Page semi-protected

Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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

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 00:19 on 26 June 2022), 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

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Error of ommission: the "abortion is not a protected right" must be qualified. The relevant article states the decision is that "the Constitution of the United States does not confer any right to abortion". That this is with regard to the costitution must be mentioned either like a) "protected constitutional right" or b) "protected right by the Constitution" or c) something similar. The fact that this refers to the constitution is far from a legal technicality. Nxavar (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the In the News blurb is inaccurate as currently written. It needs to be changed to read "protected constitutional right" or something equivalent. Abortion remains a "right" protected by state constitutions and state legislation in many areas of the United States, but the current In the News blurb would easily mislead the average reader into thinking that abortion is simply not a "protected right" at all, which is incorrect. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Cyclotron (nom)
  • ... that there are nearly 1,500 medical cyclotrons (example pictured) in operation worldwide?

Wrong. [1] Such a claim should either be dated ("that in March 2020, there were nearly...") or checked for counterevidence (not hard to find in this case). @PianoDan, David Eppstein, SL93, and Cwmhiraeth: Fram (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"About 1,500" would be ok I think? —Kusma (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
does the IAEA source specify/imply that the over 1,500 cyclotron facilities are all medical? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 08:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never fail to be amazed whenever great hooks are overlooked for pedestrian ones. A way better hook would be that E.O. Lawrence and his brother used an early cyclotron to cure their mother's inoperable (and "terminal") cancer. Oh well. EEng 22:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's because she wasn't treated with a cyclotron, she was treated with an X-ray tube. PianoDan (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm delighted to say that it turns out I was wrong and you are correct, because now I know more than I knew before. Nice oral history at [2] pp. 50ff. I could have SWORN it was neutrons from a cyclotron (see [3], bottom of p. 270). EEng 01:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're all trying to make Wikipedia better - I'm not sure the snark is really necessary. That said, the IAEA site says that there are "over 1,500 cyclotron facilities around the world." That right there would be fine as a hook if one would like to keep it simple. If there IS a desire to restrict it further, this NIH source specifies that there are "approximately 1,300 cyclotron facilities for medical radionuclide production around the world." In case you're curious (I'm not finding a terribly clear citation at the moment, and I don't have time to go hunting, so this is just FYI), the majority of the remaining cyclotrons are also medical, used for beam therapy. There's also a handful of big research machines, like the ones at TRIUMF, PSI, or (recently replaced by a linac) Michigan State. PianoDan (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Big Chief Russell Moore (nom)
  • ... that trombonist Big Chief Russell Moore was the first member of the Pima tribe to receive an obituary in The New York Times?

Unclear. Does this count as an obituary? Fram (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

aren't obituaries usually in the back pages? This one looks to be smack in the middle... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 08:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: publications tend to place obits according to the importance of the deceased. It also varies by publication. Public figures of any profession tend to either be the front page, or generally in a section dealing with their area of reknown, with celebrities in a show business section, or some other appropriate area. — Maile (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That (TWL ProQuest link) is not an obituary. The source for the "only obituary" thing hedges the claim by saying "full obituary"; I'm not convinced we need to do so. —Kusma (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next DYK

For the Margaret Peoples Shirer hook, it looks like it should be "mission" instead of "missions" per "The couple also opened the first Assemblies of God mission station in Ghana in the late 1930s and used it as a base for mission trips in Nigeria." SL93 (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Maile (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66 I am now thinking that the hook should probably say "Margaret Peoples Shirer and her husband established" since she didn't establish it by herself. SL93 (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93 and Jaireeodell: While I tend to agree with you on the husband, it would be nice if he had a name. It doesn't seem appropriate to just say "and her husband". I can't find anywhere in the article where he is mentioned by name. This probably should have been brought up at the DYK review, but I also find no mention of his name in the sourcing. Find A Grave, not acceptable as a source, has a listing for her as Margaret P. Shirer - but no mention of a husband. — Maile (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: The lead contains the sentence "After marrying a fellow missionary, W. Lloyd Shirer, the couple...". 108.52.196.8 (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the sources, Margaret was first in West Africa without her husband and established most of the experience and connections that led (on her second trip) to the church's decision to establish a missions base in Ghana. Very little mention of Lloyd's direct influence is discussed. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The hook could be worded "that Margaret Peoples Shirer helped to establish the first...". 108.52.196.8 (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While no one establishes a missions outpost or any organization without help, to say that Margaret "helped to" is probably to understate her role as missionary. According to Daher Kowalski, she was the first to learn the language and worked as a teacher, translator, and traveling missionary speaker in the area. Yes, she and Lloyd worked together, but his role is acknowledged as a handy man and a printer. (p. 169) Jaireeodell (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jaireeodell Can you add a reference for the husband's name? SL93 (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 1)

Monday's FL

(June 27, tomorrow)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Featured picture for 2022-06-21

Just to note in advance, while.... definitely in the vein of 18th century crudity, I feel that the featured picture for tomorrow is within community standards given that all these have appeared on the main page without controversy, some multiple times:

Obviously, consensus can change. But given the image for today isn't at all sexualised - and I'd argue many of those were - and given that's honesly a very small sample found in a few minutes - I think we have an assumption it should appear if it serves an encyclopedic purpose. And given Durova isn't here to argue on behalf of her image, not having edited for five years, I find it impossible to justify pulling it, at least, insofar as it can be used to be educational about a notable artist. There are less explicit images by him, but there are actually way, way more explicit ones. Although I will agree that at least the joke of that last one I linked at least lands better than the POTD, and, yes, we could probably find a tamer image that covers Cruikshank, I still feel a duty to past contributors outweighs that sort of utopian search for a perfect image. Barring other restorations by her being found and nominated, it's unlikely she'll ever mainpage again. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 20:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022-06-21 POTD
For reference, tomorrow's POTD is File:Indecency2.jpg. — xaosflux Talk 22:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also for reference, this discussion where I and another editor objected to the choice of image. Both of us gave up on that discussion because Adam Cuerden was arguing in bad faith, including falsely labeling my objection "censorship" and "prudishness". Here, he is disingenuously framing the concern as being over an exposed breast in a drawing, which is not the case. The vast majority of Cruickshank's images are completely unobjectionable. Commons has literally hundreds to choose from. There is no reason why this particular image *ever* has to appear on the front page of Wikipedia. There is certainly no reason why it must appear tomorrow. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You objected, I put up a response promptly, and then you didn't come back to it except to state you weren't interested in talking about it more. I don't get why you started an objection only to disappear when the person responded with lengthy details, and then throw your hands up and cry out bad faith when I pinged you because you had ignored it for four days. I was fully willing to hold off on running it if you wanted to talk, but you made it very clear you didn't. Anyway, it's over now. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 00:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not wanting to participate in a bad faith discussion with a predetermined outcome and name-calling is not the same as being unwilling to discuss something. You were not looking for consensus then and you aren't interested in it now. If it is "over", it's because I am not willing to expend the effort necessary to continue it, not because you declare it to be. This is meant to be a cooperative project. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There really wasn't a predetermined outcome. I listed a bunch of negatives to the image as well as positives. I don't think the negatives outweigh the positives, and I think that the history of the main page supports this image. However, I was completely willing to have an RFC on it if it would provide more certainty, but the process basically went, step one, agree to what's under dispute by listing pros and cons of running the image, so that either we convince each other of the image's suitability (or lack thereof), or we have agreement to the terms of the dispute which, at least in my eyes, is the obvious and absolutely necessary first step to any RFC - if that's the point that makes you leave the discussion (not that you have), I don't know what to tell you. You kind of acted in pretty bad faith yourself, trying to reclassify it under "Could cause harm" in POTD/Unused and pulling the image without any discussion. Or maybe that wasn't you. I don't know. All I can tell you is I was totally willing to have an RFC, but you instantly started to throw around accusations of bad faith and left the discussion.
To be fair, it's possible my complaint about you ignoring the discussion for four days came off a bit harsher than intended. But I spent about an hour writing up my analysis of pros and cons of the image, only to be met with silence. Well, I mean, except for Branulator9 coming in to agree with me that the image is not particularly graphic. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 01:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not move the image and I have never edited POTD/Unused. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. My apologies, then, if any of my annoyance at that little action came out in the discussion there. While it might have been carelessness as to where it got classified, putting it into the group with the really extreme images that aren't even shown on there - lynchings, a photograph focusing on genitalia, a painting of a nude underage model - did not help make the discussion feel very... civil. Like... I get there isn't exactly a division set up for it (perhaps one for "Under discussion" should be set up), but it's hardly at the level of "Has a (finished) discussion officially declaring it unusable and is very obviously more extreme than anything we've already main paged".
Honestly, POTD is below the screen cutoff, and not even shown on mobile. For all the work I've done setting it up, it really is secondary to anything else on the main page. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 02:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually wrote my response before you posted that list of positives and negatives, I just was caught in an edit conflict. I was waiting for a response myself, though I originally wrote my question as a sentence. Also, you misspelled my name. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 12:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much more offensive
Today's image barely registers on the Main Page offense-o-meter. -- Veggies (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Must we really go through this tiresome (mostly) American prudishness and attempted censorship every time we have an image that shows more than an ankle? Not to mention this only ever comes up when it's more than a female ankle. The misogyny and double standards are really quite astonishing. Fgf10 (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find the blurb interesting, and I think the POTD illustrates it appropriately. Part of what the POTD illustrates is that prints of that day could be quite "rude"; so the mild offense of this POTD is a component of what makes it interesting and educational. A less rude image would be of less value in this context. Well done to Adam here. Jmchutchinson (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm glad this and the guano picture finally got their day on the main page with little issue. I think it helps that the weirder side of Wikipedia is better known now (thanks, Annie Rauwerda!). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I doubt there'll be much controversy for a long while. That's the clearing out of WP:POTD/Unused - ignoring cases where the article or usage is the problem - pretty much done for anything I'd consider remotely worth mainpaging. Well.. almost. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 00:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing of Hamburg and the main page


This media file was originally pulled because of article neutrality issues in 2015 (See here). The article is much better now according to a discussion here, albeit not perfect; however, that means we now need to consider the video. First of all, this is propaganda, and somewhat obviously so, but, as such, it's downplaying and sanitising things pretty severely. This was a horrifying, brutal firebombing that destroyed whole districts of Hamburg, and killed a lot of civilians. Compare this video to, say:

Royal Air Force Bomber Command, 1942-1945. CL3400.jpg

So I suppose the question is: Would putting this on the main page, with a paragraph or two to provide context, advance our educational goals, or is it simply too misleading to be able to be used in an encyclopedic manner outwith articles? Can we mitigate issues? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've read a book on the bombing of Dresden in World War II and it was a most sobering piece of literature. The video is, as you say, propaganda. But propaganda and war are bed-fellows. In my view, if we balanced the propaganda video with a decent write-up based on the (now arguably reasonably well-written) article, that should meet our educational goals. War is disgusting business and if you are at the receiving end of it, you know all about it. Propaganda tries to justify the actions. If we present this juxtaposition well, while still shocking, it does have educational value. And I suppose you are thinking of running this on the anniversary date of the firestorm (27 July attack just before midnight; firestorm on 28 July), maybe we could balance this further by showing the photo (or a similar one in the same set which is a better crop) in the 'On this day' section. Schwede66 04:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the potential writeup made in the 2015 discussion is better than what we originally had. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think I'll start by nominating that photo I mentioned on FPC. If we can get something to pair it with, it'll probably help matters. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting the FPC underway. I've had a go at a complete rewrite of the blurb that puts the propaganda-aspect of it at the centre. See what you think. Comment here and/or edit the words directly. Schwede66 10:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 draft blurb

This US newsreel from August 1943 covering the Allied bombing of Hamburg, Germany, in World War II, by the United StatesEighth Air Force is a typical example of wartime news broadcasts used as propaganda. One of these bombing missions, code-named Operation Gomorrah, was flown over a period of eight days between 24 July and 3 August 1943. Initial missions saw the use of blockbuster and delay-action bombs and the introduction of new countermeasures against anti-aircraft guns. On the 27/28 July raid carried out by the Royal Air Force, concentrated bombing created a firestorm that incinerated more than 21 square kilometres (8 sq mi) of the city. Overall, Operation Gomorrah bombings killed 37,000 civilians and destroyed much of the city.

The clip states that Hamburg is "Germany's principal seaport and number-one war center" and that the bombing caused "devastation of war plants". The reel is silent on the deliberate destruction of entire residential neighbourhoods. The effectiveness of the Hamburg raid had relied on careful research on how best to cause a large fire in a German city – as opposed to the popular view that it was an accidental occurrence due to unusually dry weather conditions.

A "was" is missing" in the final sentence. Jmchutchinson (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Thanks. Schwede66 17:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 23 June 2022 - Redirect categorisation

Could

{{R category shell|
{{R to main namespace}}
}}

be added to the portal redirect to the main page for categorisation of stuff like the protection level (like with Wikipedia:Main Page (no redirect))? Aidan9382 (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Donexaosflux Talk 20:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]