Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 16:06 on 18 June 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Today's FA

Planet – part I

The blurb opens with a definition:

A planet is a large, rounded astronomical body that is neither a star nor a stellar remnant.

This is debatable and it's not what the article has as its first defining sentence:

A planet is a large, rounded astronomical body that is generally required to be in orbit around a star, stellar remnant, or brown dwarf.

The article's opening sentence has been the subject of recent edits and reverts such as this and that. One of the editors making these changes is Jean-Luc Margot who is an expert in the field.

My understanding is that the definition of a planet has changed over time and is still somewhat controversial. One of the requirements for a featured article is that it is "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day". We don't seem to be there yet.

Note that the article was run previously as an FA in 2008. The opening sentence of the blurb on that occasion was:

A planet is a celestial body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals.

It's nicely ironic that the original definition of a planet is that it is a wanderer – a celestial light that does not stay in a fixed position.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that the TFA blurb should match the article... We can't directly replace the existing text with the longer definition though, because that would take it (I think) up to 1037 characters, which is over the limit. @Wehwalt, Gog the Mild, and Dank: do you have any thoughts? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I've substituted the sentence and shortened elsewhere to keep within 1025.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you removed the link to planet at the beginning. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 11:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Planet – part II

• A planet is a large, rounded body that is generally required to be in orbit around a star, stellar remnant or brown dwarf. So Pluto is a planet after all? RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  A small planet, as they say! CMD (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Certainly not! The partial definition says a, not any. Remsense诉 13:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  I certainly thought there were exactly 8 planets in the Solar System by definition, but the article claims that is a "restrictive definition", and Pluto and the Moon are planets. "Many planetary scientists have nonetheless continued to apply the term planet more broadly, including dwarf planets as well as rounded satellites like the Moon." Art LaPella (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Qin Huasun

I hate to pull the rug out from the nominator and the reviewers, but I fail to see how this hook isn't just a generic statement from the Chinese foreign ministry. Bremps... 02:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This is only hooky if you don't understand the history between China and Taiwan. Secretlondon (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would have preferred the originally suggested hook about him vetoing peacekeeping missions to Guatemala and Macedonia, which was pulled for apparently being uninteresting... While this is fully explainable due to the Taiwan issue as well, it is a somewhat surprising thing when taken in isolation and would probably prompt me to click the article to find out why. I'd be OK with going back to that one, but I'm not sure this warrants any action beyond that. The hook as stands isn't an error in the sense of being inaccurate, misleading or incomplete, so probably beyond the scope of this page.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The objections to the original hook (not interesting and reflecting government policy rather than anything about the individual) apply even more so to the new hook! CMD (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It's somewhat generic. Why does that make it pullworthy? Remsense诉 13:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It has the words "that Qin Huasun criticized Taiwan's bid to join the United Nations as a" before the statement. Hope that helps you see, Bremps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I meant that Qin, on behalf of the Chinese foreign ministry, was giving a generic press-release statement. Bremps... 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is generally the expectation that representatives at the UN will make statements on behalf of their country's foreign ministry. Sure, it would be more interesting if they made statements on behalf of other countries, but that would also contradict the point of the UN itself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

But that's not the point of the complaint, the "error" is that the hook is utterly, completely boring because unsurprising to the extreme. Government mouthpiece at the UN states well-known government policy. Presented by DYK as something you might want to know and worthy of highlighting at the mainpage. At least it's not an attempt to be funny, to promote a new product, to bring tabloid news about BLPs, or just something completely wrong. Small blessings. Fram (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No Fram, the hook doesn't become boring until you read the article, which is rather to be expected. If the hook states that Mr Huasun was the Chinese representative at the UN I would agree with you, but it doesn't. Yes, if you have a basic understanding of Chinese history or modern geopolitics, you could probably guess that he was Chinese. You still might want to click on the article to confirm it—as I did myself—which rather seems the point of DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it would be a good hook if he wasn't Chinese. Now it's insulting. "Oh, is there really nothing more interesting to say about this person and his career than this?". The reaction of people when reading the article shouldn't be "well, duh!". Fram (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

As always, it depends on how much you know about the subject. I suspect that more people than you think won't be familiar enough with China-Taiwan relations to go "well, duh!", instead of "oh, okay" or "hmm, interesting". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 21)

Monday's FL

(June 24)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.