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

Main Page error reports[edit]

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 quote 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 00:26 on 18 May 2021), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}}, which will not give you a faster response; it is unnecessary as this page is not protected and in fact causes 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 page's revision history for any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
  • Please respect other editors. A real person wrote the blurb or hook to 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 bolded articles. 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[edit]

Today's FA[edit]

Tomorrow's FA[edit]

Day-after-tomorrow's FA[edit]

Errors with "In the news"[edit]

  • Israel etc. – Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up but the current wording, "Clashes between Israelis and Palestinians, escalating to airstrikes and rocket attacks, kill more than two hundred people and injure several hundred others.", seems to imply an equal number of deaths on both sides of the conflict, which is not true and probably violates NPOV as a result. Not sure what a better wording would be. Thoughts? Axem Titanium (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."[edit]

Current DYK[edit]

Next DYK[edit]

  • Q7, 2nd hook - pls add italics to Ulysses. JennyOz (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Also MoLI shouldn't be bolded here, since it isn't a link. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 08:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK[edit]

Errors in "On this day"[edit]

Today's OTD[edit]

Tomorrow's OTD[edit]

  • 1958 – The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, ... world speed record of 1,404.19 miles per hour - article and ref both say this happened on 16 May. JennyOz (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Sada Abe - did it "sensationalize Japan" or "cause a sensation in Japan"? I'm not convinced but it looks like they're subtly different. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    I changed it to "captivated" as that seems to better represent the concept. --Jayron32 12:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Nix (moon) etc - the lead and infobox says they were discovered on 15 June. It's a bit tenuous list this as the OTD fact as being when the photo was taken... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    I think were alright here in the strict sense that May 18th really is the day when the photograph in question was taken; it wasn't analyzed by humans until June when the moons were discovered, but just because we have two different dates doesn't mean either of them is wrong in a strict sense. There's some difference of opinion to be had as to which date is more important here, but that seems like a quibble of personal preference more than anything. --Jayron32 12:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    Not really, the two articles state clearly that the discovery was made 15 June. Who cares when the photo was taken? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    Seeing that the blurb isn't itself incorrect, I'm inclined to let this run, but would be happy to see it moved to 15 May (not June, as per a new reference for the discovery date) in future years. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    Well now the target articles have been modified to match the 15 May date, this is all getting a bit weird. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    And the NASA source the confirmation took place on 14 June ("A re-examination of Hubble images taken on June 14, 2002 has essentially confirmed the presence...") so this is a proper mess. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    I swapped it out for Battle of Buir Lake which is short, but well referenced. How does that work for you? --Jayron32 16:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    I think it hinges on what counts as actual "confirmation" – is it the date of the earliest image that would allow confirmation, or the date of the image that was actually used for the confirmation? Either way I agree that we should move it to the actual 15 May discovery date (corroborated by an IAU source). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    Buir Lake will have to do. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry - too much unref. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Swapped in Omar Kayyam for this one. Does that work for you? --Jayron32 13:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD[edit]

Errors in the summary of the featured list[edit]

Friday's FL[edit]

(May 21)

Monday's FL[edit]

(May 24)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture[edit]

Today's POTD[edit]

  • The word "commenest" is included in the summary, which doesn't look to be a valid word. I believe that it should be changed to "most common". EpicPupper (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    "Commonest" is a genuine word: see Lexico and Merriam-Webster, for instance. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 22:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Tomorrow's POTD[edit]

General discussion[edit]

Spread positive news[edit]

Today's ITN is all about bombings, shooting and clashes ! Aren't there any positive happenings in the world ? -- Parnaval (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to 2021. [FBDB] Just for fun, though, Indonesian teacher dons clown costume to inspire children to learn the Koran might be the best headline I've seen all day. OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
A combination of 1) what sources tend to cover to lure readers 2) what WP editors like to update.—Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The other thing is that we don't make the news. I'd love to fill ITN with items that were much happier, but general media are a lot more doom and gloom. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennifer and the like further limits our options.—Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The fact that ITN (and news media in general) is so negative is something to think about. I'd say it flows from the fact that bad things tend to happen at a discrete time (hurricane struck at X, shooting happened at Y), whereas positive things tend to happen more as a long-term trend (poverty has declined from Year A to Year B) and to be less likely to be seen as news. There's a lot more potential for OTD to focus on positives, so perhaps that module could serve as a counterweight to ITN. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Please be encouraged to propose positive news items at WP:ITN/C. --PFHLai (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Parnaval: A number of media organisations have dedicated good/positive news sections that may provide source material, and there are also some aggregators and dedicated subreddits you can find with a little bit of searching. Must of it tends to be niche stuff that doesn't generate the kind of coverage needed to have a chance at ITN and is unlikely to even pass GNG for an article in the first place, but if you keep an ear out and subscribe to a few feeds you may eventually find something with a chance of getting up there. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • If you have to search through Reddit to find it, it's not in the news Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: I could've phrased it better but what I meant were subreddits that aggregate such content from many media sources save you the time of searching; there are also independent aggregators. The primary purpose of checking in on those would be to see if several media outlets have reported on the same thing. When you see that at least you have a good starting point for an article. Admittedly the very fact the people aggregate such news in the first place and that some media sources have dedicated sections for it when they do no such thing for bad news is a pretty good indicator of the disparity in reporting such things which of course bleeds over into our ITN, hence the earlier points. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)