Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main Page error reports

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 (00:19 on 25 November 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

TFA today

  • "New Worlds is a British science fiction magazine that began in 1936 as a fanzine called Novae Terrae. John Carnell became its editor, and it was first published professionally in 1946." The second sentence is confusing. If it is saying that both Carnell becoming editor, and its first professional publication, were in 1946 then it needs a comma between "published professionally" and "in 1946". On reading the article it appears Carnell became editor for the second time in 1946. Suggest rewording that sentence to "In 1946, with the return of John Carnell as editor, it began professional publication". DuncanHill (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    • No objection, but I can imagine objections. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Pinging Mike Christie, who is the principal author and a subject-matter expert, to see if he can clarify. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
        Carnell was the editor of both the fanzine and the professional magazine; the article is about the professional magazine and only mentions the fanzine because it was a direct precursor. If it's confusing as written I think it would be better to clarify the distinction between the two incarnations rather than changing the reference to Carnell. The relevant details are in the second paragraph of the body of the article. How about something like "...called Novae Terrae. John Carnell, who became Novae Terrae's editor in 1939, renamed it New Worlds. He was instrumental in turning it into a professional publication in 1946 and became the editor of the new incarnation. It became the leading UK science fiction magazine." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
        Even substituting "its", that's 1324 characters; the max is 1200, and 1175 is better. (Oops, it's 1224 now, including "(Full article)" ... I'll trim something after this discussion is resolved.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
        Sorry, Dan, I was looking at the article lead, not the TFA lead. If we can get the article lead agreed on, I trust you to make the TFA lead match the meaning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
        Dan, I've made the relevant changes to the article lead; can you work with that or would you like me to try doing something similar to the TFA lead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
        Sure, feel free, and Duncan, let me know what you think. Shoot for 1175. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
        I don't have permission to edit it directly, but looking at the second sentence, I think the simplest solution might be just "It was first published professionally in 1946, edited by John Carnell." Switching the order like that avoids the connection with the fanzine that I think is the source of the confusion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
        I think Mike's suggestion for the second sentence of the blurb is a great improvement on the current wording. DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
        Did that; other suggestions? - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
        Er yes, have just had a closer read of the article and some of the references, it appears that " the columns of critical journals such as Speculation" should read "the columns of fanzines such as Zenith-Speculation". DuncanHill (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
        Agree that it should be "fanzine"; I think it would be fine to leave it as Speculation in the interests of brevity, although Duncan is right about the title -- the entire run is generally indexed as Speculation and the mid-run title change doesn't really matter to the reader. Not a big deal either way if others disagree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

TFA tomorrow

Errors in In the news

  • Bir al-Abed – Wondering why we're not going with at least 235, per BBC, NYT? – Sca (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Yet another example of why it's best to be a little vague with death tolls. 'Over 200' would be better in the blurb; the article itself can worry about keeping up with the exact value as new information becomes available. Modest Genius talk 21:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Well of course not, "More than 200" would be better, let's not resort to tabloid/Asda grammar now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


Can we add 'artist's impression' to the caption please, as well as in the blurb? That's an important thing to know about the image. Modest Genius talk 10:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Why do we need the sames words that are two inches to the left in the blurb? Stephen 23:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC
For the same reason we use a caption at all: a lot of users don't read the blurbs, or at least not the 'pictured' line, they just glance at the image and make a quick assumption. Whilst I'm not a big fan of having both 'pictured' and caption, that's the current solution so they should both be accurate. Modest Genius talk 21:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, do we really need the word 'apparent' in the blurb? Modest Genius talk 10:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the only way to remove the word "apparent" would be to go up there and visit the asteroid..... 331dot (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Not really. No-one has ever visited alpha Centauri, yet we don't refer to it as an 'apparent star'! Modest Genius talk 21:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day

OTD today

OTD tomorrow

  • Siege of Paris (885–86) - the article makes it clear that the date was uncertain, to whit: "The Vikings arrived in Paris on 24[15][16] or 25[17] November 885" so it's probably not a good candidate for OTD when we're not actually certain that it happened on this day. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Mirabal sisters - lacking in refs, some whole sections without any, a few [citation needed] tags, and the usual crap "In popular culture" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Josie Fitial - date of birth not referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Tomorrow's OTD is depressing. I have tried to find replacements, including Dynamite (patented on 25 November 1867) and "Do They Know It's Christmas" (recorded on 25 November 1984), but they're just as bad. I can't find a decent source for Josie Fitial that isn't obviously not copied from Wikipedia, maybe my go-to editor for women biographies can? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333, if you don't mind the inevitable howl of protest from the usual cranks who rant about any hint of commercialism on the main page, you could do worse than Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album), which will have its tenth anniversary tomorrow. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
No, it'll have its tenth anniversary the day after (at least according to the article), plus the actual citation to HMV's website verifying the release date is a dead link. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Are profits from DTKIC still going to charity (just out of interest)? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes; it's still pulling in about £750,000 a year (although I suspect most of that income is actually the royalties on Live Aid clips). (Ritchie, you're right about the dates; oops.) ‑ Iridescent 17:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • 1667 Shamakhi earthquake would be a decent option were it a little longer... Elizabeth of Russia (who seized power on 25 November, if my quick search is to be believed) is not in great shape, but is not dreadful. If we need another birth/death, Fidel Castro is a GA. Vanamonde (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "1759 – The second of two strong earthquakes struck the Levant and destroyed all the villages in the Beqaa Valley." The way the link is piped is a little confusing, as the target article covers both the first and the second earthquakes. Suggest changing to " [[1759]] – The second of '''[[Near East earthquakes of 1759|two strong earthquakes]]''' struck the [[Levant]] and destroyed all the villages in the [[Beqaa Valley]]." DuncanHill (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    Done. Vanamonde (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Errors in the current or next Did you know...

DYK current

DYK next

  • "... that Estelle Cascarino represented France at the under-19 and under-20 level in international tournaments in the same year?" Unless there is one level called "under-19 and under-20" then level needs to be in the plural. DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC) And adding "both" between "France at" and "the under-19" would clarify things even more. DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    Fixed. Vanamonde (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

POTD today

  • "A bas-relief from Persepolis, the ceremonial capital of the Achaemenid Empire (ca. 550–330 BC) in what is now Iran, which depicts a fight between a lion and a bull. This symbol has been variously interpreted, including as the representing the Nowruz (the Persian New Year) and as the spring equinox in which the eternally fighting bull (personifying the Earth) and lion (personifying the Sun) are equal" "including as the representing" is a collection of English words, but it is not English. DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @DuncanHill: I have made an attempt at copyedit, but I am not known for my grammar skills either. Does it read better now? Alex Shih (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Looks better to me, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

POTD tomorrow

Errors in the summary of the last or next featured list

Anniversary error

The article Stanisław August Poniatowski is eligible as the mistakes and sources were fixed, yet it still shows 'ineligible' for submission. Regards. Oliszydlowski, 16:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

General discussion

Today's birth anniversary

150 years ago Marie Curie was born! BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Added. Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but Marie Curie is already included on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 26 and thus is not eligible to appear today. howcheng {chat} 16:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC
I disagree that Marie Curie's birth (or death) was ineligible for inclusion on the grounds stated. The relevant guidelines suggest to me that either birth or death, but not both, are eligible, provided that the person is not already otherwise commemorated (see criterion 6.3). However, the December 26th anniversary is not of Marie Curie in her own sole right, but for her and her husband's discovery of radium, which I think is a sufficiently different thing from her own birth/death as to not exclude them.
Obviously, this sort of issue could arise with many other eminent scientists, explorers etc. so needs to be clearly understood. Are there definive precedents and decisions? {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The article is featured on that date already. That's what the guideline prohibits: Furthermore, if the person is featured (bold item) as a regular blurb on any day, they may not be chosen for birth/death listings. Exceptions are made when the day in question is lacking a selection of decent articles (i.e., only reuse it if we're desperate). howcheng {chat} 23:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Am I missing something? On Dec 26 the radium item is in the 'eligible' section, not actually selected for use. Furthermore, it should really just have radium as the bold link, because the discovery of that element is the relevant historical event, not the biographies of the two Curies. Why have three bold links in the same item? Modest Genius talk 11:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
We can bold radium in that blurb as well. Having multiple bold links in a blurb is fairly common. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Modest Genius that the Dec 26 anniversary is of the discovery of radium and should only have radium as a bold link. This would permit these two eminent scientists (who also discovered many other things) to have their own articles featured on the anniversaries of their births (or deaths).
Consider the Higgs boson: the team that actually discovered this comprised hundreds of scientists, some of them eminent now (and perhaps more of them eminent in the future). Would we forever prohibit every one of them being featured on their own significant birth or death anniversaries if the Higgs boson discovery announcement (4 July 2012) was itself featured? {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I can only agree with Double sharp (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
People shouldn't think of this as preventing Marie Curie from appearing twice, but rather as weighing the difference between allowing one person's name to appear twice if that would mean that another deserving article didn't get to appear at all. There's a limited space, and spreading out articles is a Good Idea. Howcheng is a reasonable person, and knows that odd situations and unique anniversaries do arise. He's not blindly applying arbitrary rules, and I trust he has a healthy and useful understanding of WP:IAR for situations where it is necessary. He's doing just fine here. --Jayron32 15:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
There will #always# be more articles, anniversaries, 'newsworthy topics' etc than can appear on the Main Page - apart from when there are not enough.
Looking at the discussion from the other direction - the more dates the more opportunities for filling quiet days and/or avoiding complaints of 'this has appeared today on the Main Page five times in the past six years' and similar. (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Howcheng knows all of this. Let them do their job. They're doing fine so far. --Jayron32 16:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
No-one accused anyone of doing a bad job, there were just some suggested improvements. Personally I think it's better to include Marie Curie on her birthday than bold her name on 26 Dec, when it's not really related to the 26 Dec event. More to the point the 26 Dec event isn't even in the rotation. Modest Genius talk 17:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

And how many days of 'everybody agreeing that several the MP and its links are truly wonderful' will mark the start of the apocalypse? 17:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article - photo choice for Presque Isle State Park TFA blurb

I am one of the main authors of Presque Isle State Park and had no idea it was even nominated for TFA. While I am glad to see it so honored, the photo chosen for the TFA blurb on the Main Page (a snowy parking lot in a forest File:Presque_Isle_State_Park_in_the_Winter.jpg) does not do a great job of conveying what is special and unique about the park. Pennsylvania has 121 state parks, but only two of them are on its Lake Erie coastline. Presque Isle State Park (the name means "almost an island" or "peninsula" in French) is surrounded by water and almost all of the attractions in the park are water related, but the picture conveys nothing of this. Ignoring maps and template images, there are 12 photos in the article, 8 of which show the water (and a 9th shows the most picturesque lighthouse). Of the other three photos, one is the Tom Ridge Environmental Center (on the mainland, at the entrance to the park), one is a cerulean warbler (which was photographed in Canada), and the last is the snowy parking lot picture currently on the main page. Could we please pick a more representative photo from one of the others used in the article? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I was BOLD and put File:PresqueIsleStatePark.JPG in the blurb. I will not edit war if someone wants to revert or prefers a different picture (and in the interest of full disclosure, I took five of the park photos in the article). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a good decision; the aerial image is unquestionably better. I only glanced at the first picture when it was on there, but I remember wondering what it was; I've only been to Presque Isle once (in early November, to photograph the light), so I figured that it was some special location or otherwise an important photo. I'm quite confused as to why a snowy woodland scene, which could be anywhere, was chosen. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The new picture is absolutely better. Given that it matches the text and illustrates it directly, it is far more appropriate.--Jayron32 16:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Main Page"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA