Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Main Page error reports[edit]

To report an error on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quote of all or part of the text in question will help.
  • Offer a correction if possible.
  • References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
  • Time zones: The current date and time is displayed in Coordinated Universal Time (07:21 on 18 October 2017), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}}, which will not give you a faster response, and in fact causes problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • Done? Once an error has been fixed, or has rotated off the Main Page, or has been acknowledged as not an error, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history for discussion and action taken.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
  • Can you fix the issue yourself? If the error is with the content of an article linked from the main page, consider attempting to fix the problem rather than reporting it here.

Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article[edit]

TFA today[edit]

"they can reach depths of over two miles,": I would suggest adding the metric value: "they can reach depths of over two miles (three kilometres),". Spike (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

TFA tomorrow[edit]

Errors in In the news[edit]

This is gonna bug me. Currently the blurb about the neutron star merger reads:

"The first observation of a neutron star merger in gravitational waves as well as gamma-rays and visible light is announced."

The problem with this is that the merger was actually observed in gravitational waves, gamma rays, x-rays, visible light, infrared, and radio. I'm not sure why one would single out "gravitational waves", "gamma rays" and "visible light" but leave off "x-rays", "infrared" and "radio". Arguably the most important part of this is the gravitational waves, since they were the first detection and the detection allowed it to be directly understood as a neutron star merger. However, I'm not sure why one would mention certain parts of the electromagnetic spectrum and not others. Dragons flight (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning gravitational waves only would be a good solution, I think. --Inc (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
One could also say gravitational waves and electromagnetic radiation, if one wanted to cover the spectrum generally. Dragons flight (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 Comment: Being discussed in ITN concurrently. Alex ShihTalk 18:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
"Electromagnetic radiation" has the downside the many readers may not appreciate what it means, and that the light they know is part of the EM spectrum. The term could be linked of course, but still it may not attract the same interest. Gap9551 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
But EM radiation is one of the two main components of the discovery (with the other important component being neutron stars as GW merger rather than black holes). Just mentioning neutron stars and gravitational waves would not do the event justice. Gap9551 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Ultraviolet is also among them. It would be a long list to name them all. By the way, no error in the blurb has been pointed out yet, just a possible omission. Gap9551 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Gap9551 and Dragons flight: how about this: The first observation of a neutron star merger in gravitational waves as well as gamma-rays, visible light, and other forms of electromagnetic radiation is announced. A bit clunkier, but it highlights the most important and well-known parts while still conveying that it was detected in pretty much the whole spectrum. ansh666 07:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Reads like the merger was within gravitational waves. I thought the waves are a result of the merger. Perhaps The first observation of gravitational waves caused by a neutron star merger (which also produced gamma-rays, visible light, and other forms of electromagnetic radiation) is announced. Bazza (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day[edit]

OTD today[edit]

  • The caption for the Venera 4 item has a line break between "Venera" and "4" – it needs {{nowrap}} around "Venera 4". —Bruce1eetalk 06:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

OTD tomorrow[edit]

  • Diwali - the "Regional variations" section was already tagged before I got there. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " Atlantic hurricane" is piped to a redirect to itself. Unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yoko Shimomura - section of Works tagged for more refs required, despite it being a GA. Suggest it's replaced with a man, by the way, as the balance is really off at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Errors in the current or next Did you know...[edit]

DYK current[edit]

DYK next[edit]

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture[edit]

POTD today[edit]

POTD tomorrow[edit]

Errors in the summary of the last or next featured list[edit]

General discussion[edit]


It's not even April Fools' Day, and you guys are already making a silly (and obvious) entry in "Did you know?" WTF?[edit]

... that The Rolling Stones are a British rock band? Okay, you probably did...

*cue J. Jonah Jameson laughing in Spider-Man 2* -Zakawer (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Is that suppose to be funny because it's not. Where are the standards, these kind of edits only damage WP's credibility. 37.157.106.152 (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking forward to more hooks about gospel singers and ursine woodland behaviour. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
To paraphrase Zaphod Beeblebrox "OK, so 10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for sheer banality, yeah?” Just looking at the lead, I would think that "Did you know...that Ian Stewart was removed from the Rolling Stones' official line-up in 1963 but continued to tour with them until his death 22 years later?" would have been a good hook. --Khajidha (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the style per se, but I don't think we should be assuming that every English speaker is familiar with 60s British rock bands. I'm sure there are plenty of people who may have heard the name but don't know where they're from, for example, and there's no need to make them feel stupid. Modest Genius talk 17:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you think the addition of those last four words actually does that? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Modest Genius talk 13:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, you just lost an entire generation who had the distinction of not growing up listening to the Rolling Stones. Way to be condescending.--WaltCip (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
oooh, harsh. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "an entire generation who had the distinction of not growing up listening to the Rolling Stones"... Even if they're living in a vacuum, in a cave, under a rock, and with cotton balls in their ears, they almost certainly recognize at least some Stones songs. I was born a quarter century after they were formed, and I had the first lines of "Start Me Up" as my PC's start-up sound for several years.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
That's because you live in the woods. With some bears. Examining their ablutionary activities :) — fortunavelut luna 10:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

In the news[edit]

Am curious as to why the 'entry' about Hurricane Nate and the Central America deaths has JUST 'NOW' appeared instead of right after it happened nearly a week ago. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Entires are discussed at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates first to obtain consensus prior to being posted, so they can be delayed sometimes. Alex ShihTalk 06:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, Wikipedia articles take time to develop. Every word here is written by volunteers, and article text does not magically appear as soon as things happen. --Jayron32 20:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Although at that, a natural or manmade disaster still managed to usurp several of the Nobel articles (including gravitational waves!) for focused volunteer interest. It is one of the interesting peculiarities about an all-volunteer ground-level workforce in the first-language English world these days -- aiming for a neutral POV, but nonetheless failing to accomplish it through sheer neglect of some subjects and not others -- and equally through sheer arguing down of some articles and not others on the sole basis of setting different bars -- since no one tells a volunteer workforce what they must do. This is one of the key differences between Wikipedia and a standard encyclopaedia.
The usual retort at this point would be to challenge me to edit the articles in question myself. There are reasons I chose not to do that this time. You could even legitimately call them work-related reasons. Take my comments -- and whatever you perceive to be my right to make any comments at all about this -- in that context. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This whole discussion arises from the misunderstanding that ITN is a news ticker. It isn't updated as quickly as news sites because it isn't a news site. --Khajidha (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, that objection. As it happens, it does not apply to the unlisted Nobel prizes. The default for those has always previously been a quick consensus that they are ITN-appropriate (on the same level as election results) within a day or so of the announcement. However, at this point the missing mentions won't ever be on ITN, simply because they now have happened earlier than other news. On top of that, they would now be considered "stale" news by many Wikipedia members, since it has been more than a week since they were last front page material. For all that ITN is not a news ticker, the "stale" argument is commonly used as an objection at the ITN talk page. Entertainingly enough, the "not a news ticker" and the "stale news" objections are very nearly the opposite of each other -- but instead of cancelling each other out, they often actually reinforce each other in the end result. The interesting attempt here to apply it to the missing Nobels is a prime example of how both arguments can be used simultaneously on the exact same articles. Whatever the specific intent of those commenting (a wide spectrum is possible within AGF), the end result is keeping those items out of ITN permanently. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
TLDR, fundamentally items need (a) quality and (b) significance which leads to (c) a consensus to post. All of these can take time. Everything else is speculation, conspiracy theory, unhelpful etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
A few points: 1) ITN appropriate and ITN ready are not the same thing. Were they properly updated? (I don't know, that's why I'm asking). 2) Just because it's not a news ticker doesn't mean that items can't be excluded as "stale". The purpose of ITN is to provide articles relating to items the reader has encountered in actual news reports. Once a story is no longer being actively reported on, an article about that subject does not need to be given the prominence that ITN has. 3) Your use of the term "missing Nobels" implies that they should have been on the page, regardless of any concerns. I know of no policy that requires a particular item be on the Main Page. Even ITNR items like the Nobels are not guaranteed a spot if the necessary work on the article is not done. The ITN section has a mandated spot on the Main Page, individual items in ITN do not.--Khajidha (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I am astonished to say the least that there is no mention whatsoever about the killing of more than 270 persons in Somalia. I feel that the editorial line (or editors) in wikipedia are becoming terrifyingly biased. When very recently less than 60 persons were assassinated in the United States, the news section of wikipedia swiftly reported on the topic. But last Saturday's bomb in Somalia's capital, which ended with the life of almost 300 people, seems not be worth to mention to wikipedia editors.

Once again, it's not that it's not worth mentioning, it's that the article quality is very weak. See WP:ITNC for the discussion about this very topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)