Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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 08:03 on 11 March 2026) 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 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. 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 ..."

Next DYK

• ... that Alfonso Quiñónez Molina suddenly becoming President of El Salvador before the 1919 election was both a blessing and a curse? the words "blessing" and "curse" both don't appear anywhere in the article. Also according to who? 781h (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@781h I edited it to quote the source which says "mixed blessing" so readers aren't surprised when they try to find the hook fact in the article. Generally, we don't attribute reliable sources in hooks like that, but it's according to the hook cited in the article and in the nom. @PizzaKing13 just FYI and you can change the wording/quote to make it better as I haven't written content in a while. HurricaneZeta^C 00:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Perhaps a bit late in the day, but Lillian Wald isn't really suitable for the mainpage in its current state - statement like Wald's vision for Henry Street was one unlike any others at the time as well as the entire section about "Social benefits of the Henry Street Settlement" are cited to, um, a letter from Lillian Wald. There's a fair amount of close paraphrasing of one of the web sources, as visible on Earwig[1], as confirmed in the edit summaries of the page.[2] Again, I know this is a bit late, but this isn't main page appropriate. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

cc @Z1720 - if I'm reading the page history correctly, it looks like you pushed this article to visible in 2024.[3] GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD

...and Great Sheffield Flood has a decent amount of close paraphrasing, specifically of Buchanan, R Angus. "Special Issue: Engineering Disasters – 4 The Causes of the Great Sheffield Flood of 1864." History of Technology 26, (2005): 113. I've already removed some cut and paste plagiarism of a different web source,[4] but yeah this should probably be pulled too. Again, cc User:Z1720 as the editor who pushed this to visible. (DYK has got me in the habit of pinging the queuers, can you tell?) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• @GreenLipstickLesbian: Articles are not "pushed" into "visible": they are posted onto the eligible list and swapped into the set. I swapped hooks in 2024, but no editor swapped them in 2025 or 2026. If there's a problem with an article or hook, it can be pulled and replaced with another eligible article. There's no need to ping me if I didn't swap the hooks in 2026 (unless someone has a question for me.) Z1720 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Someday I'll learn the OTD terminology. Until then, want to swap out the plagiarism? It was there in 2024, unfortunately... GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 00:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• @GreenLipstickLesbian: I swapped out the hook. Articles at OTD are not normally checked for copyright violations before appearing on the Main Page. Any editor can conduct those checks as they deem necessary. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you! (And, gosh, really? Wow, I can't believe it's DYK that gets such a bad rep for quality control) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 00:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Monday's FL

(March 16)

Wednesday's FL

(March 11, today)

Friday's FL

(March 13)

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

War in Iran

(IN THE NEWS) I know that this is not anyone's first priority but it feels wrong to describe nothing more than 'US and Israeli strikes on Iran', given a) the fact that both countries have expressed a desire for regime change and b) the fact that Iran has tried extensively to strike back. Describing an 'armed conflict', if we don't want to go as far as calling it a war, would feel better I think (the dedicated article also is named to suggest a war so downplaying it so much here feels strange). Orholam (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This is on my mind too, given that this is an ongoing event, but since the blurb has not moved for the entire week already, therefore I am thinking of various possibilities to update the blurb, from:

• Israel and the United States launch strikes on Iran, killing its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei (pictured), along with other senior officials.

To either of:

1. Israel and the United States launch strikes on Iran, killing its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei (pictured), along with other senior officials, and destablising the Middle East region in the process.
2. Israel and the United States launch strikes on Iran, killing its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei (pictured), along with other senior officials, and Iran strikes neighbouring countries in return.
3. The Middle East region is embroiled in a war between Iran, Israel and the United States in which Iranian supreme leader, Ali Khamenei (pictured), along with other senior officials are killed.

@Fuzheado, @Gotitbro, @Andrew Davidson, @Coffeeandcrumbs, @Indefensible, @Masem,thoughts? – robertsky (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd go with

Israel and the United States launch strikes on Iran, killing its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei (pictured), along with other senior officials, and sparking a wider conflict

Of the possibilities presented, I think the third is best, although it loses the link to Khamenei's death and I can't think of a way to phrase it which keeps it, I don't think the Middle East should be linked, and I'm not sure if the List of attacks during the 2026 Iran war link is very useful.

The blurb as written was for an article that was solely about the strikes, making its present linkage to the entire war undesirable. 1brianm7 (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The passive voice in #3 is inappropriate. I think the latest suggestion by @1brianm7 is the best compared to 1,2,3 suggested above it. Perhaps fewer commas if possible and make sure to add the period at the end. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree. This does the trick without overhauling the blurb too much against ITN consensus. Gotitbro (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

lovely. I am opening for any agreeable approach. :) – robertsky (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Orholam makes a good point. The current blurb is about the initial day or two of strikes but hasn't been keeping up with developments. The top read article for the topic is now 2026 Iran war. This started as 2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran and was then retitled 2026 Iran conflict and then changed to 2026 Iran war three days ago. As the consensus is now to call it a war, the blurb should use consistent language. So, of the suggestions above, #3 seems to do that best.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• The event currently covered in the ITN is the initial strikes/Assassination of Ali Khamenei. Trying to retrofit an event blurb to cover something more is inherently tricky as it's a change of function. It would be better to list the war as a whole in Ongoing. CMD (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  This discussion is better suited for WP:ITN but yes, a standard approach with military conflicts is that we wait for the story to roll off the box and then move to ongoing, for which the 2026 Iran war is the best choice. Having it simultaneously listed as a news item and ongoing is not common. Tone 09:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Rolling it off into ongoing makes sense for an active process, but all current ITN entries cover events in February so we've faced at least a week without new news. CMD (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yup, checking the nominations over the past week, almost all are in some way related to the war. The opening of the Winter Paralympics will get on the top news once the article is up to date. Tone 10:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  yes. I agree that it should be in ongoing. However this is opened because we have gone by without a week of update to the blurbs, and probably will take another week before the blurb rolls off. Hence, I am asking for the blurb to be updated to at least reflect that the news is ongoing. – robertsky (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• This blurb is a bit clunky in my opinion, how about: "Israel and the United States initiate a war against Iran (link) resulting in the deaths of Ali Khamenei (link) and other senior officials (link)." - Indefensible (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think the current blurb is better. For the record, that's

  • Israel and the United States launch strikes on Iran, killing its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei (pictured), and other senior officials, and sparking a wider conflict.

  This presents events in a chronological sequence: strikes; deaths; wider conflict. Indefensible's starts with the initiation of a war rather than the decapitation strikes. That seems more more debatable as, on the US side, they claim not to have started a war and still seem uncertain how far they are going with this. My impression is that Israel and the US seized a tactical opportunity to take out the leaders and are now just winging it. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  The main problem with the current blurb (in my opinion) is the "and" chaining which is not concise and more importantly the main subject which is the war comes at the end when it should be the focus at the beginning of the blurb. Also the article has been moved to "war" so "conflict" no longer matches. - Indefensible (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  I oppose the use of "deaths" against consensus at the RM. We have settled on "killing" on the ITN and even editors that are arguing for assassination on the RM would prefer "killing" over "deaths". There is a version of this that works and preserves the consensus at ITN and during the RMs on the main articles on the war. Also may want to replace "against" with "in". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't have a preference on the semantics of "death" vs "killing" so that change is fine. The war goes beyond Iran's borders though. - Indefensible (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Sea of blue

I suggest we emphasize the word "free" in the free encyclopedia so it doesn’t appear to be a single link. Or we could use a more specific link to the “Free encyclopedias” section. 2600 etc (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Talk:Main Page/Archive 209 § The main page violates MOS:SEAOFBLUE

I personally like the idea of linking to free encyclopedia. dot.py 01:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

There has been a change in news coverage.

Regarding the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, since it has lasted for more than a week, it should be included in the "ongoing" section. Nguyễn Quốc Anh (1248) (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Nguyễn Quốc Anh (1248) See two sections above. CMD (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

TL;DR - the ongoing section is for when the blurb has rolled off the current list. - Indefensible (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:HOMEPAGE

This seems to be a redirect here. I can't list it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion since it seems semi-hidden. It should probably be a disambig between MAINPAGE and Wikipedia:Growth_Team_features#Newcomer_homepage, with a see also Wikipedia:USERPAGE _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 05:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

PS. To make this weirder, Wikipedia:HOMEPAGE and WP:HOMEPAGE above appear to be red links, but if you execute them in the searchbar, you end up at the main page?? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 05:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hanyangprofessor2: Wikipedia:Homepage exists (Wikipedia:Homepage if you want to access it directly), so the case-insensitive search bar uses it. There is also the redirect Wikipedia:Homepage (new user feature), which goes to the other target. —Kusma (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Visibility of adult industry

Today, the first item on the "Did you know ..." section is the following:

... that Savannah Bond (pictured) sold cosmetics before entering the adult film industry?

Shouldn't the main page of Wikipedia be safe for primary school students? It's reasonable to assume that some primary school student would get interested into what is that makes Savannah Bond notable enough that selling cosmetics can be an interesting contrast to her current status. Nxavar (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia(the internet generally, really) should be used by minors with supervision and safeguards on their end. While the most graphic content is not generally put on the Main Page(though occasionally the featured image is of artwork or imagery depicting a topless or nude woman). Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Removing the connection of Spitzer to a prostitution ring or the "hush money" issue between Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels for primary school concerns is what would be a real issue. I don't think that "censorship" in the "sold cosmetics" case is doing harm. If you want some "rule" for when censorship should be taken very seriously, it would be significant news coverage. If some information has significant news coverage then no censorship is allowed.

Also note that this is Wikipedia's main page. Being accessible to the widest possible audience is a priority. I'm not arguing here that articles on adult film industry topics should not exist or should be as limited as possible. Nxavar (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The main purpose of the Main Page content is to motivate the improvement of articles. If certain topics were absolutely prohibited from the Main Page, those topics would be less likely to get improvements.

You are free to participate in the processes that determine what appears in the various sections of the Main Page and argue that a particular topic isn't appropriate for posting to it, but that isn't likely to be persuasive due to WP:NOTCENSORED.

Human nature is such that keeping information from someone (even minors) has the opposite effect of making them more curious about it(Streisand effect) because humans generally want to know why something is being kept from them. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The WP:NOTCENSORED is about articles. The Main Page is not an article. Nxavar (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Nowhere is it said that it is limited to articles. As I said, the most graphic content is not generally placed on the Main Page, but a mere mention of the adult film industry is not graphic. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that you aren't the first, and won't be the last, to bring this up. But it hasn't changed yet, and isn't likely to. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That's just unnecessary "not-censored-at-all" flex. Nxavar (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

If we're worried about children, then them learning that a adult film actress used to see cosmetics, is the least of our worries. They can freely wonder over to PornHub and find any manner of violent smut. As 331dot said, children probably shouldn't be on the internet in general without some sort of adult oversight. TarnishedPath^talk 11:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that the Wikipedia main page is not exactly on parent's radar for porn info. Nxavar (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

There are other reasons for parents to be supervising children on Wikipedia, not just looking out for porn. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

And Wikipedia shouldn't care at all in making this any easier? Nxavar (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot and should not substitute for parents, no. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Nope. If you're a parent it is on you to be a parent. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a sad and ignorant response imo. Just saying "they should do better" is disrespectful and a way to escape responsibility for something. In part, I agree with you, but you also need to be realistic.

& @TarnishedPath, your claim that they would wonder over to PornHub doesn't make a lot of sense. In many places, that site is illegal and in all others it comes with multiple boundaries to prevent easy access. Regardless, a child would need to first KNOW what that site is before they can go there as they can't advertise in the same way other sites can. A child doesn't need to do the same for Wikipedia. In fact, because of these DYKs, young children probably have discovered PornHub. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

i started the discussion about the article's interest as a 'dyk' fact here, and just thought i'd offer my own brief thoughts. i'm not against the appearance of sex work-related content appearing on the front page. however, i do think there's a misunderstanding of wp:notcensored in that it concerns specifically the removal of content, not a restriction on pedestalising. it would be nice to see some level of editor self-restraint since some part of it feels demeaning—though i recognise this is impossible to cohere. we want to foster an environment of inclusive participation, and that is for readers even more-so than for editors, many of whom (in both categories) are children. if we want to be seen as serious then it would make sense to have an analogous level of sensitivity to professional publications regarding the spotlighting of certain material. this isn't proposing a 'porn ban' or a catering to the will of governments or courts, but some kind of sensitivity to reader and editor involvement with a project that is supposed to be open to everyone. perhaps a limitation on how many hooks appear related to the topic over a period of a week/month, or a restriction on hooks-per-editor, perhaps not generally using that hook for the image slot to reduce visibility? i note that of the other nominations at least three were also proposed using an image, one of a headshot of the subject similar to the one used for savannah bond that was nominated by the same editor. i want them all to appear, but i also want every reader to feel like the site is catering for them uncontroversially, and i want them to think that we're being serious.--Plifal (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The one time I complained about child-friendly content was when we featured content on the front page that contained a sexual swear word that was flagged by many school content filters (which, at least in the UK, they are required to have), thus blocking the Main Page for a day. I was met with a bunch of condescending crap along the lines of "ah, the poor little mites might see a bad word? NOTCENSORED IS GOD!" This, however, is not problematic in that sense. Having said that, my issue this time is that the DYK hook is so quite incredibly boring I don't actually know how it was promoted in the first place, which is being discussed at WT:DYK. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

A boring hook is certainly a different issue from this. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

We need to stop with the WP:NOTCENSORED stuff in general. If I was a parent and my young child had told me that they had learned about multiple pornstars through the front page of Wikipedia, which is marketed as the online encyclopedia, I'd be horrified. There is a difference between Wikipedia pages about pornstars and any variety of "inappropriate" topics existing (which is fine obviously) and promoting said pages with a comical regularity on the main page. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Black Kite:, with all due respect, reading a foul word and learning about the concept of "pornstar" and "adult film industry" sit on completely different levels of "child-friendly" content concern. Btw, is the main page blocked today? Because if it's not, then the filters are too superficial. Nxavar (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how you'd construct a filter which would hit every possible collection of words relating to porn and I suspect it would have far too many false positives and Scunthorpe effect issues. Most would, however, react to the word "porn" itself. But this isn't really the point, to be honest - filters are there to stop pupils accessing porn, not to prevent them knowing that it exists in the first place, which would be practically impossible. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

also, as soon as you are catering to censorimg one facet of knowledge, that creates the slippery slooe for a wgole bunch of other facets (liie gender identify, LGBT, etc). it was s bettee WP does not censir and work under the principle of least astonimishment. Masem (t) 13:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That's not how most educational filters work, however. It would be bizarre to censor LGBTQ+ or gender identity issues considering that information on those issues is actually taught in schools (well, it is in most European countries, I appreciate that the US is somewhat different). Black Kite (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

you'd think t, but in the US, both fed and state level bills are proposed to restrict matter deemed harmful to children, which on some communities will include those topics.And of course if we talk other coubtries like Russia or China ba where such topics are also suppressed. WP of course should not cater to these at all. Masem (t) 15:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The hook is quite bland to some of the others I proposed. I included the hook as an option because I realised that the others didn't stand much of a chance of running on the front page. See Template:Did you know nominations/Savannah Bond. TarnishedPath^talk 11:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with the current blurb. Firstly, children should not be using the internet unsupervised. Secondly, even if a child did read that, all they see is 'adult film', without a link, which is clearly just telling them it's a film for adults. Only someone already familiar with the concept of pornography would associate that blurb with sex. Third, WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DISCLAIMER apply. Fourth, even the article itself is pretty tame, certainly far less upsetting than the various wars we have linked from the Main Page. So there's no need to change this rather bland blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 12:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED certainly does not apply to main page with the same severity that it applies to articles. The conscious tendency to omit graphic content, something that @331dot: seems to agree to, is proof enough. Nxavar (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not graphic content. Modest Genius ^talk 12:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I've got two of my hooks on the frontpage today, one about a adult film actress who used to sell cosmetics and another about a journalist who got his house blown up for reporting on organised crime. I know what's more graphic and it's not the one everyone is talking about. TarnishedPath^talk 12:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You mean that the performances of pornstars are not graphic? Or at least not on the same level as a blown up house? Nxavar (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

A porn star performing their job is not being depicted; no nude imagery or sex acts. Only a reference to "adult film" which to anyone not in the know just means a film for adults. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

By discussing this here you're actually increasing the chances it will be read about; Streisand effect in action. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Chances are already set. Continuing. What does "pornographic" for someone not in the know mean then? Simply hovering over the name gives out that word. Nxavar (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

If you want to adjust the short description (the hover/what appears in search) so it does not use the word "pornographic", that's a matter for the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

An interesting discussion but totally "besides the point". The DYK mention received approval, the porn industry is a legitimate business, actors work for a living and pay taxes, and maybe by mentioning her here her brother may speak to her again. 'Not censored' would be a factor if there was anything here to censor (there isn't). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

A while ago I proposed DYK be abolished & replaced with a daily GA excerpt for issues like this but nothing came of it. As an aside I do think there's been too much adult content on the mainpage recently (seems limited to DYK) and there is a shock policy already in effect IMO (ie why we don't post the Debbie Does Dallas video to its page despite it being public domain). 781h (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

We do have the full Debbie Does Dallas video on its page. I have repeatedly opposed it being there because it breaks the UK's new child safety laws and could harm Wikipedia. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias, actually in this case, debbie does dallas would be a case where i think wp:notcensored does and should apply. wikipedia should not cater to the whims of a single government. the point made is that there's already a quiet consensus that the main page has been censored unofficially; that we wouldn't, for example, post the full video of a pornographic film despite wp:notcensored.--Plifal (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying Wikipedia should capitulate, but I think it would be silly to pretend that a block or age-check being imposed on the website for all UK visitors would not harm us... aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Essentially: do the pros (allowing people to watch a full-length vintage porno that is already in the public domain) outweigh the possible cons (restricted access to almost 70 million people) aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias, tbc i'm not fully against your position here, but i think it sets a bad precedent if we start pre-emptively removing content from articles when in many countries this content is illegal; yet they take the risk and retain wikipedia as an online service.--Plifal (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

A government looking to censor Wikipedia is going to do so regardless of rational. This is why there is no need to praise the Turkish government to avoid the (since overturned) ban in the country. With how vague (and untested) the Online Safety Act is, there is no reason to preemptively remove content that may not even be an issue in the UK. GGOTCC 07:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

+1 TarnishedPath^talk 07:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Homepage" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Homepage has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 11 § Wikipedia:Homepage until a consensus is reached. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 01:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)