Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.201.173.145 (talk) at 11:54, 11 July 2013 (→Separatist propaganda). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Main Page error report

Shortcuts

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 10:51 on 6 November 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. (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.
Administrators: Clear all reports

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]

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Typhoon Thelma

... that 1977's Typhoon Thelma was the most destructive event in Taiwan since World War II?

This just seems to be one person's opinion and that's not definite enough for a superlative claim. Consider the 1964 Baihe earthquake, for example. That had more fatalities and thousands of buildings were destroyed, not just damaged. And there have been more natural disasters since 1977 so the opinion is dated. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anywhere else on WP we'd expect WP:INTEXT attribution, but DYK I guess allows using a WP:WEASEL word or at least quoting the opinion. Anything but in WP voice. —Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavantius, Oldelpaso, Hilst, and Crisco 1492: Courtesy ping to hook participants.—Bagumba (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the citation, I'm not sure how the text file relates to the pdf link. The relevant quote ("Thelma, the second typhoon of the 1977 season, brought more destruction on Taiwan than any event since World War II.") only seems to be in the text file.—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The PDF URL is erroneous as it's the 1991 report not the 1977 report as the citation claims. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search gave me the actual source of the text file, this 1980 NASA report. The relevant quote can be found on page 173. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's page 6.5-1 using the doc's internal numbering system. The confusing part is the WP article says the quote is from "a member of the Joint Typhoon Warning Center". Is it one person's opinion, or does it represent the organization as a whole? If the latter, is the hook OK in WP:WIKIVOICE. The complexity is that the hook is a paraphrase of what's in the source, so it's not as simple as the usual hook trick of just adding quotes. —Bagumba (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait wait, I was wrong. Here is the actual 1977 report, with the World War II comment on page 29 (22 on internal numbering system). As far as I can tell, it doesn't say who wrote what bit, but the foreword does say that it is "prepared by the staff of the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC)", which leads me to believe that the quote does represent the opinion of the entire organization. I'll update the article to fix the citations. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 13:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's sounding as if the WP article should strike "a member of" from the lead and body, i.e. ... prompting a member of the Joint Typhoon Warning Center to state ... Then it's a matter of whether the agency's statement can be reasonably contested and whether the hook should be in WP's voice or not. —Bagumba (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don Bragg
  • ... that the Korean War allowed Don Bragg to set a UCLA basketball record for the most rebounds by a varsity freshman, which stood for almost 40 years?

This fact is not given in the article and is SYNTH. If you look at the nomination, source one says that due to the Korean War freshmen could play varsity sports and source two says Bragg's 1952 rebound record was broken in 1989. The causation presented here is completely OR. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, "source one" explains the Korean War exception specifically w.r.t. Bragg. Still, DYK hooks are routinely sourced from multiple sources, where the entire hook is not explictly stated in one source. This higher bar for DYK "OR" would need wider consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? This isn’t just two facts next to each other. It is wrongly asserting a causality not found in sources or the article. I’m shocked that the main page is exempt from OR. Regardless, this fails WP:DYKRULES #3. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"As a freshman for the Bruins in 1951–52, he played on the varsity team. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) had temporarily permitted freshmen to play because many students were leaving college to serve in the Korean War...Bragg's 186 rebounds remained the UCLA varsity freshman season record until 1989" seems quite present in the article to me. As for the causality, us Wikipedia editors are supposed to have critical thinking skills of our own; if you construe and forbid this simplest, most unobjectionable of logical links as WP:SYNTH, you might as well ask us to edit blindfolded wearing donkey ears. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sammy Basso

... that Sammy Basso was the oldest known person with progeria?

This DYK parses strangely. It certainly doesn’t impart the information it’s supposed to impart. When you say somebody is the “oldest known person with” something, first, its normal idiomatic implication is that the person is living (‘’has’’ the disease), but more importantly, it doesn’t normally mean that the person ‘’lived’’ (survived) ‘’to the oldest age’’ with the affliction.

Accordingly, I suggest changing it to comport with the language actually used in the article: (which is still relatively short):

... that Sammy Basso is one of the oldest known survivors of the disease progeria?

There are some secondary issues. The current language is definitive—-he WAS THE OLDEST, whereas, the article says he’s “one of the oldest” survivors—-not the same thing at all. The suggested change would fix this.

However, the source actually indicates he was indeed the actual oldest know survivor—-‘’which the article doesn't’’. So the real fix is likely to confirm what I’m saying about the source’s content; change the article to match the source; and then remove the prase “one of the” from the DYK’s fix.

By the way, unless I missed it, the article only says the DYK fact in the lead section. I was under the impression that the lead was supposed to be only a summary of the body content, rather than a place for a first and only mention. —108.27.245.117 (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

  • ... that the lyrics of Gigi Perez's "Sailor Song" were criticized by far-right conservative Christian communities?

Two sources describing the critics. The Official Chart Company uses that language "Given its central queer love story, the release of Sailor Song drew criticism from some far-right, conservative Christian groups online for the line "I don't believe in God, but you're my saviour." [1] but Billboard says the critics were "religious tiktokers" [2]. I don't think objecting to that quote makes you far right, and isn't this really plagiarism? It's certainly a quote. Secretlondon (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer, Mrfoogles, MaranoFan, AirshipJungleman29, and Crisco 1492: Courtesy notifiction to nom participants. —Bagumba (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that while not all religious tiktokers are far-right, some certainly are. Objecting to someone essentially just saying they're an atheist is somewhat questionable, in my opinion. I agree with the other on the copyright basis and I think that the source is reliable for this on the factual basis. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LIMITED, I wouldn't regard this as plagiarism. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What they both said.--Launchballer 16:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

  • '1794 – French Revolutionary Wars: Two British ships were intercepted by a French squadron, leading to the French seizure of the HMS Alexander.' Usage of 'the HMS' is normally deprecated. —Simon Harley (Talk). 09:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Friday's FL

(November 8)

Monday's FL

(November 11)
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.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Shortcuts

Today's featured story . . . a public service?

I know nothing about the process by which Today's Featured Article is selected, but I have to ask--is today's selection purely coincidental, or is designed to help clarify things for people unfamilar with the terminology in this story in today's news? If so, it kind of seems to be in bad taste, but, meh . . . HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

purely coincidental. GB fan 18:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it was - and I must admit that the possibility of a link between the two would not even have occurred to me had it not been raised here. BencherliteTalk 14:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

#5 website source?

So, saw this year's donation drive ad, and just had to wonder, what is the basis of Wikipedia being the #5 website? Alexa lists it as #7: http://www.alexa.com/topsites

Even wikipedia it's self cites it at #6, based on outdated Alexa info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.3.38 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The ranking is based on data from comScore. Pcoombe (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, cherry-picking sources wikipedia seems to be.--85.211.117.11 (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. comScore are a major provider of such analytics, used by many companies and organizations. They donated access to their data a few years ago, and the Wikimedia Foundation has consistently used it for measuring reach since then. m:User:Stu/comScore data on Wikimedia is a little old, but has good information. Pcoombe (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, Alexa data has about the same level of reliability as Nielsen ratings, for similar reasons. - Tenebris 04:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Separatist propaganda

I see that according to whoever writes the stuff on the Main Page, Lac-Mégantic is only located in Quebec, and Canada is not mentioned.

Why are you using a tragedy to promote the Quebec separatist agenda? This is the kind of stuff that I unfortunately expect from the French Wikipedia (which has always had a terrible separatist POV-pushing problem), but I thought the English Wikipedia was somewhat better regarding this kind of stuff. 198.168.27.221 (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt that the editor who wrote the blurb has any interest in Quebec nationalism. It would be wise to assume good faith and not read into things too much. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it is written down anywhere, but geographic locations in the U.S. and Canada are disambiguated only by the U.S. states and Canadian provinces they are in, and don't usually include "Canada" or "U.S." in the descriptions. We have thousands of examples to choose from, none involving this, and it has nothing to to with Quebec Separatism. It's just sort of the way things are done. There's no need to see spooks here: there's no overt or covert attempt to make any political statement. --Jayron32 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While that's the case for article titles, we've never had clear consensus on whether to follow the practice for ITN and this tends to be fairly controversial whenever it comes up. That said, the most common complain is US bias, not Quebec or whatever state separatism. Nil Einne (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience, U.S. is always listed after American entries, so the OP does sort of have a point. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been going through every addition which included U.S. or Canada place names. The previous one was the West, Texas fertilizer explosion, which does not mention U.S.: [3]. Before that one, it was the Newton, Connecticut school shooting. Again no "U.S.": [4]. The one before that was Hurricane Sandy's landfall, south of Atlantic City, New Jersey, again with no "U.S.": [5]. There were no more blurbs in the past year that have mentioned a U.S. or Canadian placename overtly, so I've stopped looking, but from this small sample, we've not, in the past year, every used a disambiguator other than state or province, when necessary. --Jayron32 02:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From just a week ago "Nineteen firefighters are killed battling a wildfire in the U.S. state of Arizona." [6] Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing the use of the phrasing "Locality, Division" not merely any mention of U.S. states or Canadian provinces. The OP is objecting about the formulation "Locality, Division" as opposed to "Locality, Country" or "Locality, Division, Country". Yes, we do call U.S. states U.S. states, but what we don't do is disambiguate localities by the country in these cases. At least, we've not done it once in the past year. And I don't have another 45-60 minutes to search item-by-item through July 2011-July 2012 for the year before that, but I don't ever remember using the "Locality, Division, Country" or "Locality, Country" for U.S. or Canadian placenames. I've you want to search and prove me wrong, be my guest. --Jayron32 02:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the same item was originally posted as "Yarnell, United States" [7] Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. You can win today. --Jayron32 02:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should defend the Yarnell blurb, as I proposed it and tweaked it. See the full discussion here [8]. I don't propose much at ITN/C so wasn't thinking in terms of agreed policy but rather simply trying to write a neutral blurb that worked for the story. You'll see in the comments that ThaddeusB also picked up on my linking of the country name. CaptRik (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The best comparison would be June 21st's "75,000 people are evacuated from their homes during flooding in Calgary, Alberta, Canada", which would indicate the sortof OP has a point - but reading into it an "agenda" is definitely an overreaction. Any indication that User:Thryduulf (the nominator) is a Quebec nationalist? His user page does not load for me. Anyway, it seems likely that Quebec has more notability than other provinces, in the same way that most people don't need to be told where Catalonia is (whereas Asturias would probably need a mention of Spain for most people to place it) 64.201.173.145 (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the Wikinews link in the news section? I noticed that it's missing because I usually follow it to go to Wikinews after checking the Wikipedia main page. Ragettho (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed, per this RFC. - Evad37 (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just scroll down to the sister-projects section there's a large icon with an adjacent link to en.WN. Tony (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=563803098"