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 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 (04:50 on 17 February 2019), 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 the featured article

Today's TFA

Tomorrow's TFA

Errors with In the news

  • Someone changed Kashmir to India-controlled Kashmir. Kashmir is a disputed region so better use word India-administered Kashmir or neutral Kashmir as proposed in the original blurb. Controlled implies forceful occupation.-Nizil (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Nyttend: reverted per BRD for now. Which wording is best? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    "India-controlled Kashmir" is odd, and isn't phrasing that is widely used. "Indian-administered Kashmir" is somewhat acceptable: I'd recommend "Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir", which is what the administrative division really is. "Kashmir" in itself does not adequately convey which the nation-state that the attack occurred in, and conventionally, we do include that in the blurb. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, I've seen administered but thought that controlled would be considered equal with it. "Indian state of J&K" isn't helpful, because J&K presumably includes Pakistani-administered territory, just as Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan presumably includes the place where this happened. Both sides agree that this incident occurred in a place where India controls/administers/oversees/etc. daily affairs, but saying it's within a specific subnational jurisdiction also says that it's within a specific country, and that's quite different from saying it's in the region overseen/administered/controlled/etc. by that country. Consider Aouzou, Chad. Until the Chad-Libya dispute ended, you could have said equally that it was in the Tibesti Region and Fezzan; both were true, but both were non-neutral. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    I've put "Indian-administered" into the template, figuring that it wasn't WP:WHEEL because it's reflecting the change that Nizil Shah requested. Anyone may revert if there's some objection to it; I wouldn't make a WP:WHEEL complaint if MSGJ reverted me a second time. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Nyttend: "Indian state of J&K" does not include areas outside Indian control. The Indian government claims it does, but administratively, it doesn't. Just as Pakistan claims the entirety of Kashmir, but the territory in its control comprises Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. If this incident took place in either of those regions, those are the descriptors I would support using. "Indian-administered" isn't wrong, though, so I won't press my point. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    That's my point: India claims that it does, and Pakistan claims that their territories comprise all of the former princely state. By saying that it's within a specific jurisdiction, we're taking one side or the other. If we name a country, we have to stick with talking about who's administering an area, since nobody says that Pakistani authorities oversee road maintenance, the postal service, small-scale crime, etc. in the Pulwama area, but there are two overlapping subnational jurisdictions in the area, and it's not neutral to choose just one. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Nyttend, Vanamonde93, and MSGJ: I think it should be India-administered instead of Indian-administered and the link of Kashmir should changed to Jammu and Kashmir if seem appropriate to do so.-Nizil (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    Why "India" instead of "Indian"? I don't talk/write about India much, but if I were talking about Samoa, I'd talk about the "American-controlled part", not the "United States-controlled part", if referring to American Samoa with this kind of terminology. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The article Bruno Ganz says the date of death is disputed, but currently prefers Feb. 16. The hidden date should be updated. Modulus12 (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Errors in On this day

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Errors in Did you know...

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Monday's FL

Friday's FL

General discussion

Why so grim?

This may be just a problem of today's version, but I cannot help noticing that the Main Page is very grim. All In the news blurbs are about death: terrorist attacks and an accident. The featured article is war-related. 3 out of 8 hooks in DYK are about violence: the Holocaust, a war, and a drug cartel standoff. All On this day blurbs are about violence: an assassination, warfare, a serial killer, and a terrorist attack. And just when I was about to catch a breath looking at Today's featured picture, I read in the text next to it that this guy too was murdered. Surely violence is not all that has ever happened and not all that is happening now, right? Surtsicna (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thank heavens for Die Göttin der Vernunft in DYK. And, of course, for the thoroughly invigorating Brexit in Ongoing. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: You can nominate or discuss articles for ITN, DYK, TFA and OTD if you feel the current selection is inappropriate. Isa (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Isa. I wanted to discuss it at ITN but then I noticed the rest of the Main Page was not much better in this regard. Yesterday it was at the most extreme. Today the issue is mostly with ITN and OTD, so I guess would make sense to bring this up there. Surtsicna (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Surtsicna: Please read the article titled Apophenia. Your brain creates patterns out of randomness, and causeless coincidences are not the fault of anyone. It's the fault of your mind seeking order out of chaos, but when the order wasn't there in the first place, there's no one to blame, and nothing that can be fixed. The fact that some pattern emerges with no forethought doesn't mean anything at all. There's no point in bringing it up for discussion here because there's no process, no person, no decision that created it, indeed, there's nothing at all here. No point at all in discussing figments of our imagination which no one could have stopped from happening in the first place. --Jayron32 16:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, it's much easier to get consensus for deaths and disasters on ITN. Those also tend to attract more editors, which in turn creates DYKs and eventually TFAs. There may not be an organized process behind this, but it's certainly not a "figment of our imagination". Isa (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I would have accepted various explanations, but with this I have to disagree. The content of the Main Page is not randomized. We know exactly what we are putting up. Of course there are processes that bring articles to the Main Page and people who review the articles and maintain the Main Page. That 13 out of 18 articles linked on the Main Page in bold letters were about violence may have been a one-time coincidence, but it was not a figment of my imagination. It is odd to suggest so, and bizarre to ascribe it to the "beginning stages of schizophrenia". Surtsicna (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it was apophenia. It was grim. And I'm not even a Northerner. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you genuinely claiming that there was a deliberate and purposeful attempt to produce a "grim" main page? Also, I never ascribed anything to schizophrenia. Let me quote the important words for you, to save you the trouble of reading. "Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information." A random, and unplanned series of events happened to produce a series of articles on the main page all dealing with death. There is no purposeful pattern, and yet you ran right here demanding justice and that we should somehow "do something" so that this stopped happening, and yet there is nothing to do, since no person or group of people decided to make the main page full of death articles. It was a bunch of unconnected decisions that produced this. There's nothing to avoid, since no greater purpose was intended, despite your insistence to the contrary. Try this on for size: If you insist that there was some grand plan to force the main page to feature so many death articles, produce the evidence. Show us the discussions that made the decision "In late January, lets all agree to post a bunch of articles about death". Do that and you have a starting point for a discussion about changing something, because then we have a clear thing to change. I'm just saying there was no such plan. There is just a bunch of unconnected actions that produced something your mind convinced you was a pattern in the randomness. And it isn't schizophrenia. It's a normal thing for every single normal human mind to do. The thing is to recognize that it happens in every normal human mind, and then not act on it because it's still not evidence of something wrong. It's just that on this day, a bunch of unconnected decisions produced a random array of articles that for a brief moment in time, looked kinda like a pattern. --Jayron32 02:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Talking past each other. There was no deliberate and purposeful attempt to produce a grim main page, but nobody said there was (although we could conceivably make a purposeful attempt to emphasize Pollyanna articles.) It isn't apophenia, but hopefully we can avoid that debate and move on. We do have an FAQ about how we can get the kind of articles we want: write them and/or nominate them for the Main Page. Art LaPella (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Jayron is right, of course that "no greater purpose was intended." After all, we are not a newspaper with some big boss man making high level editorial decisions to ensure "editorial balance", are we? As for grim news.... as they say at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, "shit happens". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say something about this if no one else had, but I do think that we may, for the first time ever (or at least to my recollection) have an ITN that consists solely of mass-fatality events. The death toll for four items totals 210, for an average of 52.5 per entry, and several entries say that is likely to rise.

Couldn't we at least have found some dictator's sham re-election to break them up?

Maybe it's just the mid-Northern Hemisphere winter blahs manifesting themselves, though. Daniel Case (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
A week later and the main page (the news section at least) is still jammed full of death and disaster. Apophenia what? (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

If you are aware of an article about a more 'positive' event that is significantly in the news, you are welcome to nominate it at WP:ITNC. We can only consider what is nominated. We also have no control over what occurs in the world; the beginning of the year is usually a slow period for events that are not sudden disasters. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The not-so-grim Super Bowl LIII will be so heavily opposed later the discussion has to be more exciting than the game per se. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


off the main page --Jayron32 13:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

whether or not this the right section for general comments: shocked in a way, subject for Main Page - why publicity for a pathetic terrorist - & here not in passing, part of a historical item, but details of his life - frankly who cares, the less said the better, such people should be forgotten, erased from public consciousness; this article just adds to his notoriety. Thank you; God Bless America; JS Quebec Jasheco (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was a very well written article dealing comprehensively with the subject matter in a neutral and suitably referenced fashion. So I'm quite content that it's of interest to others and is quite rightly on the main page. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jasheco: Wikipedia is a project to document all human knowledge. The notoriety of an individual or how the presence of an article contributes to it is immaterial to our purpose. There is much information here that is undesirable for some reason by many groups or individuals; censoring it all would leave little behind; this is why(in part) Wikipedia is not censored. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I also thought that making a terrorist the subject of a featured article was, at the least, in poor taste, and likely to offend those who suffered from his actions. But I also reflected that articles on Spartacus, or Guy Fawkes, would not have triggered any such reaction. In any case, I chose not to read the article. Clive. (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, and when we featured Gropecunt Lane it also seemed "in poor taste" to some, but this is an educational resource and not constrained by the sensitivities of the odd few individuals who are seemingly upset by such thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not a debate about censoring, neither did anyone suggest there be no article of this man. Indeed, it is good that there exists a good, solid, neutral article on this and any other contentious, political and moral topic. This should be a debate about if this person needs to be featured on the front page of one of the world's top websites. Nobody is saying that is promotion. Merely, it may be misconstrued as a promotion, and, very easily, to be featured on the front page of Wikipedia may for some individual be seen as a goal in itself. Such policy is thus hazardous. Not submitting an article to the front page is really not censorship. Eykeklos Omnia (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this edition of Today's Featured Article should be a huge scandal. I don't know what is worse: the fact that Wikipedia's admins posted it, or that almost nobody seems opposed after-the-fact. But let's explore how this happened.
In 2017, a discussion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Khalid al-Mihdhar resulted in significant opposition because posting an article about a terrorist mass murderer would be in poor taste and could negatively affect some real-life people. So, even though the article has been a Featured Article for almost a decade, and was suggested for TFA before 2017, it was never displayed on the Main Page.
Fast forward to January 26, 2019. User:Ealdgyth, a Wikipedia administrator who helps to arrange which page will be displayed as TFA, created Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 8, 2019. He did this as part of a series of new featured article listings for the entire month of February 2019. He notified User talk:Aude that the article would be listed on the Main Page 2 weeks in the future. [1]
Ealdgyth and Aude made no attempt to gain consensus for this action. Perhaps they were not even aware that such action could be controversial. In any event, their action violates the central tenet of Wikipedia's operation that everything of consequential importance must be done after achieving consensus (or if people cannot agree, defer to the status quo or follow some kind of majority vote approximation). It is regrettable that a decision by one or two individual users has given publicity to a terrorist mass murderer on a high-profile website.
This should not be allowed to happen again. The procedures for selection of Today's Featured Article must be updated to encourage (rather than tolerate) dissenting views. Wail of a tayle (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Wail of a tayle (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Whether this gives publicity or not is not a concern of Wikipedia. We are here to collect and distribute knowledge. Maybe if more people read about what awful acts this person engaged in, they will learn from it. What specific proposal do you have for a procedural change that would prevent what you consider objectionable material from being posted? And how will that work as a practical matter since we all have different feelings about what should and should not be on the Main Page? 331dot (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Without offering an opinion on whether the article is appropriate for Today's Featured Artilce (TFA), I'd just point out that you're mistaken as to the "central tenet of Wikipedia's operation". Consensus only comes into play when there's disagreement; otherwise, editors are encouraged to just get on with it and "be bold". You're also mistaken in suggesting that the TFA coordinators require a consensus for scheduling TFAs. They're elected to do it, and it's an unwritten rule that (almost) every featured article will one day be on the main page, so if anything somebody wanting to exclude a given article from consideration for TFA would require consenus because their porposal would deviate from the standard practice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I will note that the specific opposition was towards running it on his birthdate, not against running it at all. There was no consensus to avoid running it on the main page for all eternity, just to avoid scheduling it on his birthdate, and to avoid using his picture. Otherwise, however, Wikipedia does not make editorial decisions based on who may or may not be offended by true information. True information will still continue to be reported dispassionately and objectively even if people are upset that the events described happened. Otherwise, there is no consensus needed to run the TFA system. Consensus came into play when the TFA coordinators were approved by the community to make good judgement in scheduling the TFAs. They don't need your permission. --Jayron32 18:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The objections on the old request were for running it on the birthday. I very carefully did NOT choose a date at all connected in the article, given the objections at the request - which I did read carefully. We've run other of the hijackers in the past, I'll note, on the front page. I'll ALSO note, I'm female. Says so right on my user page. The articles to run in a given month are ALL scheduled at least a week in advance - on the month pages such as Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2019 - which are available to anyone, so the "no notice" is not correct. In the dim past, TFAs were scheduled with no warning, yes - when Raul was doing the scheduling, they scheduled at most two or three days in advance. There were objections raised to this so the current system was implemented, with rotating TFA coordinators who endeavour to schedule a month at a time and with at least a week's advance notice. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
It's true this is a featured article. Here's the thing - I don't see at all how Wikipedia is improved by having this article featured on the front page. It gives the appearance of glorification. That's not what this encyclopedia needs. The benefit to posting this is outweighed by the negative of the perception this creates. Comrade Comrade (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Comrade Comrade (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Every subject gives a negative perception to someone. How would you determine what goes on the Main Page and what does not in a way that satisfies everyone? 331dot (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)