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 (19:26 on 21 November 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]

TFA tomorrow[edit]

  • "The sea mink (Neovison macrodon) was a carnivoran from the eastern coast of North America, in the family of weasels and otters" - the word "carnivoran" is obscure at best (not appearing in the OED, for example), and does not appear in the article on the Sea Mink. DuncanHill (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks. From where I'm sitting, there are ongoing questions at TFA about the first sentence of some biology articles. A couple of months ago, we used "carnivore" in a similar article, and there were no objections ... would that work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Has the advantage of being a word that will actually be recognised as such. One possible objection is that "a carnivore" does not mean "a member of the order Carnivora", which is the meaning intended here. DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Then why not say "a member of the order Carnivora". In what way is that confusing? --Jayron32 15:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
          • It isn't. DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
            • Works for me, if I can use "in the order Carnivora", which is word-for-word in the first sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Errors in In the news[edit]

Please change 'auto racing' -> 'stock car racing'. Auto racing is a term used only in AmE; we could use 'motor racing' per MOS:COMMONALITY, but 'stock car racing' is more informative (and a better link) anyway. Incidentally, why do we have separate articles on auto racing and motorsport, which largely duplicate each other? Modest Genius talk 10:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

In partial answer to your above question, my guess is that motorsport includes motorbikes (etc, see Motorsport#Other_racing), auto-racing doesn't, and that there may also be British v American perspectives at play, but this is the wrong place to discuss all that. (I have no views either way on auto sport v stock car racing). Tlhslobus (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Fixed. --Jayron32 15:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
"Stock car racing" in the UK means something completely different to NASCAR. Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Auto racing is not a term commonly used in U.S. English. Sca (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Well then who does use it?! Certainly not us BrE speakers. Would be strange to title our article that if it's not common anywhere. Modest Genius talk 17:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It's very common in my part of the US. --Khajidha (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Would "American stock car racing" help? Haploidavey (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe[edit]

Mugabe has resigned. The blurb needs to be updated and bumped. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

+1 -- the original discussion at ITN is about to expire off. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Also being discussed at WP:ITN/C. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, doesn't coup imply military? Isn't a "non-military coup" just called a revolution?--Khajidha (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Nope, see our article about it. ansh666 19:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

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

OTD today[edit]

I would say not - too many unsourced paragraphs. Alex James (musician) is even worse. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
References added now. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Annie (singer) still has several unreferenced claims, eg: ""Heartbeat" was remixed by Canadian electronic duo MSTRKRFT in 2005.", "Don't Stop leaked in its original incarnation in 2008", "and re-recorded her songs "Chewing Gum" and "Heartbeat" in Simlish for The Sims 2: Nightlife's Danish and Norwegian localisations." and "Annie co-wrote Mini Viva's debut single "Left My Heart in Tokyo", released in September 2009 and produced by Xenomania." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

OTD tomorrow[edit]

  • As-Salih Ayyub death date is not referenced anywhere in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    Reference 12 is a print reference to his death. I don't believe that online references are required. --Jayron32 16:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming[edit]

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]

Today's birth anniversary[edit]

150 years ago Marie Curie was born! BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Added. Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but Marie Curie is already included on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 26 and thus is not eligible to appear today. howcheng {chat} 16:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC
I disagree that Marie Curie's birth (or death) was ineligible for inclusion on the grounds stated. The relevant guidelines suggest to me that either birth or death, but not both, are eligible, provided that the person is not already otherwise commemorated (see criterion 6.3). However, the December 26th anniversary is not of Marie Curie in her own sole right, but for her and her husband's discovery of radium, which I think is a sufficiently different thing from her own birth/death as to not exclude them.
Obviously, this sort of issue could arise with many other eminent scientists, explorers etc. so needs to be clearly understood. Are there definive precedents and decisions? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.27 (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The article is featured on that date already. That's what the guideline prohibits: Furthermore, if the person is featured (bold item) as a regular blurb on any day, they may not be chosen for birth/death listings. Exceptions are made when the day in question is lacking a selection of decent articles (i.e., only reuse it if we're desperate). howcheng {chat} 23:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Am I missing something? On Dec 26 the radium item is in the 'eligible' section, not actually selected for use. Furthermore, it should really just have radium as the bold link, because the discovery of that element is the relevant historical event, not the biographies of the two Curies. Why have three bold links in the same item? Modest Genius talk 11:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
We can bold radium in that blurb as well. Having multiple bold links in a blurb is fairly common. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Modest Genius that the Dec 26 anniversary is of the discovery of radium and should only have radium as a bold link. This would permit these two eminent scientists (who also discovered many other things) to have their own articles featured on the anniversaries of their births (or deaths).
Consider the Higgs boson: the team that actually discovered this comprised hundreds of scientists, some of them eminent now (and perhaps more of them eminent in the future). Would we forever prohibit every one of them being featured on their own significant birth or death anniversaries if the Higgs boson discovery announcement (4 July 2012) was itself featured? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.27 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I can only agree with 90.200.138.27. Double sharp (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
People shouldn't think of this as preventing Marie Curie from appearing twice, but rather as weighing the difference between allowing one person's name to appear twice if that would mean that another deserving article didn't get to appear at all. There's a limited space, and spreading out articles is a Good Idea. Howcheng is a reasonable person, and knows that odd situations and unique anniversaries do arise. He's not blindly applying arbitrary rules, and I trust he has a healthy and useful understanding of WP:IAR for situations where it is necessary. He's doing just fine here. --Jayron32 15:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
There will #always# be more articles, anniversaries, 'newsworthy topics' etc than can appear on the Main Page - apart from when there are not enough.
Looking at the discussion from the other direction - the more dates the more opportunities for filling quiet days and/or avoiding complaints of 'this has appeared today on the Main Page five times in the past six years' and similar. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Howcheng knows all of this. Let them do their job. They're doing fine so far. --Jayron32 16:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
No-one accused anyone of doing a bad job, there were just some suggested improvements. Personally I think it's better to include Marie Curie on her birthday than bold her name on 26 Dec, when it's not really related to the 26 Dec event. More to the point the 26 Dec event isn't even in the rotation. Modest Genius talk 17:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

And how many days of 'everybody agreeing that several the MP and its links are truly wonderful' will mark the start of the apocalypse? 17:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article - photo choice for Presque Isle State Park TFA blurb[edit]

I am one of the main authors of Presque Isle State Park and had no idea it was even nominated for TFA. While I am glad to see it so honored, the photo chosen for the TFA blurb on the Main Page (a snowy parking lot in a forest File:Presque_Isle_State_Park_in_the_Winter.jpg) does not do a great job of conveying what is special and unique about the park. Pennsylvania has 121 state parks, but only two of them are on its Lake Erie coastline. Presque Isle State Park (the name means "almost an island" or "peninsula" in French) is surrounded by water and almost all of the attractions in the park are water related, but the picture conveys nothing of this. Ignoring maps and template images, there are 12 photos in the article, 8 of which show the water (and a 9th shows the most picturesque lighthouse). Of the other three photos, one is the Tom Ridge Environmental Center (on the mainland, at the entrance to the park), one is a cerulean warbler (which was photographed in Canada), and the last is the snowy parking lot picture currently on the main page. Could we please pick a more representative photo from one of the others used in the article? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I was BOLD and put