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 (07:20 on 19 October 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]

Errors in In the news[edit]

neutron stars[edit]

This is gonna bug me. Currently the blurb about the neutron star merger reads:

"The first observation of a neutron star merger in gravitational waves as well as gamma-rays and visible light is announced."

The problem with this is that the merger was actually observed in gravitational waves, gamma rays, x-rays, visible light, infrared, and radio. I'm not sure why one would single out "gravitational waves", "gamma rays" and "visible light" but leave off "x-rays", "infrared" and "radio". Arguably the most important part of this is the gravitational waves, since they were the first detection and the detection allowed it to be directly understood as a neutron star merger. However, I'm not sure why one would mention certain parts of the electromagnetic spectrum and not others. Dragons flight (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning gravitational waves only would be a good solution, I think. --Inc (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
One could also say gravitational waves and electromagnetic radiation, if one wanted to cover the spectrum generally. Dragons flight (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 Comment: Being discussed in ITN concurrently. Alex ShihTalk 18:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
"Electromagnetic radiation" has the downside the many readers may not appreciate what it means, and that the light they know is part of the EM spectrum. The term could be linked of course, but still it may not attract the same interest. Gap9551 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
But EM radiation is one of the two main components of the discovery (with the other important component being neutron stars as GW merger rather than black holes). Just mentioning neutron stars and gravitational waves would not do the event justice. Gap9551 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Ultraviolet is also among them. It would be a long list to name them all. By the way, no error in the blurb has been pointed out yet, just a possible omission. Gap9551 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Gap9551 and Dragons flight: how about this: The first observation of a neutron star merger in gravitational waves as well as gamma-rays, visible light, and other forms of electromagnetic radiation is announced. A bit clunkier, but it highlights the most important and well-known parts while still conveying that it was detected in pretty much the whole spectrum. ansh666 07:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm ok with this version. Gap9551 (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed it for now; we can continue to discuss of course. ansh666 19:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Reads like the merger was within gravitational waves. I thought the waves are a result of the merger. Perhaps The first observation of gravitational waves caused by a neutron star merger (which also produced gamma-rays, visible light, and other forms of electromagnetic radiation) is announced. Bazza (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

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

OTD today[edit]

OTD tomorrow[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]

It's not even April Fools' Day, and you guys are already making a silly (and obvious) entry in "Did you know?" WTF?[edit]

... that The Rolling Stones are a British rock band? Okay, you probably did...

*cue J. Jonah Jameson laughing in Spider-Man 2* -Zakawer (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Is that suppose to be funny because it's not. Where are the standards, these kind of edits only damage WP's credibility. (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking forward to more hooks about gospel singers and ursine woodland behaviour. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
To paraphrase Zaphod Beeblebrox "OK, so 10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for sheer banality, yeah?” Just looking at the lead, I would think that "Did you know...that Ian Stewart was removed from the Rolling Stones' official line-up in 1963 but continued to tour with them until his death 22 years later?" would have been a good hook. --Khajidha (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the style per se, but I don't think we should be assuming that every English speaker is familiar with 60s British rock bands. I'm sure there are plenty of people who may have heard the name but don't know where they're from, for example, and there's no need to make them feel stupid. Modest Genius talk 17:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you think the addition of those last four words actually does that? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Modest Genius talk 13:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, you just lost an entire generation who had the distinction of not growing up listening to the Rolling Stones. Way to be condescending.--WaltCip (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
oooh, harsh. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "an entire generation who had the distinction of not growing up listening to the Rolling Stones"... Even if they're living in a vacuum, in a cave, under a rock, and with cotton balls in their ears, they almost certainly recognize at least some Stones songs. I was born a quarter century after they were formed, and I had the first lines of "Start Me Up" as my PC's start-up sound for several years.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
That's because you live in the woods. With some bears. Examining their ablutionary activities :) — fortunavelut luna 10:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

In the news[edit]

Am curious as to why the 'entry' about Hurricane Nate and the Central America deaths has JUST 'NOW' appeared instead of right after it happened nearly a week ago. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Entires are discussed at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates first to obtain consensus prior to being posted, so they can be delayed sometimes. Alex ShihTalk 06:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, Wikipedia articles take time to develop. Every word here is written by volunteers, and article text does not magically appear as soon as things happen. --Jayron32 20:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Although at that, a natural or manmade disaster still managed to usurp several of the Nobel articles (including gravitational waves!) for focused volunteer interest. It is one of the interesting peculiarities about an all-volunteer ground-level workforce in the first-language English world these days -- aiming for a neutral POV, but nonetheless failing to accomplish it through sheer neglect of some subjects and not others -- and equally through sheer arguing down of some articles and not others on the sole basis of setting different bars -- since no one tells a volunteer workforce what they must do. This is one of the key differences between Wikipedia and a standard encyclopaedia.
The usual retort at this point would be to challenge me to edit the articles in question myself. There are reasons I chose not to do that this time. You could even legitimately call them work-related reasons. Take my comments -- and whatever you perceive to be my right to make any comments at all about this -- in that context. - Tenebris (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This whole discussion arises from the misunderstanding that ITN is a news ticker. It isn't updated as quickly as news sites because it isn't a news site. --Khajidha (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, that objection. As it happens, it does not apply to the unlisted Nobel prizes. The default for those has always previously been a quick consensus that they are ITN-appropriate (on the same level as election results) within a day or so of the announcement. However, at this point the missing mentions won't ever be on ITN, simply because they now have happened earlier than other news. On top of that, they would now be considered "stale" news by many Wikipedia members, since it has been more than a week since they were last front page material. For all that ITN is not a news ticker, the "stale" argument is commonly used as an objection at the ITN talk page. Entertainingly enough, the "not a news ticker" and the "stale news" objections are very nearly the opposite of each other -- but instead of cancelling each other out, they often actually reinforce each other in the end result. The interesting attempt here to apply it to the missing Nobels is a prime example of how both arguments can be used simultaneously on the exact same articles. Whatever the specific intent of those commenting (a wide spectrum is possible within AGF), the end result is keeping those items out of ITN permanently. - Tenebris (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
TLDR, fundamentally items need (a) quality and (b) significance which leads to (c) a consensus to post. All of these can take time. Everything else is speculation, conspiracy theory, unhelpful etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
A few points: 1) ITN appropriate and ITN ready are not the same thing. Were they properly updated? (I don't know, that's why I'm asking). 2) Just because it's not a news ticker doesn't mean that items can't be excluded as "stale". The purpose of ITN is to provide articles relating to items the reader has encountered in actual news reports. Once a story is no longer being actively reported on, an article about that subject does not need to be given the prominence that ITN has. 3) Your use of the term "missing Nobels" implies that they should have been on the page, regardless of any concerns. I know of no policy that requires a particular item be on the Main Page. Even ITNR items like the Nobels are not guaranteed a spot if the necessary work on the article is not done. The ITN section has a mandated spot on the Main Page, individual items in ITN do not.--Khajidha (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
And now this conversation heads right back to my original post, ironically with a curious secondary tangent determined to embrace that strange conjunction of "stale" and "not a ticker", albeit under different words. (And btw thank you TRM for keeping this topic from being shunted quietly to the archives while I was working -- twice. I knew I could rely on you.) I know I posted that original post a whole four days ago, ages ago in Internet time, but I take this occasion to remind that neither of my posts have anything whatsoever to do with speculation or conspiracy theory. In fact, the points being made just might have been helpful to Wikipedia as a whole, had any actually wished to hear what was actually being said and not simply deflect how the existing facts illuminate the basic nature of Wikipedia. Thus, for clarity purposes, I briefly reiterate that some articles persistently receive more attention than others (which tends, on average, to improve their quality), that this is inevitable with a volunteer staff, and that the end result happens to be editorial bias quite independently of individual good faith. Khajidha, you mention that no article has a "guaranteed" spot in ITN and that the term "missing" has strong implications -- but I am curious exactly what term you would apply had an article such as, say, the UK election results, not shown up in ITN -- at all? - Tenebris (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I would say that it was simply unposted and would not place any importance on such. If the Second Coming occured tomorrow, I would not expect our article on it to be on the Main Page if the article itself were not ready. NOTHING is guaranteed to be on the main page.--Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
So you're postulating that there would be editors remaining to keep ITN running? - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 16:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
So you came here to point out a well-known problem, but you specifically do not offer to help fix it?
Great. Thanks. ApLundell (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I am astonished to say the least that there is no mention whatsoever about the killing of more than 270 persons in Somalia. I feel that the editorial line (or editors) in wikipedia are becoming terrifyingly biased. When very recently less than 60 persons were assassinated in the United States, the news section of wikipedia swiftly reported on the topic. But last Saturday's bomb in Somalia's capital, which ended with the life of almost 300 people, seems not be worth to mention to wikipedia editors.

Once again, it's not that it's not worth mentioning, it's that the article quality is very weak. See WP:ITNC for the discussion about this very topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The Somalia bombings are there now. Knowing Wikipedia, I would have been rather surprised if they were not, because disasters (including bombings), politics, and sports get the lion's share of article attention on Wikipedia. Notice how two out of those three currently make up 2/3 of ITN postings, even though they only make up about 10% of news topics (not stories) overall? Yet our perception of modern news (outside Wikipedia) does not often notice that gap, because for-profit newspapers actively expand the number of stories on the topics which bring the most interest (readership = advertisement income). Then individual social media picks up specific articles of interest to match individual isms and a significant number of people rely only on those channels which equally support their own personal isms, creating an even greater distortion effect. So I ask -- and this is a genuine question -- is it the job of a non-biased encyclopaedia to actively resist such natural biasing effects? - Tenebris (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it's Wikipedia's community's choices that determine what goes on at ITN: the stories that are nominated, the stories that are sufficiently updated (the main page, DYK & POTD exempt, is to provide links to quality articles), the stories that receive enough support, the stories that the posting admins deem have sufficient quality and sufficient consensus. It's very simple. I'm interested to see how quickly WikiTribune will be able to get quality items out, because Wikipedia smashes Wikinews into the long grass in this regard, while maintaining a high-brow position of not being a news ticker... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
In the News is not a news ticker because there is a consensus that our goal is to be admired for how quickly we can write articles, not to serve the actual reader, who simply wants to know there's a hurricane. Glad we got that cleared up. Art LaPella (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If you want to know about the current weather, why would you go to an encyclopedia? Are people really that stupid? And, if they are, do we REALLY want to set things up to serve them? If you want news, there are many news sites. If you want weather, there are many weather sites.--Khajidha (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
In the News is NOT designed to tell people that things happened. It is designed to present people with already existing Wikipedia articles which relate to things that happened. If we don't have an article, how can we highlight it in ITN? Art LaPella, are you really claiming that we should send people to redlinks? Send them to articles which are factually wrong? Badly written? Contain unverifiable information? If you are proposing that ITN has a problem, what is your proposed solution? --Jayron32 14:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
For the same reason general interest sites like Yahoo and have news, weather and many other things. A reader-oriented ITN would send people to stubs for breaking news if that's the best we can do at the time. And our debates would be uncluttered with the dead end argument about whether our news is news or not. In general, the boundaries between Wikimedia's bureaucratic fiefdoms should be lower. Art LaPella (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Those sites are not encyclopedias, how are they relevant here? Why would you expect an encyclopedia to be a news and weather source?--Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If we just want to show people what's in the encyclopedia, most of the Main Page isn't relevant either. It's unlikely that the information the reader wants will be an article that's in the news (as distinguished from the news itself), a featured article, an On This Day event, a picture ... "Random page" shows what we really have, and the rest of it is just making it harder for people to find the search box. Art LaPella (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You're assuming I think most of the Main Page belongs here, I thought we were just discussing ITN. --Khajidha (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, then I don't understand how the purpose of ITN can be that readers want to know that we have an article about a current hurricane – without actually learning about the hurricane (they'd go to a news site for that). Here are the articles they really want to know we have. Art LaPella (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
News sites are where I would go for learning about the projected path of a hurricane and what the current death toll is. I would come here for background: when did the hurricane form and where has it been. I would also come to an encyclopedia for deeper background on hurricanes: what are they, how does this year's season compare to previous years, record levels of deaths or damages. --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Then you want articles like Hurricane, not so much like Hurricane Maria. And as I demonstrated, readers really come to read about the Kardashians (or whoever's popular this week). Mankind would prosper more if people read calculus articles instead, but we're talking about the non-news parts of articles on news. Not 0.01% of readers come specifically for that. Art LaPella (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hurricane Maria would give me the specific background material (date of formation, previous path) and lead me to the other articles through its links.--Khajidha (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
And not 0.01% of readers would come specifically for that. Art LaPella (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Nice way to ignore my direct question, Art LaPella. It lets me know you only care about "winning" in your own mind, and aren't particularly concerned with Wikipedia and improving it. Thanks for letting us all know you are irrelevent. Good day. --Jayron32 19:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
??? I'm leaving for now. Art LaPella (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
What a bizarre evolution of discussion, Ron Burgundy would be so proud. If anyone wants a news ticker, go work for WikiTribune or Wikinews (snigger). Otherwise this is an encyclopaedia, so we'll deal with quality articles on the main page. If you want to abolish ITN from the main page, start an RFC. If you want to help, then please do that instead of not helping. Goodbye! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)