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 (20:26 on 21 March 2018), 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]

Marielle Franco[edit]

"Brazilian politician and human rights activist Marielle Franco is killed in a shooting in Rio de Janeiro." This should read, "is assassinated in Rio de Janeiro." "Killed in a shooting" makes it sound like this was random. All of the sources point to it not being random and that it was an assassination, see: "Rio's Public Security Secretary Richard Nunes said in a statement there will be "full investigation on the assassination" of council member Marielle Franco and her driver."[1]Petrichor (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that's what the investigation's for. She can be targeted without it being an assassination. At this point, it's all too preliminary. We would be, so to speak, jumping the gun. Especially since two of the cited officials are anonymous, and Rio is not a safe city. Better to call it a shooting now and an assassination later, than to call it an assassination now and have to backtrack later, possibly in an embarrassing and public manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
It is an assassination. That is ridiculous. Everyone is calling it an assassination and the investigation is beginning with that because of the crime scene and the background of her story. Wikipedia is doing a huge disservice by not calling it what it is. She was shot from behind, in a tinted car where you couldn't even see her from outside, and the shots were fired directly at her, and her driver was killed due to the way the shots were fired, i.e. not with real intent, as the shots were all towards her direction and in front of that direction was the driver.[2] [3] Please call this an assassination as this is what it is. I cannot believe this. She was a very public figure who was going against the political establishment and raising attention to police violence. How slow English Wikipedia was to respond to this in the beginning, and how slower yet to actually call this what it is. An example of how shallow this place can be when it doesn't concern the American-English-etc-western world. Petrichor (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, why should you override the vast consensus of all media reports? We're not supposed to do original research, which is what you're attempting here. Show me sources that are doubting that this is an assassination? I don't think they exist, and I don't think that's being debated. I'm only speaking from what the secondary sources are providing us and you're saying we should ignore it. Petrichor (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Someday people will realize that we do not report the news. We are supposed to be slow on the uptake, that's the entire point. However, I agree with Petrichor that we are supposed to reflect the consensus of available sources. If the consensus is that Marielle was assassinated, then that is what we should be reporting. The Guardian reports assassination and Amnesty International does as well. By contrast the New York Times (which I hold in higher regard than both previous sources) uses "killing" rather than murder or assassination. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
"killed in a shooting" is factually correct, assassination or not. ansh666 04:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
If this happened in the US or a Western country, it would be called assassination on the Main Page. I feel it's only not because of this Wikipedia's bias against non-Western countries which is present and something the Wikimedia Foundation has spoken about before. New York Times also is not exactly something I'd call the most reputable source at all for many reasons. Consensus of the media reports is what matters, and in Brazil and outside they call this is an assassination, as she was a radical politician challenging the power structures of Brazil. The article we have, calls it an assassination. There's thus no reason to have allowed the diverging discrepancy. There is a big difference between a homicide and an assassination and it is not the same at all. If she was a politician in a western country, this Main Page text would have been handled much differently. See:

Wikipedia:Systemic bias#The "average Wikipedian" Petrichor (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

NYT is just about THE most reputable source, while "The Intercept is an online news publication dedicated to what it describes as 'adversarial journalism'." I realize you have an axe to grind here, but that dog won't hunt. We all know she was assassinated - that's why the blurb received 10-0 support when it was nominated (this would not have happened if there was any chance of random street violence). But we maintain the same discipline that reputable sources like the NYT do in not letting our opinions cloud our statements of fact. GCG (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


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

OTD today[edit]

OTD tomorrow[edit]

  • "Because of his father's advanced age, Gordian II was proclaimed joint Roman emperor with Gordian I." where is 22 March referenced in the article to support this claim? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This looks referenced? Is there a particular problem? Espresso Addict (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The existing reference didn't reference the date in the context of the Gordians becoming co-emperors. I've rummaged around for a handbook source from Google Books; possibly not the most authoritative but it's got 193 citations so I'm chancing it. ~ Maltrópa loquace 20:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "The entire population of the village of Khatyn in Belarus was burnt alive" why is there a "Survivors" section then? And "burnt alive"? The article clearly says " 147 people, including 75 children under 16 years of age, were killed – burned, shot or suffocated in fire.", not quite the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "James Black (pharmacologist)" we don't normally include the disambiguation... It looks clumsy. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The dob appears in the ODNB article, referenced from the lead. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Errors in the current or next Did you know...[edit]

DYK current[edit]

  • " an armed uprising in 1821" is piped to a redirect. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for reporting. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK next[edit]

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture[edit]

POTD today[edit]

  • "titular church " is piped to a redirect back to itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks like this was today's; I've fixed it. Thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

POTD tomorrow[edit]

Errors in the summary of the last or next featured list[edit]

General discussion[edit]

Number of Edits[edit]

I just noticed that the Edit Count just hit 827 Million. I think it will hit 1 Billion by the end of 2018... -- —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Place yer bets: Wikipedia:Billionth edit pool. ʍw 16:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
There is Wikipedia:Statistics - and it would be amusing if the 1 Billionth edit was on the 6th Million English language article. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)