Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 (16:08 on 22 October 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]

Please change "estimated 700,000" to "claimed" or something, you shouldn't just report a self-interested "estimate" like that, you seem to be endorsing it. Exxxongeek (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I originally nominated it as "over half a million", being on the conservative (the term, not the political party!) side. In any case, even the Daily Mail - you know that one that said judges deciding that withdrawing from the EU required consent of the entire parliament were "Enemies of the People" - has reported is as 700,000. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Exxxongeek, I raised "over half a million" as an error last night and it was corrected to "an estimated 700,000" by User:Stephen. I wonder do you have any sources that actually state "over half a million"? Surely that "figure" also has to be an estimate? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If you look carefully, the Daily Mail put it in quotation marks. Exxxongeek (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The point is that the Daily Mail has been campaigning for Brexit since forever (although I appreciate since Paul Dacre has gone its has mollified it stance; the Daily Express is still flying the flag for "ZOMG WE MUST GET OUT OF THE EU!!!!1111one1") so you would not expect it to exaggerate or over-blow the figures for a march. In any case, I think "half a million" is easier to read. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm never too inclined to look carefully at the Daily Mail, but I'm glad they are treating a quote as a quote. My original question still stands. Alternatively, if you can provide a more accurate estimate, from a more authoritative source, I’m sure we would all like to see it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC) p.s. yes Ritchie, for those hard-of-thinking DM readers, "over half a million" may actually sound like more than "700,000"
Seriously, don't report biased estimates as-is. You should aim to be a trustworthy source of information. Exxxongeek (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
As I said, I would prefer "over half a million". I'm not changing it myself because I took the photo and suggested the blurb, so I think I have a conflict of interest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Whatever appears on Main page should reflect the actual sourced article content. I see that People's Vote#Campaign activities actually says "almost 700,000". So I guess that's what the blurb should say. I'm assuming you can't find anything better? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC) p.s. I assume you meant to say "We should aim to be a trustworthy source of information".
The article says it was estimated by the organizers, so readers can judge for themselves whether to trust it. Why don't you do what every RS seems to, and even the Daily Mail, and put the number in quotes? Exxxongeek (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
"Every RS?" The Guardian source at the article uses quote marks, the other two sources do not. You do know that the Daily Mail is more or less banned here, yes? There's only so much room for the blurb, so I'm not sure how much scope for addition there might be. Some would see those as "scare quotes". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Some would see regurgitating advertising as facts as dishonest. I'm suggesting you take out "estimated" and just put quotes around the number. Or use "hundreds of thousands" like the BBC. I based the "every RS seems to" on a google search Exxxongeek (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
You would be well advised to base very little on Google search. Just to be clear, you created your account this morning just to complain about this? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

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

OTD today[edit]

OTD tomorrow[edit]

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

DYK current[edit]

DYK next[edit]

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

POTD today[edit]

POTD tomorrow[edit]

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

FL current[edit]

FL next[edit]

General discussion[edit]

TemplateStyles[edit]

The prior discussion on this was archived without being closed: Talk:Main_Page/Archive_192#TemplateStyles. Reopening. The proposal is to use TemplateStyles to add responsive design to the main page per this example. --Yair rand (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus seems pretty clear to me there... — 🦊 16:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep. So... --Yair rand (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Per the previous discussion, the following changes should be made:
Thank you. --Yair rand (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Why did all the box headers go from 120% font size to 150%? Isa (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Isanae: ...I don't think they did? I don't see any changed headers, after checking multiple browsers. The stylesheet says 120% explicitly. You're talking about the headers with "In the news", "On this day", etc right? And in the desktop site (which is the only place this change will appear)? (Temporarily removing editrequested template until this is figured out.) --Yair rand (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yair rand: I've been trying to understand what's going on for about 30 minutes now. Yes, I'm talking about headers like "From today's featured article" and "In the news", desktop, Firefox 62, Windows 10.
I'm getting 120% when logged out, but 150% when logged in. The current version of the main page is an <h2> that has a font-size:120% inline in its style attribute. Your version is also an <h2>, but it has no inline style.
When logged out, it picks up a 120% from .mw-parser-output h2 that's inline in a <style> tag. I'm not familiar enough with mediawiki to know where it comes from, but it's generated inline in the page. When logged in, this is overridden by a 150% that comes from the vector skin. When I look at the source of the main page logged out, I don't see this css file being included in any <link>, but I have it when logged in (where modules actually has more gadgets from my preferences, but they don't affect this particular output).
Sorry for the confusion. It's probably something on my end. Isa (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see the issue. The gadget MediaWiki:Gadget-VectorClassic.css ("Vector classic typography (use only sans-serif in Vector skin)") overrides the font-size set in Template:Main Page/styles.css. I've fixed the new CSS to override that, so there shouldn't be an issue for people using that gadget anymore. (Re-adding editprotected template.) --Yair rand (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks fixed. I'm not seeing any other obvious problems. Responsive design is nice. Isa (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support-A long overdue improvement to the main page.- — fr+ 05:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done but the border on From today's featured list looks wrong. Have you got a quick fix or shall I revert? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • arrow Reverted for now. Presumably it wasn't a Monday or Friday when you tested this, so TFL didn't appear :) And unfortunately I did not notice it until deployed. Waiting for fix before redeploying. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    And while you're at it, on my browser the spacing above Other areas of Wikipedia is slightly wider than the spacing on other blocks on the page. Could you look at that as well? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    @MSGJ: Ah, sorry, when I was fixing the issue above with the VectorClassic gadget I forgot about the featured list and accidentally broke it. Changing line 63 on Template:Main Page/styles.css from #mp-upper h2, #mp-lower h2, #mp-other-lower h2 { to #mp-upper h2, #mp-middle h2, #mp-lower h2, #mp-other-lower h2 { should fix it. Re the spacing above "Other areas of Wikipedia", the extra padding is currently an explicit extra bit of code, so I assumed it was deliberate and didn't remove it when switching to TemplateStyles. (It could be removed by removing line 146 on Template:Main Page/styles.css.) --Yair rand (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Naked woman painting on main page?[edit]

WP:SNOW close: picture is okay, discussion degenerating. Isa (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just want to check if people think the painting File:Angelo Bronzino - Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time - National Gallery, London.jpg should be added to the unused list, or if it's OK to go on the main page as Today's Featured Picture? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using this featured picture. Schwede66 00:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Think of the children! --184.248.185.81 (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be on the MP. Modest Genius talk 12:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Given how WP is accessible to minors, I would personally prefer some other POTD, but I know I'm the minority on that. L293D ( • ) 13:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    Same. It is not as though we are short of featured pictures. Fish+Karate 13:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't find any reason why I would object to that picture on the main page. I would have no objection to my children seeing it, FWIW. --Jayron32 13:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't object. It's Art, not pornography. Children are taught art in school. And I'm sure their textbooks in various subjects contain pictures that might show nudity in some form.--DarkLight753 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No objection. Kids may actually learn something. Robvanvee 16:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • If balance is required, I can offer a nude selfie for consideration. freshacconci (✉) 16:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'm scandalized by the little boy showing his you-know-whats. Face-blush.svg Sca (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    His nipples? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
No, his cheeks. Suggestively rosy. Sca (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death of Jamal Khashoggi[edit]

Why does the Main Page link to [[Jamal Khashoggi|Death of Jamal Khashoggi]] when we have the article Death of Jamal Khashoggi? Surtsicna (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why a death can be considered as "ongoing". It was an event, which now has a confirmed date and location. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
At the time of the discussion on ITN/C, the target article did not exist. There's also a new discussion about upgrading ongoing to a blurb. Isa (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Rapidly replacing with a blurb would seem sensible, if consensus permits. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Countries in blurbs[edit]

Since this has now been removed from ERRORS, raising it here, although it's relevant to the blurbs currently on the main page. We have four ITN blurbs, two of which mention the country they relate to, two of which do not. Should we standardize this moving forward? To be clear, (and pinging Stephen, since he replied to me via edit-summary at ERRORS) I'm not referring to links, but to whether the country is named at all. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"Estimated 700,000"[edit]

When you say "An estimated 700,000 people attend a People's Vote" you are clearly taking the organizers' POV: they are the ones who made the "estimate" and they have every interest in exaggerating the number. "Claimed" or "said" are the words you should be using if you regard yourselves as neutral. 83.216.95.86 (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This discussion should be closed since there is another one about this alleged error in the proper place. Merci ! --184.248.82.162 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)