Content deleted Content added
Theleekycauldron (talk | contribs) →Next DYK: Reply Tag: Reply |
→Today's FA: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
(373 intermediate revisions by 74 users not shown) | |||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
<div style="position: fixed; visibility: hidden"><span style="font-size: 0">Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See [[WT:ERRORS]] and [[WP:SUBSCRIBE]]. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)</span></div> |
<div style="position: fixed; visibility: hidden"><span style="font-size: 0">Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See [[WT:ERRORS]] and [[WP:SUBSCRIBE]]. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)</span></div> |
||
=== [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{#time:F j, Y}}|Today's FA]] === |
=== [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{#time:F j, Y}}|Today's FA]] === |
||
The blurb could do with a bit of copyediting: |
|||
* {{tq|recent evidence has proposed}} – Evidence does not propose anything. People propose things. |
|||
* {{tq|Giraffes live in herds [...] but are gregarious}} – The reason for the "but" is not clear. |
|||
* {{tq|herds of related females and their offspring or bachelor herds of unrelated adult males}} – Difficult to parse, could use a comma after "offspring". |
|||
* {{tq|Giraffes have been featured in paintings, books, and cartoons}} – I'm afraid this strikes me as an absolutely pointless sentence. ''Everything'' has been featured in paintings, books, and cartoons. |
|||
* {{tq|Giraffes are assessed as vulnerable to extinction}} – "have been assessed" would be better, or "are classified". |
|||
[[User:Sojourner in the earth|Sojourner in the earth]] ([[User talk:Sojourner in the earth|talk]]) 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
::OK, since it's been a few hours and the TFA coords maybe aren't around currently, I've [[WP:BOLD]]ly had a go at the first point above, which seeems a fairly straightforward minor error - evidence doesn't ''propose'' things, as noted... I've changed {{xt|"more recent evidence has proposed dividing them into multiple species"}} → {{xt|"researchers have recently proposed dividing them into multiple species due to new evidence"}}, which matches some of the wording of the article and doesn't take us over the word limit yet. Happy to revert or amend if needed, but this seems like an improvement. I'm not so convinced on the other points, those seem more subjective decisions, so I'll leave that for now. Happy to revert or discuss if I've made a mistake here. {{ping|Wehwalt|Gog the Mild|Dank}} — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 08:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Addressing the other points specifically: |
|||
:::* {{tq|Giraffes live in herds [...] but are gregarious}} – The reason for the "but" is not clear. |
|||
:::* {{tq|herds of related females and their offspring or bachelor herds of unrelated adult males}} – Difficult to parse, could use a comma after "offspring". |
|||
:::**Actually, looking again, I'm not sure this sentence and the ''gregarious'' bit is cited in the article at all. The lead and the blurb say the above, while the cited body says {{xt|"males become more solitary but may also associate in pairs or with female groups"}} which doesn't seem the same at all. If we're going to use very old FAs as main page content, we should at the very least be checking that what's in the blurb and the lead still matches the body... Suggest we simply remove that bit unless a quick cited rewording can be found. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::* {{tq|Giraffes have been featured in paintings, books, and cartoons}} – I'm afraid this strikes me as an absolutely pointless sentence. ''Everything'' has been :::featured in paintings, books, and cartoons. |
|||
:::*:Yes, this seems a legitimate point - the full sentence in the article mostly makes sense - {{xt|"The giraffe has intrigued various ancient and modern cultures for its peculiar appearance, and has often been featured in paintings, books, and cartoons"}} - (although I'm a bit lairy about using "peculiar" in [[WP:WIKIVOICE]] like that) but the condensed version about it just being in books and paintings reduces it to something almost meaningless. Not a direct error though so I'd leave that be for the rest of the day probably. |
|||
:::* {{tq|Giraffes are assessed as vulnerable to extinction}} – "have been assessed" would be better, or "are classified". |
|||
⚫ | |||
:I think we've made it clear that we object to copyediting on the TFA day unless it's very urgent or. a clear error. You are not going to find us available in the middle of the night US time. This blurb has been up for well over a month and was, as I recall, a TFA/R. We are anxious to have edits prior to the TFA day since dying has become inactive. Less so on the day.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 10:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I can understand why you do not want to be bothered with approving copy edits while you are asleep. But why do you object to others copy editing on the day to improve weaknesses in the wording? Surely that is what happens generally in Wikipedia: we don't normally seek previous editors' agreement before editing an article. And in the special case of the TFA blurb on the day your text has the added protection that only an administrator can tinker with it. Today provides good examples of why it is not in the interests of Wikipedia that you have this possessive attitude to the wording. Or have there really been many cases of edits on the day being detrimental? [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 11:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Agreed. I can understand the desire to have things finalised before go-live day, but this is a volunteer project and we all have limited resource available. Personally I'm open about the fact that I don't have time to check every day's TFA blurb in advance, particularly as I'm heavily involved with POTD and DYK already... and for the most part I wouldn't really need to anyway, you guys do a great job at TFAR and improvements are rarely suggested. But occasionally prose points become clear on the day that weren't spotted in advance, and are raised here at ERRORS. In my view, edits that respond to those issues, as above, fairly clearly made the text better and gave readers a better experience, and that's the most important thing we're supposed to be striving for rather than due process or who exactly [[WP:OWN]]s the TFA content. As for "editing through protection", which was raised last time we discussed this, the reason for main-page content being only editable by admins is not because the content is sacrosanct but merely to preserve the reputation of Wikipedia and ensure that vandalism doesn't affect our most viewed page. As such, I don't think that protection supersedes the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And if you're not available at all times of the day that's all the more reason to allow improvements to be made by others through the day IMHO. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 11:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::We can't stop you from editing the TFA blurb, and we don't. I don't think we've ever reverted a change, I've massaged a few that were a bit off or that (as happens a lot) took us over the 1,025 character limit that not everyone who edits the TFA seems to be aware of or able to ascertain. But what we can is make clear our consistent view that the TFA should remain stable throughout the day, absent errors in it, and that WP:ERRORS is named that for a reason. The community has approved each of us to be responsible for TFA as a coordinator, and I'm afraid we tend to be a little hands-on when it comes to that and want to see changes pass across our desk, so to speak. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 12:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{Tomorrow/long}}|Tomorrow's FA]] === |
=== [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{Tomorrow/long}}|Tomorrow's FA]] === |
||
Line 16: | Line 38: | ||
== Errors in "Did you know ..." == |
== Errors in "Did you know ..." == |
||
=== [[Template:Did you know|Current DYK]] === |
=== [[Template:Did you know|Current DYK]] === |
||
I've added a couple of tags to [[Cora Babbitt Johnson]]; one of the sources for the hook fact is unreliable (BA thesis) and the other doesn't support the claim (Johnson didn't sway Gunderson, he was against the project from the beginning; see Fife pp. 31, 48, 54). [[User:Sojourner in the earth|Sojourner in the earth]] ([[User talk:Sojourner in the earth|talk]]) 04:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*... that the ancient Greek game polis is one of the world's oldest strategy games? |
|||
:Looking into this; in the meantime, ping to {{u|Borg Axoim}} (welcome!), {{u|Launchballer}}, {{u|LordPeterII}} (welcome back!), {{u|AirshipJungleman29}}, and {{u|Amakuru}}. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 07:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|Piotrus|Generalissima|AirshipJungleman29|TheSandDoctor}} the [[Royal Game of Ur]] is '''2,000 years older'''. One of the oldest is only true because so few survive, not because it was chronologicallmy close to the origin of these games. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''pulled''', provisionally, while this gets sorted out. This is quite perplexing; Merritt 2024 cites Fite 1952, p. 66, for the claim, but the Open Library version of Fite 1952 linked from our article makes no mention of anything of the kind. Neither Gunderson nor Johnson are mentioned on p. 66 of this version, and I don't see a line from the book anywhere that would support this claim. On the contrary, it does seem that Gunderson was against the carving even when he signed the bill. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 07:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Yeah, apologies guys - I thought I'd done a thorough job on this set, after a bit of a blood bath last time around, but this one slipped under the radar. Pulling seems sensible for now, since we can't verify the claim. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 08:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{re|Fram}} would "...one of the world's oldest surviving strategy games" work better? [[User:TheSandDoctor|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">The</span><span style="color:#009933; font-weight:bold;">SandDoctor</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:TheSandDoctor|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 14:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I went with "oldest known", which matches what's stated in the article. I'm not saying this solves the issues, but it's at least an incremental improvement. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 14:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|Fram}}, the source makes it clear that race games, such as the Game of Ur, are not wholly strategy games, instead falling into the category of "race games", which combine luck and strategy. By contrast, games such as ''polis'' were entirely strategy driven. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 14:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::The article on Ur calls it a strategy game, and our article on strategy games also includes things like Warhammer, which are also partially decided by dice, or [[Contract bridge]], which starts with dealing cards randomly. The ''entirely'' strategy driven section (things like chess and checkers) seems to be a very small part of the much larger group of strategy games as usually (and by us) described, and the correctness of a hook shouldn't depend on the definition given in one source but contradicted by others (and e.g. our articles). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The source cited at [[Royal Game of Ur]] classifies games into categories like "racing" and "strategy", and classifies the Royal Game of Ur as a "racing" game (Botermans 2008, p. 713). "strategy" could be made more specific as "pure strategy", but the hook doesn't appear incorrect. [[User:Rjjiii|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rjj<sup>iii</sup></span>]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 15:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== [[Template:Did you know/Queue/{{Did you know/Queue/Next}}|Next DYK]] === |
=== [[Template:Did you know/Queue/{{Did you know/Queue/Next}}|Next DYK]] === |
||
*... that dance teacher Mary Ann Wells, despite being in the "I AM" movement, did not enforce rigid technical standards on her students? |
|||
{{ping|Xoak|SL93|AirshipJungleman29}} I have read the I AM article, and the bolded article, but I don't see this juxtaposition as being meaningful. "Despite her association with the I AM Temple, which held to strict vegetarian practices, Wells focused on cultivating her students' passion for dance rather than enforcing rigid technical standards." What has a religion or vegetarianism to do with rigid technical dance standards? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The source says "Despite her mysticism, further reinforced by membership in the I AM temple, whose tenets included strict vegetarianism, Wells’s teaching was not in any way cultish. She was an inspirer rather than a stickler for technical finesse. Most important, she instilled in her students a deep love for dance in all its forms." The hook (and the article) have shortened this in a way that makes the "despite" misleading. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 09:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_7&diff=prev&oldid=1227605688 did not promote this hook], so I cannot speak for its merits. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 11:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
:::{{u|Amakuru}}, I promoted the hook {{green|" ... that '''[[Mary Ann Wells]]''', considered the most influential ballet teacher of the [[Pacific Northwest]], mentored numerous talented dancers, including [[Gerald Arpino]], who went on to co-found the [[Joffrey Ballet]]?"}}, as can be seen from the diff I provided, not the hook that is currently in the queue. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Ah, apologies, I didn't read carefully enough. It seems that {{u|Theleekycauldron}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Queue/7&diff=prev&oldid=1228060172 swapped the hook for another one at the admin checks phase], following discussion at [[WT:DYK]]. I'd suggest we pull this one and reopen the nom page as it appears the current hook is [[WP:SYNTH]]. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 12:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{u|Amakuru}} For the original promoted hook, the theleekycauldron raised an issue about if the source could be used for the word "influential" in any form. I suggest going with the original hook and cutting that part out to say "... that '''[[Mary Ann Wells]]''' mentored numerous talented dancers, including [[Gerald Arpino]], who went on to co-found the [[Joffrey Ballet]]?" [[User:SL93|SL93]] ([[User talk:SL93|talk]]) 13:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I agree that the hook is better without "influential", but Arpino's co-founding of the Joffrey Ballet is not mentioned in the article or supported by the source. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 13:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I could have sworn I saw it, but now I see that it was said in Arpino's article. I'm going to add it to the article with a source now. [[User:SL93|SL93]] ([[User talk:SL93|talk]]) 13:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{u|Firefangledfeathers}} Now done. [[User:SL93|SL93]] ([[User talk:SL93|talk]]) 13:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Unrelated, but I was wondering why the next DYK set only has 6 hooks. [[User:SL93|SL93]] ([[User talk:SL93|talk]]) 13:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::three had to be pulled on sourcing issues; i was experimenting with not replacing them, seeing if that leads to better results on accuracy. unfortunately, didn't push hard enough on this hook... [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 15:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not sure if we should have an experiment like that without prior discussion. I see that I'm the only one who has brought it up so far, so maybe I'm in the wrong. [[User:SL93|SL93]] ([[User talk:SL93|talk]]) 15:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{yo|Theleekycauldron}} I think this is too controversial to be done boldly. I'm a bit too frazzled at the moment to do anything substantial in terms of reviewing, but some later hooks should be swapped in.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">[[User:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">Laun</u>]][[User talk:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">chba</u>]][[Special:Contribs/Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">ller</u>]]</span> 18:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That's not something I could action before this queue goes live, because I'm very swamped today, but I'll keep that in mind. But honestly, if 4/9ths of the hooks in a set merit a pull, that means I'm looking at doing 13+ <em>full reviews</em> before a queue goes live. That's really a lot of work for each queue, and I don't know if it's productive. Maybe we say that there should be enough hooks to maintain MP balance, instead of requiring one-for-one replacement. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 18:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::You can't do that, [[User:Theleekycauldron|Leeky]]. [[Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow]] shows that the main page is unbalanced, with a serious amount of whitespace. Please promote some hooks into this set to restore balance. '''[[User:Schwede66|<span style="color: #000000;">Schwede</span>]][[User talk:Schwede66|<span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>]]''' 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Gah. I thought the balance would pan out a bit better; bad luck on the TFA and the setlength. I have a final exam today, though, so I don't think I really have the capacity to make any more promotions before the queue goes live. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 18:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:i had the same issue, but thought i was being too picky/out of step :) for what it's worth, i don't think the proposed replacement is very interesting, not that the current hook makes much sense. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 15:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It does have an interestingness problem. From a non-knowledgeable reader's perspective: "Dance teacher taught a dance student who went on to found a dance company." [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I suggest to reopen it for a better hook. I feel like there has to be something, even if it isn't currently in the article. [[User:SL93|SL93]] ([[User talk:SL93|talk]]) 15:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== [[Template:Did you know/Queue/{{Did you know/Queue/After next}}|Next-but-one DYK]] === |
=== [[Template:Did you know/Queue/{{Did you know/Queue/After next}}|Next-but-one DYK]] === |
||
Line 55: | Line 50: | ||
== Errors in "On this day" == |
== Errors in "On this day" == |
||
=== [[Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/{{#time:F j}}|Today's OTD]] === |
=== [[Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/{{#time:F j}}|Today's OTD]] === |
||
Dragon Boat Festival is celebrated by China ''and Taiwan'', at least according to <ref>{{Cite web |last=China (Taiwan) |first=Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of |date=1967-06-01 |title=Dragon Boat Festival |url=https://taiwantoday.tw/news.php?unit=20&post=26089 |access-date=2024-06-10 |website=Taiwan Today |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Island |first=Bubble Tea |date=2023-06-14 |title=Dragon Boat Festival in Taiwan {{!}} What is it? |url=https://bubbleteaisland.com/2023/06/14/dragon-boat-festival-in-taiwan-what-is-it/ |access-date=2024-06-10 |website=Bubble Tea Island |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Munk-Janson |first=Pia |date=2022-05-25 |title=Dragon Boat Festival - the dos and don'ts |url=https://communitycenter.org.tw/dragon-boat-festival/ |access-date=2024-06-10 |website=The Center |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Dragon Boat Festival in Taiwan: Traditions, Food, Boat Races |url=https://www.travelchinaguide.com/essential/holidays/dragon-boat-festival-in-taiwan.htm |access-date=2024-06-10 |website=www.travelchinaguide.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=The Unforgettable Spectacle of Dragon Boat Racing in Taiwan: A 2024 Guide » Agoda: See The World For Less |url=https://www.agoda.com/travel-guides/taiwan/the-unforgettable-spectacle-of-dragon-boat-racing-in-taiwan-a-2024-guide/ |access-date=2024-06-10 |website=Agoda: See The World For Less |language=en}}</ref> |
|||
⚫ | |||
:I guess [https://www.discoverhongkong.com/uk/explore/culture/dragon-boat-featival-fun-facts-and-festivities.html Hong Kong]] is now just regarded as part of China? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I think so? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 14:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I guess some residents might still challenge that. That article says "{{tq|The event is originated from the Lingnan region of China, where people believed the water that passed through the oars of dragon boats was auspicious. But the modern version of the races actually began in Hong Kong some 40 years ago.}}" [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 14:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::While I acknowledge the Hong Kong independence movement, beleaguered as it is, and the special significance of the festival to Hong Kong, I don't think a change to OTD is warranted at this time. I wouldn't strenuously object if another admin feels otherwise. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== [[Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/{{Tomorrow}}|Tomorrow's OTD]] === |
=== [[Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/{{Tomorrow}}|Tomorrow's OTD]] === |
||
Line 79: | Line 67: | ||
{{Hatnote|'''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.|extraclasses=sysop-show}} |
{{Hatnote|'''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.|extraclasses=sysop-show}} |
||
=== [[Template:POTD protected/{{#time:Y-m-d}}|Today's POTD]] === |
=== [[Template:POTD protected/{{#time:Y-m-d}}|Today's POTD]] === |
||
* 10 June - at "is a [[shock wave]] that, unlike a [[Shock wave|normal shock]], is inclined" the two links are the same. |
|||
:Could perhaps pipe a link to "supersonic" ie [[Supersonic speed]]? [[User:JennyOz|JennyOz]] ([[User talk:JennyOz|talk]]) 15:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Duplicate link removed. I'm neutral on the supersonic link. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== [[Template:POTD protected/{{Tomorrow/ymd}}|Tomorrow's POTD]] === |
=== [[Template:POTD protected/{{Tomorrow/ymd}}|Tomorrow's POTD]] === |
Revision as of 12:17, 21 June 2024
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 20:32 on 26 June 2024) 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 because this is not a talk page. (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.
- 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.
Errors in the summary of the featured article
Today's FA
The blurb could do with a bit of copyediting:
recent evidence has proposed
– Evidence does not propose anything. People propose things.Giraffes live in herds [...] but are gregarious
– The reason for the "but" is not clear.herds of related females and their offspring or bachelor herds of unrelated adult males
– Difficult to parse, could use a comma after "offspring".Giraffes have been featured in paintings, books, and cartoons
– I'm afraid this strikes me as an absolutely pointless sentence. Everything has been featured in paintings, books, and cartoons.Giraffes are assessed as vulnerable to extinction
– "have been assessed" would be better, or "are classified".
Sojourner in the earth (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @WP:TFA coordinators Your input is required. (I was already getting worried that nobody had any errors today for all of the main page) Schwede66 05:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, since it's been a few hours and the TFA coords maybe aren't around currently, I've WP:BOLDly had a go at the first point above, which seeems a fairly straightforward minor error - evidence doesn't propose things, as noted... I've changed "more recent evidence has proposed dividing them into multiple species" → "researchers have recently proposed dividing them into multiple species due to new evidence", which matches some of the wording of the article and doesn't take us over the word limit yet. Happy to revert or amend if needed, but this seems like an improvement. I'm not so convinced on the other points, those seem more subjective decisions, so I'll leave that for now. Happy to revert or discuss if I've made a mistake here. @Wehwalt, Gog the Mild, and Dank: — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Addressing the other points specifically:
Giraffes live in herds [...] but are gregarious
– The reason for the "but" is not clear.herds of related females and their offspring or bachelor herds of unrelated adult males
– Difficult to parse, could use a comma after "offspring".- Actually, looking again, I'm not sure this sentence and the gregarious bit is cited in the article at all. The lead and the blurb say the above, while the cited body says "males become more solitary but may also associate in pairs or with female groups" which doesn't seem the same at all. If we're going to use very old FAs as main page content, we should at the very least be checking that what's in the blurb and the lead still matches the body... Suggest we simply remove that bit unless a quick cited rewording can be found. — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Giraffes have been featured in paintings, books, and cartoons
– I'm afraid this strikes me as an absolutely pointless sentence. Everything has been :::featured in paintings, books, and cartoons.- Yes, this seems a legitimate point - the full sentence in the article mostly makes sense - "The giraffe has intrigued various ancient and modern cultures for its peculiar appearance, and has often been featured in paintings, books, and cartoons" - (although I'm a bit lairy about using "peculiar" in WP:WIKIVOICE like that) but the condensed version about it just being in books and paintings reduces it to something almost meaningless. Not a direct error though so I'd leave that be for the rest of the day probably.
Giraffes are assessed as vulnerable to extinction
– "have been assessed" would be better, or "are classified".
- Addressing the other points specifically:
- OK, since it's been a few hours and the TFA coords maybe aren't around currently, I've WP:BOLDly had a go at the first point above, which seeems a fairly straightforward minor error - evidence doesn't propose things, as noted... I've changed "more recent evidence has proposed dividing them into multiple species" → "researchers have recently proposed dividing them into multiple species due to new evidence", which matches some of the wording of the article and doesn't take us over the word limit yet. Happy to revert or amend if needed, but this seems like an improvement. I'm not so convinced on the other points, those seem more subjective decisions, so I'll leave that for now. Happy to revert or discuss if I've made a mistake here. @Wehwalt, Gog the Mild, and Dank: — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think we've made it clear that we object to copyediting on the TFA day unless it's very urgent or. a clear error. You are not going to find us available in the middle of the night US time. This blurb has been up for well over a month and was, as I recall, a TFA/R. We are anxious to have edits prior to the TFA day since dying has become inactive. Less so on the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can understand why you do not want to be bothered with approving copy edits while you are asleep. But why do you object to others copy editing on the day to improve weaknesses in the wording? Surely that is what happens generally in Wikipedia: we don't normally seek previous editors' agreement before editing an article. And in the special case of the TFA blurb on the day your text has the added protection that only an administrator can tinker with it. Today provides good examples of why it is not in the interests of Wikipedia that you have this possessive attitude to the wording. Or have there really been many cases of edits on the day being detrimental? JMCHutchinson (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. I can understand the desire to have things finalised before go-live day, but this is a volunteer project and we all have limited resource available. Personally I'm open about the fact that I don't have time to check every day's TFA blurb in advance, particularly as I'm heavily involved with POTD and DYK already... and for the most part I wouldn't really need to anyway, you guys do a great job at TFAR and improvements are rarely suggested. But occasionally prose points become clear on the day that weren't spotted in advance, and are raised here at ERRORS. In my view, edits that respond to those issues, as above, fairly clearly made the text better and gave readers a better experience, and that's the most important thing we're supposed to be striving for rather than due process or who exactly WP:OWNs the TFA content. As for "editing through protection", which was raised last time we discussed this, the reason for main-page content being only editable by admins is not because the content is sacrosanct but merely to preserve the reputation of Wikipedia and ensure that vandalism doesn't affect our most viewed page. As such, I don't think that protection supersedes the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And if you're not available at all times of the day that's all the more reason to allow improvements to be made by others through the day IMHO. — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- We can't stop you from editing the TFA blurb, and we don't. I don't think we've ever reverted a change, I've massaged a few that were a bit off or that (as happens a lot) took us over the 1,025 character limit that not everyone who edits the TFA seems to be aware of or able to ascertain. But what we can is make clear our consistent view that the TFA should remain stable throughout the day, absent errors in it, and that WP:ERRORS is named that for a reason. The community has approved each of us to be responsible for TFA as a coordinator, and I'm afraid we tend to be a little hands-on when it comes to that and want to see changes pass across our desk, so to speak. Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can understand why you do not want to be bothered with approving copy edits while you are asleep. But why do you object to others copy editing on the day to improve weaknesses in the wording? Surely that is what happens generally in Wikipedia: we don't normally seek previous editors' agreement before editing an article. And in the special case of the TFA blurb on the day your text has the added protection that only an administrator can tinker with it. Today provides good examples of why it is not in the interests of Wikipedia that you have this possessive attitude to the wording. Or have there really been many cases of edits on the day being detrimental? JMCHutchinson (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Tomorrow's FA
Day-after-tomorrow's FA
Errors with "In the news"
Errors in "Did you know ..."
Current DYK
I've added a couple of tags to Cora Babbitt Johnson; one of the sources for the hook fact is unreliable (BA thesis) and the other doesn't support the claim (Johnson didn't sway Gunderson, he was against the project from the beginning; see Fife pp. 31, 48, 54). Sojourner in the earth (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Looking into this; in the meantime, ping to Borg Axoim (welcome!), Launchballer, LordPeterII (welcome back!), AirshipJungleman29, and Amakuru. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- pulled, provisionally, while this gets sorted out. This is quite perplexing; Merritt 2024 cites Fite 1952, p. 66, for the claim, but the Open Library version of Fite 1952 linked from our article makes no mention of anything of the kind. Neither Gunderson nor Johnson are mentioned on p. 66 of this version, and I don't see a line from the book anywhere that would support this claim. On the contrary, it does seem that Gunderson was against the carving even when he signed the bill. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Next DYK
Next-but-one DYK
Errors in "On this day"
Today's OTD
Tomorrow's OTD
Day-after-tomorrow's OTD
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Friday's FL
(June 28)
Monday's FL
(July 1)
Errors in the summary of the featured picture
Today's POTD
Tomorrow's POTD
Any other Main Page errors
Please report any such problems or suggestions for improvement at the General discussion section of Talk:Main Page.