Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 18:15 on 29 March 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

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Not an error of this page in particular, but the hover-over over the word `Japan` shows a kind of disguisting image of `Necrotizing fasciitis` , as the image URL suggests.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Embeh (talkcontribs) 11:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see anything of the sort. Can you clarify? --Jayron32 12:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now its being displayed when you hover over the word "United States." - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 16:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Jayron32 @ONUnicorn @Bagumba - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 16:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still not seeing it. As an aside, please adjust your signature formatting @Knightoftheswords281:. It is out of compliance with WP:SIGLENGTH. Your signature is currently taking up about 6+ lines of text in my edit window. That's far too long. --Jayron32 17:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is an example bellow to the left. It also appears on the mobile app version of Wikipedia.
Also, I was told by @FormalDude on my talk page the same thing. I am in the process of shortening my signature to comply more with WP:SIGLENGTH. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 17:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that it is happening in some contexts in some browsers, but it isn't happening in mine, and there's nothing about the code in the edit window that I (or another admin) could fix to correct the problem. Maybe WP:VPT could handle the problem better? Because there's no way I can fix that, whatever is causing it. Perhaps someone with the technical knowledge to do so might trip over this discussion, but it would be better handled IMHO in VPT, where it is more likely to be noticed by someone who can do something about it. --Jayron32 17:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I think I found the fix. Can someone who is getting the image problem check again and see if it has gone away for the "United States" link? If it has, the way to fix it is to go to the page with the incorrect image and perform a WP:NULLEDIT on that page (in this case, I tried it with United States). Thanks to @Izno: at VPT for providing the solution. --Jayron32 18:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but the nasty unreffed list that is border town doesn't deserve Main Page exposure. And I take the implicit point that "border town" is a time-honored collocation. Maybe including the reference to the border (although it's a much better article) is a bit of a shoehorn anyway? At least 38 migrants are killed in a fire at a detention facility in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, I don't know. Moscow Mule (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea; it's not really needed and more concise without it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He means the United States. (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

The wording of the Dale Johnson hook is extremely unclear. Although it apparently meant that Johnson was declared innocent for a murder that occurred in 1982, the way that the hook was written renders the hook vague because it is unclear what the "in 1982" meant as a grammatical modifier. The hook as a whole could be construed two ways:

  1. Johnson was acquitted in 2012 (1982 + 30 years) for a 1982 murder that he did not commit. (Correct reading; "in 1982" modifies "the murder and dismemberment... fiancé")
  2. Johnson was acquitted in 1982 for a 1952 (1982 - 30 years) murder that he did not commit. (False reading, "in 1982" modifies "30 years after... for it?")

The hook should be re-written to emphasize the former reading. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "... that Dale Johnston was declared innocent of the 1982 murder and dismemberment of his stepdaughter and her fiancé, 30 years after being sentenced to death for it?"
Does that work? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, nice suggestion @Firefangledfeathers. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edited due to a punctuation mistake. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you think the 1982 should be a part of the link? I'm on the fence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the word "the" can stay out of the link while "1982" can be part of it. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool. In case an admin feels like implementing, it's ... that Dale Johnston was declared innocent of the 1982 murder and dismemberment of his stepdaughter and her fiancé, 30 years after being sentenced to death for it? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The comma after 1982 is the cause of the incorrectness ~ it currently fairly clearly states that he was declared innocent in 1982 which is incorrect. So the edit FFF suggests above (in green) doesn't work. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 05:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Fixed I think I cleared up all ambiguity by adding the actual date of the declaration of innocence, and moving the "1982" date to the beginning of the clause, as suggested above. --Jayron32 12:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i am sorry for raising another issue about this hook, but i think the hook currently has a factual error. the article states that johnston was sentenced to death in 1984, so "30 years after [he was] sentenced to death" would be 2014, not 2012. this can easily be fixed by replacing "30" with "28", though i don't know if this will cause unnecessary confusion. alternatively, "30 years" (or ", 30 years") can be dropped, since we already present readers with the years 1982 and 2012.

courtesy pinging Valereee (nominator) and UndercoverClassicist (reviewer). dying (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Fixed again. Removed the "30 years" and appended the actual year. Does that work for you? --Jayron32 15:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
looks good. thanks, Jayron32. dying (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is the hook was changed after review. The hook that was approved was
He was declared innocent in 2012, 30 years after the 1982 murders. I'm about to go offline for a couple hours, can anyone find the diff? Valereee (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the current hook is a bit of a mess. Would someone be willing to please replace it with the original hook? Valereee (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Good spot, thanks JennyOz. This was a new item I added for this year so the errors are all mine. Now fixed - Dumelow (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(March 31)

Monday's FL

(April 3)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Paintings of the same subject scheduled for TFA and PotD on 25 March

Following this recent discussion, I think it best to bring to people's attention that the topics currently scheduled for TFA (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 25, 2023) and PotD (Template:POTD/2023-03-25) next Saturday are very closely related to each other: the Annunciation by Hans Memling for TFA, and the Annunciation by Jan van Eyck for PotD. This coincidence of choices has happened because 25 March is the Feast of the Annunciation. I don't think this is ideal because the text will be quite repetitious – the links oil painting, Early Netherlandish painting, Annunciation, Gabriel, Mary, mother of Jesus and Transfer of panel paintings would all be repeated. There are also some conspicuous differences in emphasis: "Early Netherlandish painter" for Memling but "Early Netherlandish master" for van Eyck, and Mary bearing "Jesus" in one but "the son of God" in the other. I think the PotD should be deferred, but could anyone advise on what to put in its place?

I would consider moving Template:POTD/2023-03-25 to 25 March 2024, but that would be only five days before Good Friday that year, which is being marked with another Renaissance painting, Correggio's Head of Christ (Template:POTD/2024-03-29). So I would suggest moving the Correggio forward to 12 July 2023 (the feast of Saint Veronica, which is still appropriate for that image). Ham II (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Five days interval between paintings doesn't seem too bad to me, so 25 March 2024 would be OK. Otherwise, push it out to 2025. It does seem like it should be on the Annunciation day though.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Amakuru: Apologies; it's actually four days later – the "24" in the year threw me off track. That is, three days in between one Renaissance painting of a religious subject and another. Would that still be acceptable? As "Recently featured" has three entries, the van Eyck would have disappeared from it when the Correggio's time comes round. Ham II (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ham II: yeah I think that's OK, let's do it. Fingers crossed nobody will complain!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Amakuru: Looks as if Wehwalt has bumped the Memling off Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 25, 2023 to make way for Jim Lovell on his 95th birthday. Even though this does solve our problem, it would be a shame to have to nominate the Memling at WP:TFAR a fourth time. I don't suppose Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 25, 2024 could be reserved for it? Ham II (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We schedule spots in order, because we don't know what choices we will be faced with a year in advance, some nomination of greater merit may be made. But I've added it to WP:TFAP with a note, and so it won't be overlooked. Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wehwalt: Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about WP:TFAP – thanks! Ham II (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Amakuru, Ham II, and Wehwalt: It's probably worth remarking that the Annunciation will be celebrated on April 8 in 2024 due to the vagaries of the liturgical calendar. So it might be worth featuring it on this date next year, or else postpone it again if we want to keep it on the usual March 25 date. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amakuru, I see that you've moved tomorrow's PotD to 8 April 2024 per Ravenpuff's comment, but the conversation by then was about the scheduling of Annunciation (Memling) at TFA, not about tomorrow's PotD. Would you mind moving it back, perhaps switching the 25 March and 8 April PotDs around? The Feast of the Annunciation is still on 25 March this year, so I don't see any problem with having a PotD relating to it, so long as there isn't also a TFA relating to it as was originally the case. If the feast is celebrated on an unusual date next year (thanks for bringing that to my attention, Ravenpuff), that makes me lean towards postponing Annunciation (Memling)'s appearance at TFA until 2025. Ham II (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Amakuru: I've reverted the change of picture at Template:POTD/2023-03-25, moved the picture you'd chosen as a replacement to Template:POTD/2023-04-29, and blanked Template:POTD/2024-04-08. I hope this is OK. Ham II (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ham II: thanks. I have copyedited a bit, because some of the text in that source was uncited. And also replaced the protected version of the POTD at Template:POTD protected/2023-03-25, since it is due to go out tomorrow. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continuous references to The Last of Us in the DYK section

The HBO series has appeared in the DYK at least nine times in the past two months (on 27/3, 22/3, 21/3, 12/3, 01/3, 28/2, 21/2, 14/2 and 25/1).

This seems to clash with the guidelines of "What DYK is not": "A means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes. While it is fine to cover topics of commercial or political interest, DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches)."

Am I missing something? Is it ok to promote ongoing shows on Wikipedia? Rizzardi (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not promotion, it's simply linking to what is deemed encyclopedic coverage of episodes of the series you mention. For example, today's hook, "that a same-sex kiss scene in the seventh episode of The Last of Us was censored in some regions" doesn't promote the series in any way, it's simply an observation on society's reaction to it.
Now on whether such a volume of articles should exist at all - personally, my opinion is that having articles for every episode of a TV series is undue and that such pages shouldn't exist even if they ostensibly meet the notability guidelines, per the exemption at WP:NOPAGE. However, the community has a longstanding view that such episodes do warrant their own pages, so that's not a battle to be fought. Regarding the frequency of the hooks, I think that is something that should be considered by promoters - in particular, featuring hooks on the same topic on consecutive days should be avoided IMHO. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DYK (like any other part of Wikipedia) is inseparably biased towards topics that have users interested in writing articles about them – in this case User:Rhain. While there isn't anything inappropriate per se about this, the fact that DYK has a large turnover of new articles (16 per day at present) means that it's quite likely for something like it to be noticed. I do agree with Amakuru that we can probably mitigate this by spacing similar articles out more, though. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Describing the existence of a thing is not the same as promoting it. This is a non-issue. --Jayron32 14:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Describing once or twice the existence of a TV series is one thing, mentioning every single episode is "Next week on HBO..." Rizzardi (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit to clarify: I know that none of the hooks said "Watch this episode of The Last of Us!" - that would clearly be advertising, but nowadays marketing is less blatant and more oriented towards subtle concepts like repetition, defined as the process of repeating a message multiple times in order to increase brand awareness and consumer recall.
As a comparison, the recent TV series "Wednesday" had about the same amount of relevance, viewership and social interest, yet was mentioned exactly zero times on DYK. Rizzardi (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As already mentioned, since its inception DYK has had runs of similar topics as editors have focused on particular areas. I know that I was personally responsible for runs of contemporary Indonesian authors, works of the literary canon, contemporary films, films of the Dutch East Indies (that was a run of at least 50), actresses and actors... when a Wikipedian is interested in writing articles on individual episodes of a series and then nominating each article for DYK, we will have a run of episode articles (the Wednesday example below is a non-starter, as no articles have been written on those yet - there's still the possibility it could happen). If we were still doing a rotation of three sets per day, it might not be as noticeable, but that ship sailed a long time ago.
I do agree that a bit more space between hooks may be warranted, but to imply that these hooks are meant to advertise or promote a series that was always going to be popular is a disservice to the Wikipedian(s) working on these articles.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rizzardi, apparently no one who is a megafan of Wednesday nominates articles at DYK. I actually hate seeing all this popculture go past, but under current policy there is nothing wrong with an editor writing a new article for each week's new episode, submitting it, and having it run. Valereee (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since this is a recent mass shooting in Nashville, can it be added as in the news since it has some decent coverage of it? RobloxUser4125 (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RobloxUser4125 Please go to WP:ITNC to make a nomination(or participate in an existing discussion, if there is one). 331dot (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, thank you. @331dot. RobloxUser4125 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.