Page semi-protected

Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 03:16 on 29 January 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

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today's FA

The blurb for states that the Nassau class battleships were built in "in the mid-1900s". Those vessels were constructed between 1907 and 1910. The article itself correctly states that they were built "in the early-1900s". The blurb should be corrected to conform, but the hyphen (in "early-1900s") can be omitted. Kablammo (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i had interpreted "1900s" to refer to the decade. i believe, on wikipedia, "20th century" tends to be used to refer to the century (ignoring issues with the year 1900) to avoid ambiguity, so "1900s" often specifically refers to the decade. see, for example, "1900s in comics". i think something like "first decade of the 20th century" could have avoided the ambiguity, but there is a 1025-character limit to blurbs, and this one is already at 1025 characters. dying (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that there is ambiguity in the usage. Here, while the vessels were designed earlier they were built from 1907 through 1910, which seems inconsistent with the assertion that they were built in the middle of the first decade. It could have been phrased were built "from 1907 to 1910" which adds one more character. Kablammo (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tomorrow's FA

  • It would be best to add "black-breasted buttonquail" to the caption – a one-word caption looks rather jarring and unusual, and not great for accessibility. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Can "Resignation of Jacinda Ardern" please be delinked from the Main page as I plan on nominating for deletion (my previous nomination was procedurally closed due it being linked on the main page). Thanks.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, just nominate it after it’s off the main page. Stephen 20:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:PCLOSE, an English Wikipedia deletion guideline states "if there are legitimate concerns, please use Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors to have the link removed before nominating the article." It does not state anything about needing to wait for the ITN to be off the Main Page.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no legitimate concerns about having this article on the main page. Stephen 21:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My expectation is that the article would be a very clear keep. Hence, I don’t see the concern either. Schwede66 23:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

While it's not an error per se, Edward VI could accurately and more economically be described as the first Protestant English monarch. (As his article's lead notes, his father was a schismatic but resisted theological reform). Carolynparrishfan (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tomorrow's OTD

Pope Sergius III

904 – Sergius III (pictured), whose pontificate was marked by feudal violence and disorder in central Italy, came out of retirement to take over the papacy from the deposed antipope Christopher.

The article says he was in exile, not retirement. Reading the blurb alone I assumed he had been pope before or something - Dumelow (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd support a change to exile. It's mentioned in the article, supported by the cited source, and more attention-grabbing anyway. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bear River Massacre

"1863 – American Indian Wars: The U.S. Army led by Patrick Edward Connor massacred Chief Bear Hunter and Shoshone forces at the Bear River Massacre in present-day Franklin County, Idaho."

I couldn't see a citation in the article to support that Bear Hunter was killed in the massacre (his death is only stated in the infobox as far as I can tell) - Dumelow (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Text on Hunter's death added with citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quebec City mosque shooting

"2017 – A lone gunman carried out a mass shooting at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada, killing six people and injuring nineteen others"

Article says "between eight and 19 others were treated for minor injuries" so we shouldn't be using the larger figure I think - Dumelow (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

1607 Bristol Channel floods

The SA guidelines state "the event should have occurred on the day in question in the calendar in use at the time (per MOS:JG)". England did not switch to the Gregorian calendar until 1750 so this should feature on 20 January - Dumelow (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Richard Lawrence (failed assassin)

"1835 – Richard Lawrence became the first person to attempt to assassinate a sitting US president when he failed to kill Andrew Jackson at the US Capitol (assassination attempt pictured) and was subdued by the crowd."

That it was the first attempt on a sitting US president is stated only in the lead and uncited - Dumelow (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now mentioned in the body with citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(February 3)

Monday's FL

(January 30, tomorrow)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Why doesn't the main page have a search box so that people can get into Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neelthakrebew (talkcontribs)

Well, the main page does have a search box (whether you are signed in or not). Right at the top of the screen. Schwede66 04:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I eventually figured it out.The problem is that I usually use the Internet in reversed visual format, white type on a black background. It's much easier on my eyes .
In the old man page, the search box showed up in the white on black format. Now, those buttons are invisible in the white on black format. I wonder if this can be fixed. Neelthakrebew (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Neelthakrebew: Consider posting about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), if it's not already among the many comments there. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main page seems to have an incredible amount of white space all around the boxes, taking up quite a bit of room. Is this a problem with my settings or are other people seeing this? It is like the right 20% of my screen is now white/blank, and there is a large white space between the boxes and links on the left. Mattximus (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's the new standard. See Wikipedia:Vector 2022. CMD (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured Picture : Daisy

Isn't this a repeat? Have featured pictures looped around and I just never noticed before? ApLundell (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ApLundell: I checked the article talk page and it ran as TFA on 7 September 2022. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aha. That's probably what I was thinking of. ApLundell (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No wait! I'm not crazy. It was a repeat! It was also featured in September of 2014. Weird. ApLundell (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that the POTD in 2014 was File:Commercial-LBJ1964ElectionAdDaisyGirl.ogv, which was delisted in 2020 in favour of a higher resolution version File:Daisy (1964).webm. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Daisy. The new version then got its own place in the queue for POTD. I don't know if the POTD project considers such replacements to be new promotions, or if it was just a mistake. Eight years between POTDs seems sufficiently long that it doesn't matter, though being only four months since it ran as FA is more problematic - especially as the video was used as the lead image in the TFA blurb. Modest Genius talk 12:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Replacements have historically been considered new promotions, as the image/file itself is new. This obviously makes sense for new photographs, but has also occurred for different digitizations of existing media. For example, File:Van Gogh - Starry Night - Google Art Project.jpg ran in 2013, six years after File:VanGogh-starry night ballance1.jpg. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, I think if someone has put the effort into restoring a historic photo, or producing a better resolution version or something, it's fair game to re-feature it. As for the proximity to a TFA, that's not something I was checking for when I scheduled this one. Might be something to bear in mind in future when the article linked is also an FA, and then consider pushing it back by a year or something.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ideally, yes, but trying to keep track of TFA can be difficult, especially as it's a relatively rare event, and keeping track of.... well, if 4 months is an issue, that's basically 4 months either side, so 8 months of FAs? ...Probably a bit more than can be done with the resources we have. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 23:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actor is Unisex

I would like to request that the words, actress and actresses should be changed to actor and actors, since the word, actor can also be referred to females. 4lepheus B4ron (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you proposing a change to Wikipedia policy, or does this relate to a specific item that is on the main page right now? --Jayron32 19:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TFP mentions an "actress". See also Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_213#given_MOS:GNL,_why_do_we_still_continue_to_distinguish_between_"actor"_and_"actress"? for a somewhat recent discussion on this. I don't think TFP needs to be changed, as the terminology matches the article, categories (e.g. Category:American film actresses), etc. To talk about this in general @4lepheus B4ron - please first read through the prior discussions such as the one I linked above, then if you would like to you can take this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (where I do not expect it will be a trivial discussion). — xaosflux Talk 19:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Actor" is being used more frequently for females nowadays, but it's not like "authoress" where the feminised term is unheard of, or "stewardess" vs. "flight attendant" where it's very clearly being replaced. It's something that may change in future, but I don't think language usage is there yet. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 23:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's still a minority usage, as you say. Indeed, it's still rare enough that it surprises me a little when I see it, although I do know that The Guardian among others have made a point of doing it. I think there's also a point of view that actually adopting what was historically the male term as a blanket replacement for both male and female is almost more offensive than splitting the profession by gender in the first place. A bit like how using "he" as a generic pronoun when gender is unknown is definitely frowned-upon.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, although there's (arguably) a case for saying that -ess is merely a forced addition to the word, given how we've dropped "poetess", "authoress", "editress" and other now-stupid-sounding words invented to seperate females out from a generic term. But "actress" has a difference in that it.. survived. The "stewardess" -> "flight attendant" isn't necessarily a guide given that there were so few male flight attendants that "steward" was barely used, and thus "steward" was kind of splitting off in meaning to the older meaning of the word (someone who looks after something), kind of like "governess" and "governor" having very different meanings. But let's worry about that when "actress" fades from the lexicon more. It might well: it forms a somewhat awkward situation with mixed-gender groups or people of non-binary genders. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 00:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]