Page semi-protected

Talk:Main Page

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

Main Page error reports

To report an error in current or upcoming Main Page content, please add it to the appropriate section below.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with In the news

  • Not keen on the new pic for Coronavirus. It is not a picture of the new strains, just a generic pic of coronavirus taken ages ago, and it doesn't appear in the target article. It does say "example pictured" but I think it's misleading.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    I agree with the above. In any case, the full stop in the caption should be removed, as it's only a sentence fragment. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    ITN I haved noticed is not always as stringent as DYK about the blurb being mentioned and sourced in the bolded link, or requiring the image be used in the target.—Bagumba (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Probably the best picture we have for coronavirus. In any case I don't see it as misleading as it is clearly labelled as an example of coronavirus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Well there's no requirement for every story to have a picture, and the "example" part could easily refer to "new strain of coronavirus", which is what I assumed the first time I viewed it, until noticing the pic was from 2006. We don't even know if the new strain looks anything like that. This whole thing seems equivalent to announcing a new species of butterfly and accompanying it with a pic of some completely different species of butterfly as an "example". It adds nothing to the story. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Amakuru...your explanation sounds sensible. Whispyhistory (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Your butterfly example is different. The virus is a strain of the species shown, not a different species. Stephen 10:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    In that case, wouldn't it be more like announcing a new breed of C. l. familiaris? I mean, this and this and this are all the same species, but it would be odd to illustrate an article about any one of those with a picture of any other one of those. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Bulldog adult male.jpg
    In China, a new breed of dog (example pictured) bites more than five hundred people, killing at least seventeen. We tend to be more familiar with dogs than we are with viruses, but the image is still useful (and not incorrect) for someone who doesn't know what a dog looks like — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Viral strains are not equivalent to dog breeds. Stephen 00:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • That would need, for agreement between subject and verb, to be "In China, a new strain of coronavirus (examples pictured) is report infect more than five hundred people, leading to seventeen deaths." And "to have infected" would be more usual, unless this is an example of [ed to[WP:ENGVAR]]. Bazza (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Are you sure those are viruses (plural) pictured? According to the virus article, individual particles are called virions — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I expect "virions" is more a technical term. Note Webster: "virus noun ... plural viruses." – Sca (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Could we sub a recent shot of Chinese people wearing face masks? – Sca (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 26 – Toll hits 26. AP BBC ReutersSca (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    I wonder if it's worth switching to something like "dozens", given the toll is now at 41 and seems unlikely to slow down. — 🦊 23:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Errors in On this day

Today's OTD

  • Richard de Bury - the three online sources in the References section give his year of birth variously as 1281, 1286 and 1287. What makes us so sure enough as to ignore the first two here but still use them as references? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    • [1] says the 1281 date "rests an entirely mistaken reading of the final note in the Cottonian copy" (whatever that is). That source is then cited in the following: [2], [3], [4]. The 1286 date seems to come from only one source (Catholic Encyclopedia), so that appears to be an outlier. I edited the article to reflect that source. howcheng {chat} 17:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD

Errors in Did you know ...

Current DYK

  • while he was imprisoned: should be "while he was in prison"; "imprison" is a transitive verb and properly requires an object. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Same meaning. "Imprisoned" here is an adjective describing the state of being in prison. Jmar67 (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

  • @Amakuru: I notice that the protected versions are of the "wide image" layout, in which the blurb is below the picture, instead of to its right. This seems to make the POTD section a little too tall; the blurbs for all the subtemplates should also be able to fit nicely beside their corresponding images. I'm not sure why the protected versions are using the incorrect layout – regular substitution via {{POTD row}} should give the correct configuration. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 18:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Ravenpuff: apologies, I've been offline all day and must have missed this last night too. I didn't use the "subst" method because I don't really know how that works, I just copied the templates from the last time we ran a multi-set POTD, Template:POTD protected/2020-01-04, which obviously does use the vertical layout. I was actually under the impression from my POTD coord days, that an image size of 400 (as opposed to 399) is where the vertical layout kicks in, but maybe you guys have updated the templates since then to make this optional or something? Anyway, hopefully next time the bot will handle the job correctly, otherwise I'll look into learning how to use the "subst" method. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (Woolf). Seems odd to mention photographer twice and in close succession. The credit would suffice. Jmar67 (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Credit line: ; Restoration: should be "; restored by" per POTD convention. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 08:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    Changed to 'restored by'; any objection on trimming the photog name from the blurb? --valereee (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Valereee: Just one little quibble: there shouldn't be a colon after "restored by". I'm largely ambivalent about the photographer's name, but I also feel that the blurb should give a sufficiently comprehensive overview of the picture, without recourse to the credit line (such as in cases outside the Main Page where the blurb might potentially be the only text displayed). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    fixed! --valereee (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Tomorrow's POTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(January 31)

  • List of defunct National Basketball Association teams - "there have been..." why isn't this simply "there are ..."? They're all still defunct, right? And interestingly the list contains 17 defunct teams, 2 of which never played, but are still listed under "Defunct teams" so presumably the blurb needs to caveat the 15 with "who played at least one game in the NBA"? And finally the list uses the term "teams" while the blurb uses "franchises". To many of us this doesn't mean the same thing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Monday's FL

(January 27)

General discussion

In the news: Coronavirus

On the Main Page it states that the coronavirus in China 'infects more than five hundred people, killing at least seventeen'. However, most recent reports state that there are more than 600 cases of infection ([5]), and I think it should be noted that these are only the confirmed cases, as a new report by Imperial College London ([6]) estimates around 4000 cases in Wuhan alone. Maybe this should be reflected on the Main Page. JACKINTHEBOXTALK 16:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@JackintheBox: These kinds of reports ought to go to WP:ERRORS, but I've gone ahead and updated the figures to match the article. I suspect they'll need to be changed quite frequently. — 🦊 19:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

We did it

6 million articles. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Da-na-na-NA-na ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
What is the 6 millionth article? Greenshed (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Maria Elise Turner Lauder, created, fittingly enough, by Rosiestep. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the total number fluctuates, up and down, as some article are created and others are deleted. There may be several? But I guess someone must know of an easy way to find out. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
This discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Six million articles. — xaosflux Talk 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Happy reaching 6,000k! — Hamid Hassani (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Congrats Wikipedia! Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone provide the link to the new File of wikipedia, just want to see the discussion for the changs. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@FlightTime Phone: see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Promotional_banner_for_the_6_millionth_article?. I'm the one who "pulled the trigger" so if you are looking for a head on a platter if something is wrong, hit me up! — xaosflux Talk 20:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Absolutely not just wondering and wanted to see the discussion, not opposing jut want to see. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

MP Banner

A discussion about turning on the main page banner for WP:6M is going on at Wikipedia_talk:Six_million_articles#Linking_to_here - please join in if you have commentary on that. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)