Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive. |
---|
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 |
Main Page error reports
To report an error in current or upcoming Main Page content, please add it to the appropriate section below.
- Where is the error? An exact quotation of all or part of the text in question will help.
- Please 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 05:02 on 27 February 2023), not adjusted to your local time zone.
- Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not give you a faster response; it is unnecessary as this page is not protected and will in fact cause problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
- Done? Once an error has been fixed, rotated off the Main Page or acknowledged not to be an error, the report will be removed from this page; please check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept.
- No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the relevant article or project talk page.
- Please respect other editors. A real person wrote the blurb or hook for which you are suggesting a fix, or a real person noticed what they honestly believe is an issue with the blurb or hook that you wrote. Everyone is interested in creating the best Main Page possible; with the compressed time frame, there is sometimes more stress and more opportunities to step on toes. Please be civil to fellow users.
- Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, consider first attempting to fix the problem there before reporting it here if necessary. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. In addition, upcoming content is typically only protected from editing 24 hours before its scheduled appearance; in most cases, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
Errors in the summary of the featured article
Today's FA
- There is WP:OVERLINKING in the Japanese fire-bellied newt summary. In order of most egregious, these are biology (really?), disease, insects, habitats (the habitats themselves are unlinked), larva (which could be piped to tadpole except that's already linked, Juvenile (organism), which is a barely above a dicdef and uninformative, "Japanese islands" (which is okay, except they are found on the main islands, so it should maybe be piped to Mainland Japan instead of Japanese archipelago, and species. I don't mean to say that these should all be unlinked, but perhaps if some are the rest won't stand out so much. Abductive (reasoning) 03:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Abductive, i've noticed that zoological blurbs tend to link to simpler terms when compared with other blurbs, so i tend to leave links that i would normally consider excessive alone. see, for example, "feathers" linked here, and "insects" linked here. (i suspect this is because many zoological blurbs would be sparsely linked otherwise.[original research]) i find merit with many of your points, though i am not sure if further discussion would be required to change the practice.interestingly, the link to the biology article also bothered me, but that was largely because the linked article focuses on a sense of the word different from that used in the blurb. using wiktionary's enumeration, the linked article uses sense 1 while the blurb uses sense 3. i couldn't find a better article to link to, though, so i just left the link alone.that the bird is mostly found on the main islands of japan is also a good point, but the link text states "Japanese islands", so linking to the article on mainland japan would appear to violate mos:egg. also, the article on the archipelago has some discussion on the land itself, while the other article largely discusses the term "Mainland Japan", which is not as useful for readers of this blurb.in any case, i personally have no issues if any of the above are unlinked. thanks for bringing the matter up. dying (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- I would certainly unlink at least juvenile, insects, biology, and disease. The meanings of these terms are clear to everyone, and the linked articles are too general in scope to be helpful in this context. JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Tomorrow's FA
Day-after-tomorrow's FA
Errors with "In the news"
Errors in "Did you know ..."
Current DYK
- 2nd hook "that although the SS Tembien was" - should probably remove "the" per WP:SHIPNAME "Do not use the definite article the before a prefix..."? JennyOz (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Next DYK
Next-but-one DYK
Errors in "On this day"
Today's OTD
Our friend the old style calendar again. She was born on 14 February 1869 old style. That calendar was in use in Russia until 1918 so as per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries; "the event should have occurred on the day in question in the calendar in use at the time (per MOS:JG)", we should use the old style date - Dumelow (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've moved Nadezhda Krupskaya to the eligibility section for 14 February. I've replaced it for now with Reginald St John Battersby (COI declaration: this is an article I wrote, as I know the birth date is sourced), happy to look at any alternative articles also - Dumelow (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Tomorrow's OTD
Has been orange-tagged for almost a year for an update. How much of an update you can give an article from 1600+ years ago, I don't know, but it should be resolved either way before main page appearance - Dumelow (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- I asked Avilich, who placed the maintenance tag, and they said:
Certainly. The article claims that the edict "made the Catholicism of Nicene Christians the state church of the Roman Empire" and "was the milestone of the official Christianization of the Roman Empire". But the French article says that this is "a view from which recent historiography has largely distanced itself" -- une vision dont l'historiographie plus récente s'est largement distanciée. The passage is cited to several sources, at least one of which, the book Religious Dissent in Late Antiquity, definitely confirms this ("the law was not intended to establish Nicene Christianity as the official religion for all inhabitants, as has generally been presumed"). According to this, the edict was unknown in Antioch 5 years later, and here it is claimed that the Pope at Rome likely never heard of it. Recent scholarship now regards the edict as a local decree aimed at Constantinople specifically, not to the whole Empire. Note that in July 2022 دانيالوه followed my suggestion and added some content from the French article, but there is still work to be done. Avilich (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Since the the blurb itself is affected by the issue, I'd recommend pulling and replacing. Maybe with "1617 – Sweden signed the Treaty of Stolbovo to end the Ingrian War with Russia, making large territorial gains"? It's the next oldest option. The Edict item should probably be moved to the ineligible section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Day-after-tomorrow's OTD
The date does not appear in the source cited - Dumelow (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Date of birth uncited - Dumelow (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Monday's FL
"At the time, the chart was titled Best-Selling Popular Record Albums and was "based on reports received from more than 200 dealers" throughout the United States."
- Uncited - Dumelow (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- I tweaked the language to note that the 200 dealers was true in January, but the number increased to >4,000 by December. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
"That Bing Crosby's Merry Christmas "reached the top in December 1945 and peaked for two more weeks in January 1946, for a total of six consecutive weeks at number one." is largely uncited. The table cites only the 1946 chart position - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Weeks in 1945 now cited. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
"It again reached the top in late November for an additional five weeks, making it the longest reigning album of the year". The table shows six entries for this song in November and December, so that's six weeks right? - Dumelow (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Six weeks is correct and the article has been corrected. The totals listed are correct. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
"The second longest-reigning album of the previous year, Glenn Miller, recorded by Glenn Miller & His Orchestra"
- The sources cited don't mention its performance in 1945 - Dumelow (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'll get to this soon. I don't think there's a more elegant way than adding eight citations for the weeks Glenn Miller was king and twelve citations for the weeks King Cole Trio dethroned it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Now cited. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'll get to this soon. I don't think there's a more elegant way than adding eight citations for the weeks Glenn Miller was king and twelve citations for the weeks King Cole Trio dethroned it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Overall, I think I can have the article itself fixed up and a proposal for fixes to the blurb by twelve hours from now. Should leave some time for an admin to make the update before Monday. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Protection hadn't kicked in yet, so I was able to edit the blurb myself. I'd appreciate review of this series of edits, which included the fixes, some trimming, and ce. In particular, am I right to hyphenate in "second-longest-reigning album" and "longest-reigning album"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Firefangledfeathers your edits to the article and blurb look good to me. Something I didn't spot on my first pass was that RIAA was used in the blurb but not defined. I don't think it's a commonly known acronym so have spelt it out and linked it (Recording Industry Association of America) - Dumelow (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Friday's FL
Errors in the summary of the featured picture
Today's POTD
Please close the unclosed italics after "Physalis peruviana" (inside the wikilink) at Template:POTD protected/2023-02-25. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Tomorrow's POTD
General discussion
distracting animation
The hurricane animation is very distracting; almost like an advertisement.
I would strongly urge the community to not turn Wikipedia's main page into some kind of Yahoo portal. Please keep it static. Yes, some kids may consider this "boring". I consider it a prerequisite for "informative". CapnZapp (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- In contrast I found the video fascinating. I do not believe that any static image, or even a series of them, could convey the phenomenon as clearly, so in this case the use of video is appropriate and informative. Not everything serious has to be boring! JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with CapnZapp. Readers don't need animated visuals to get the gist of articles that could just as well be illustrated by still photos or depictions. Main Page space is limited, and animated 'art' tends to draw the reader's eye away from other important content. In this instance, the vid looks pretty much like any other hurricane illustration. -- Sca (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree; we should not be using animated images on the main page. BilledMammal (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- I must make note that I have been found guilty of just sitting there and staring at the gif loop for at least two minutes yesterday. Not sure if that's a good thing-- but do what you will with that fact; it's quite attention grabbing. ~GoatLordServant(Talk) 14:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think the animation is a problem. "almost like an advertisement" - er, no, an advertisement is chiefly distinguished by being an advertisement. This is nothing like an advertisement. It's illustrative.
CharredShorthand.talk;
19:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC) - I thought it was wonderful. So much of Wikipedia is static and lifeless that I found it very refreshing to see some movement on the main page. It grabbed my attention and encouraged me to find out what news item it referred to in a way that very little on the main page usually does. To put my serious hat on for a moment, I also agree with JMCHutchinson above that the video visualised the news item in a way that a static image couldn't, and it therefore also has Serious Encyclopedic Value. Sam Walton (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm more concerned with its copyright status, which I've raised on the Commons talk page. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am also of the opinion that an animation in that spot is too distracting. Srnec (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't like it one bit. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- I loved the animation! It wasn't that much of a distraction for me since I'm not on the Main Page that often anyway. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- I was just about to ask: shouldn't Wikipedia use a bit of color every once in a while? I've been seeing this exact white since I joined 20 years ago and I am not a kid (much as I wish I was again!) , and I've never seen it change. And yes, it is boring! Adding color sometimes could actually lead to an increase in readership. It doesn't even have to be a "cool" or "entertaining" color; a cream or burgundy background, for example, would still say respectability while at the same time making the page easier on the eye and more enjoyable for prospective future readers. I agree about the page being too small and whatnot but I'm just saying.. it's something maybe we should give it a thought or two. Antonio Colorfully panted nails Martin (aqui, por favor!) 00:06, february 21, 2023 (UTC)
Urdu language on the main page
In urdu langue we have 50k+ article but we not found urdu langue in main page why ? ابوالحسن راجپوت (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)