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 (01:38 on 21 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]

"The victims included Serbs, Jews, Romani people, Muslims, Macedonians, and Slovenes." Are Jews and Muslims somehow less worthy of linking than the other groups? DuncanHill (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Linked, using the same links as are used in the article lead. If you'd like different links, discuss that on the article talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 01:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

TFA tomorrow[edit]

Errors in In the news[edit]

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

OTD today[edit]

OTD tomorrow[edit]

  • Saint Pierre and Miquelon - the discovery date is not mentioned (and therefore not referenced) anywhere in the target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
    • This is mentioned with a reference in History of Saint Pierre and Miquelon so it could be added to the main article or the link changed to the history article. I've run out of time to do either myself right now. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I've tweaked the wording in the bolded article to make the date more explicit. Also, I've changed the blurb slightly. Discovered means "when first found" There were people living there for thousands of years. He visited the islands, he did not discover them. --Jayron32 12:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

Permalink to ITN/C?[edit]

I imagine this talk page is maintained by some bot or other. I wonder if it'd be possible to include a link to WP:ITN/C in the "In the news" section since many of the objections raised here are really about ITN/C (and since no one appears to be reading the enormous orange infobox at the top of the page). --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Those people aren't going to read that link anyways, if they aren't reading the orange box. --Jayron32 12:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Adoption banner?[edit]

As you know, the "adoption program' is to connect new users with experienced users to help new users (like me). Unfortunately, I believe that this program is dead. I registered for adoption about 2-3 weeks ago. Of course, I might just be impatient, but if you check the adoption page, yo will see the same people sitting there day after day with only more people coming. Older users tend to tell new users to see the adoption page. When they apply to be adopted, nothing happens. We should raise awareness about the adoption program by placing an "adoption notice" on the Main Page, a page that everyone sees, encouraging people to adopt new users. Thank you for taking the time to read this request and I'm sure a lot of people would agree with me. Once again, thank you and I hope you consider my idea to be enacted. WarriorFISH (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. The program needs more attention. (Speaking of the main page, let's shaft ITN and replace it with a link to Wikinews). KMF (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It would seem to me that that would make it go from bad (unindicative of what the readers seem to expect) to worse (not including anything of actual relevance before it stops being news). I think ITN needs some sort of reform anyway because it tends to give readers the wrong idea of what to expect from us, but this is certainly not it. Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@DoubleSharp You can always make a new section for that. Do you have an opinion for the adoption banner? if not, please don't post about irrelevant things here. WarriorFISH (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that (1) I was not the one to raise that issue, and merely replied, and (2) the principle is fairly similar; neither is giving their desired audience what they expect. I think a fair number of experienced editors would be well aware of the adoption program from the times when it was more active, so merely raising awareness may not have the desired effects, and we may want to consider if it is even necessary at this point with the rise of initiatives like the Teahouse since then for new users to easily get into contact with more experienced ones. Double sharp (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)