wikipedia community decides which languages to show or not to show on the main page, and limits the number to such a small and arbitrary number. It is not the English Wikipedia community's job to decide the "merit" of a Wikipedia in another language or to claim that about 300 Wikipedias are "overrun with bot-created stubs"; that's what the m:Language committee is for (I happen to be a member; more on that later). One could argue that the English Wikipedia can decide whatever it wants, of course, but it's more right to take some responsibility for the fact that the English Wikipedia is the biggest one and for the fact that its main page is one of the de facto portals to Wikipedias in other languages. I speak a lot to people who know various languages and many of them don't know that a Wikipeda in their language exists even if it does, and it happened more than once that they told me that they didn't know that it exists because they didn't see a link to it on the English Wikipedia's main page. So instead of helping other languages grow by giving people a chance to discover them, the English Wikipedia main page perpetuates their weakness. If those interlanguage links are legitimate in articles, why aren't they legitimate on the main page?
  As for users who use non-default skins or disable the compact list in the preferences and who don't want the list to look too long—I see them and hear them, but they are a tiny group compared to the hundreds of millions of readers, and I'm sure that another technical solution can be found for them.
  Finally, anyone who is really unhappy about the existence of Wikipedias who have very low activity or quality, is really welcome to suggest their closure at m:Talk:Language committee. The problem of low-quality wikis is real, and this is the right, albeit more time-consuming way to handle it; hiding them from the English Wikipedia main page, while hurting other legitimate communities, is not.
  Possible conflicts of interest: I'm writing this as an English Wikipedia volunteer editor. I'm also a staff member of the WMF, and as such, I've been directly involved in the development of some iterations of the language selector design before 2020, but I'm not involved in its design now. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I find Amir Aharoni's arguments very persuasive. JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support adding all languages to the drop-down list, for consistency and fairness. Oppose any similar changes to Template:Wikipedia languages which is actively curated and subject to the discretion of the English Wikipedia community — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Amir E. Aharoni. Xoontor (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pppery et al above. JayCubby 15:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Amir. Although I would suggest a slight CSS tweak to hide the "Add languages" button on the main page, as that is likely to just cause confusion: .page-Main_Page .uls-add-languages-button { display: none; } the wub "?!" 09:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

  Can you please report this to Phabricator and tag with UniversalLanguageSelector and ContentTranslation? This should probably be fixed for everyone and not just for the English Wikipedia. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

  Done: phab:T396967 the wub "?!" 22:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  This should not be fixed in CSS, maybe using JS or PHP ? Sohom (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Amir, I came into this discussion knowing very little but I am persuaded by his arguments and experiences. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 01:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Problem.

Is this me or featured article are changing continuously because i have seen 4 FA in one day? Wh67890 (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The featured article is the same. The image has been changed multiple times. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Correction: this Featured Article is making use of a random image template to give different images. I personally find it quite annoying, but at least it isn't resulting from an edit war. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

thank god, i thought my browser gone mad. Wh67890 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I'm just impressed! Pharos (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Of what? Wh67890 (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Just that we apparently had a compromise on the lead image so complicated, it had to be implemented via a random image template. Pharos (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

It was reqested in the TFA nomination, and in the absence of policy to the contrary, I saw no reason not to grant it. I can't speak for my fellow coordinators in their scheduling, but I would only do so for a significant figure, even with the nominator putting in the work. Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Frequent change in the photo makes the same impression as of screen saver which many of us don't like. Wh67890 (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it's kind of fun myself, no objection here. Pharos (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)