Talk:Main Page

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.
  • Please 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 (UTC, currently 10:43 on 18 October 2019), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}}, which will not give you a faster response; it is unnecessary as this page is not protected and in fact causes problems if used here, as this is not a talk page. (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 error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history for any discussion and action taken.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
  • Please respect the other humans. A real person wrote the blurb or hook to which you are suggesting a fix and/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 opportunity to step on toes. Please be gentle with your fellow humans.
  • Can you fix the issue yourself? If the error is in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, consider attempting to fix the problem there rather than reporting it here.

Errors in the summary of the featured article[edit]

Today's FA[edit]

Tomorrow's FA[edit]

"He returned to the game with Cardiff, which joined the Football League in 1920 " It is far more common to use 'who' than 'which' in UK English to refer to a football team (Google search of the string "it was manchester city which" got 4 hits. The string ""it was manchester city who" had 3,320 hits." Kevin McE (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"He led the team to success in the 1927 FA Cup Final," In the article, it is clear that he led in the capacity of captain, but this blurb could equally be interpreted as meaning he was the manager. Suggest clarify as "captained" Kevin McE (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"He led the team to success in the 1927 FA Cup Final, defeating Arsenal 1–0." The second clause has no subject, and therefore grammatically it is to be assumed that the subject is the same as in the first clause, but clearly Keenor did not defeat Arsenal single-handedly. Although the meaning may be clear, the grammar is not good, and poor grammar should not serve as an example of our best content. Suggest "He captained the team to a 1-0 victory over Arsenal in the 1927 FA Cup final." Kevin McE (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin. I already pinged the supporters at WT:Today's featured article/October 19, 2019 back on the 5th, and we did get some discussion. This is the cumulative diff since the FAC promotion and blurb review. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I've changed "which" to "who", that one shouldn't be controversial. The second point is probably an improvement, although "captained ... to" sounds like an odd construct to me. I would prefer "He captained the team *in* a 1-0 victory over Arsenal in the 1927 FA Cup final", except that's not ideal either because it repeats the word "in". Any better ideas?  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Day-after-tomorrow's FA[edit]

Errors with In the news[edit]

The item about 2019 Ecuadorian protests claims that Moreno repealed austerity measures. That was not the case. On 1 October 2019, a set of measures were announced. Only one, the end of fuel subsidies, was enacted on 3 October and repealed on 14 October. The rest of announced measures were neither implemented yet or repealed. They are still scheduled to happen. See: Talk:2019 Ecuadorian protests#Inaccurate news on dialogue outcomes. --MarioGom (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
If I understand this article correctly, he did not agree to reduce any austerity measures apart from the fuel subsidies decree. And there isn't even any intention to do so. I've removed the part about reducing austerity altogether and just left the fuel measure part in place.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Indeed, the repeal of Decree 883 (end of fuel subsidies) is the only concession that happened so far (per Reuters, El Comercio and others). The problem is that Al Jazeera, The Washington Post and others introduced vague references to austerity measures in their initial reporting of the repeal of Decree 883, which led to some initial confusion. --MarioGom (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Errors in On this day[edit]

Today's OTD[edit]

1356 Basel Earthquake

Germany did not exist before 1871. Mjroots (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I just threw in the word 'present-day'. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, where's the ref for how far the damages spread to, please? --PFHLai (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't find it either, perhaps we just replace this with another one? Kees08 (Talk) 04:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
minus Removed. I haven't replaced it, as the main page was unbalanced on the right anyway. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD[edit]

Errors in Did you know...[edit]

Current DYK[edit]

In the second hook, please change "maiden flight" to "first successful flight". (See discussion here.) MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 01:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Changed as suggested. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "... that according to dietician Amy Brown, a researcher of social barriers to breastfeeding, British people believe that smacking children is more acceptable than breastfeeding in public?" - the article actually says "more people in the UK believe smacking is acceptable than believe that breastfeeding in public is okay". DuncanHill (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 Done I've reworded to reflect what she stated in the hook, about more people accepting the smacking than the breastfeeding.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, there's no support for the word "children" in the hook. Additionally, neither the words "smack" nor "smacking" appear in any of her published literature in a cursory search. This appears to be a flourish meant for print media.130.233.3.131 (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Next DYK[edit]

Next-but-one DYK[edit]

Errors in the featured picture[edit]

Today's POTD[edit]

Tomorrow's POTD[edit]

Errors in the summary of the featured list[edit]

Friday's FL[edit]

(October 18, today)

Monday's FL[edit]

(October 21)


General discussion[edit]

Add Portal:Law to the list of portals displayed on the homepage[edit]

Law is a broad and universal topic that can easily be put in the same class as those now listed on this page. It is as old as humankind, and reaches into every aspect of our lives, covering everything from codified customary practices to complex international treaties. The rule of law is understood to be fundamental to the concept of liberty itself. I would put it alongside History and the Arts in importance to humanity any day. bd2412 T 11:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, you're a lawyer. I don't think many others would rate it there. Portal:Law got 9340 page views in the last 90 days. There are 52 portals with more views.[1] The Wikipedia:Featured portals process ended in 2017. Portal:Law isn't featured and without a current process we can clearly not require new main page portals to be featured but I oppose Law on importance and interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Your ability to provide that opinion on this platform is a product of a wide range of legal systems. Don't underestimate the importance of the law. Without it, we fall into quite a bad situation. bd2412 T 22:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Law is part of society and Portal:Law is listed at Portal:Society#Related portals. I just don't think it's of enough general interest to get its own listing. A biologist, chemist or physicist could argue life wouldn't even exist without their field but they don't get their own listing either. They are listed at top of Portal:Science. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
So is Portal:Arts. I don't think that such a relationship is the determinative factor. I would certainly put law up against the arts in terms of importance. bd2412 T 17:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
How would you put law up against the 52 categories mentioned above? Pageviews implies that readers rank law #52. Then again, my job has a lot of statistics, and when you're a hammer, everything's a nail. Art LaPella (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Another statistic is popular pages in WikiProjects. Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Popular pages has 7 articles above 300,000 views in August. Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Popular pages has 74, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Popular pages 68, Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Popular pages 92, Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Popular pages 202. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The top eleven portals are, of course, the ones already on the main page, which is why they are the top eleven. Any portal added to that list would be near the top. Six of the portals above Portal:Law are about specific countries, all of which exist as countries by operation of law. Three portals refer to specific religions, which exist both under the protection of laws and as sources of law. There are some curiosities that appeal to popular but very specific interests, such as Portal:Erotica and pornography and Portal:Nudity (that one's a surprise), Portal:Video games, Portal:Free and open-source software, Portal:Spaceflight, and Portal:San Francisco Bay Area. I didn't know we had a separate Portal:Books and Portal:Literature. It might be equally worth noting that although there are ~42 portals more viewed than Portal:Law, there are over 575 that receive fewer views. I would also note that a proposal is currently underway to merge Portal:English law into Portal:Law, and that Portal:Crime and Portal:Freedom of speech could both quite plausibly be merged into Portal:Law. However, I would question whether pageviews equate to human importance. I suspect that if, for example, Portal:Mathematics was not on the main page, its viewership would drop fairly drastically. bd2412 T 03:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Law belongs squarely within Portal:Society. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It does, but you could say the same about arts and biography, perhaps history as well. bd2412 T 03:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Merging Portal Arts, History and Technology into Portal Society may have merit, but that I can immediately see counter-arguments and it should be taken slowly. You might say the same about Portal:Biography, but already 50% of content pages belong under that one portal. There are currently eight Main page linked subject area portals. Eight is not a magic number, but I think the number should not be largely than what can be taken in in one glance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Disagree that "It is as old as humankind". It is only as old as society. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
That is probably more accurate, yes. As old as society is still a pretty significant measure. bd2412 T 04:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Why are you parrying that response. How about: The transition from prehistoric man to humankind is marked by the development of society and law? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
It has been estimated from archaeological data that the human capacity for cumulative culture emerged somewhere between 500,000–170,000 years ago.[1]
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lind, J.; Lindenfors, P.; Ghirlanda, S.; Lidén, K.; Enquist, M. (May 7, 2013). "Dating human cultural capacity using phylogenetic principles". Scientific Reports. 3 (1): 1785. Bibcode:2013NatSR...3E1785L. doi:10.1038/srep01785. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 3646280. PMID 23648831.
There is a long developmental period during which primitive social groups had norms that functioned like laws, but had no mechanism for consistent application. At some point, thousands of years ago, the innovations of writing laws down and making them (theoretically) equally applicable to everyone of a certain standing wrought the change we still see today. The existence of laws governing ownership of property and enforcement of agreements make economics possible. Patent laws promote technological innovation and copyright laws spur artistic creation. The criminal law is largely what makes society operate under a principle different from "might makes right". Civil rights law is what gives us the ability to speak freely, assemble, and vote. When people disagree with a distasteful practice, they don't say "there ought to be an art" or "there ought to be a social practice". bd2412 T 04:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
You have a pro-Law bias. However, I don't disagree with anything you write here, and I agree Law deserves prominence in an encyclopedia, laws being written, and the nature of an encyclopedia being a written historiographical document.
I note as previously, of the main page linked portals, Portal:Society was the weakest. How about you consider merging Portal:Society and Portal:Law into Portal:Law and society and putting that on the main page? How much of Law does not pertain to society? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I see that Portal:Law already has Portal:Contents/Portals#Society and social sciences contained within. I think a general restructure of portals is required to make portal trees less pervasive than are category trees. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Law is too narrow a subset of Portal:Society. There are plenty of other sub-topics of Society which deserve at least as high a billing as law, e.g. politics, education, war, sport. If we start including all these VA-level-2 topics the mainpage will be swamped.
I'm more inclined to ask why any of the current 8 topic portals are linked from the mainpage. They are mostly as badly-designed as other portals, and while they are bigger and better-maintained than other portals, they are a very long way below the sort quality needed for such a prominent, permanent mainpage link.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Portals that should be linked from the Main page[edit]

The top eleven portals are, of course, the ones already on the main page, which is why they are the top eleven.

This is exactly right. There is currently a great deal happening with portals. So far it has concerned the bottom ranked hundreds of them being deleted. The question: What is the purpose of portals? has been asked and there is not a documented answer. I think all portals need review and re-development according to that question and how they attempt to serve that purpose. Deletion of the bottom end portals is not really a productive development. Development should involve the portals at the top.
Questions: Why are these few portals linked from the main page? Why them, and why only them? Should anything change? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Support - I believe that at this time of questioning about portals it is also appropriate to ask why these portals have this privileged position on the main page. They do not follow any layout pattern, either with the main page, each other, or with the other portals linked on the main page (Portal:Contents, Portal:Featured content and Portal:Current events).Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse) (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I hope this question is approached from the perspective of removing things that are no longer relevant to streamline and reduce clutter, and not adding things nobody asked for out of some sense of fairness. ApLundell (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 California Blackout[edit]

I haven't made a page in years. Please redirect or delete or whatever if needed. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher How does this pertain to the Main Page? 331dot (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I think Peregrine Fisher wants an In The News event. See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, where among other things, you will learn your article isn't long enough yet. Art LaPella (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Good for Portal:Current events for the time being... --PFHLai (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the OP was intending to nominate it for anything but it has indeed been redirected, to 2019 California power shutoff.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)