Talk:Main Page

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

Main Page error reports[edit]

Main Page toolbox
August 20
August 21, 2014
August 22
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
  TFL (Friday)
In the news: candidates · discussion · admin instructions
Did you know: suggestions · discussion · queue
Protected main page images
Protected pages associated with Main Page articles
Error reports · General discussions · FAQ · Help · Sandbox
Main Page alternatives  · April Fool's
It is now 01:07 UTC
Purge the Main Page
Purge this page

To report an error you have noticed on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below.

Please note the following:

  • Where is the error?: The more specific you can be (an exact item, for example "item number 3 on DYK"; or a sentence) the faster an admin can find it.
  • Be specific: Errors can be fixed faster when a correction is offered.
  • References: Can be helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
  • Consensus: Remember that the Main Page usually defers to supporting pages for accuracy or when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
  • Time zones: Note that Coordinated Universal Time is used for the current date and time (01:07 on 21 Aug 2014), and this may not coincide with your local time zone.
  • Should I use {{edit protected}}?: No. Using {{edit protected}} here will not give you a faster response, and in fact breaks the template when it is placed directly on the Main Page Errors page instead of on a talk page. See the bottom of this revision for an example.
  • Done?: Once an error has been fixed, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history to verify that the error has been rectified and for any other comments the administrator may have made.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.

Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article[edit]

Errors in In the news[edit]

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

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

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

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

General discussion[edit]

Shortcuts: list of Wikipedias[edit]

Hi, could the list of Wikipedias at the very bottom of be updated? Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia has passed 200k articles but it currently still sits in the "50k+" category. Thanks in advance. (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe the standard answer is that a bot takes care of this. Give it time. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it's been done. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Since we are at it, the Armenian language Wikipedia has now over 130,000 articles, but doesn't even appear in the 50k+ category. werldwayd (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

On a separate point, if you think 50,000 is too low a threshold and just too many language Wikipedias will inundate the list on the front page, how about raising the threshold to 100k+ and list only those. Even in that case, Armenian Wikipedia would still qualify. werldwayd (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Robin Williams[edit]

Why does Robin Williams' death get a headline, whereas other people who "recently die" do not, and are reserved in the "recent deaths" area at the bottom? JDiala (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The relevant decisions are made at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec) There was a consensus for a blurb at WP:ITN/C. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
JDiala - To translate, what you called a headline is what The Rambling Man described as a blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
JDiala generally those at ITNC decide that based on the level of news coverage, attention, and other factors. Recent deaths is generally for posting the deaths of notable people, while a blurb is given to notable deaths(where the death itself is an event as opposed to just a famous person dying of old age or illness). 331dot (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
In Williams case the manor of death received significant attention far beyond simply the fact that he was dead.-- (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This is English Wikipedia and it tends to prioritize topics from English speaking areas, including deaths of notable US actors. We posted the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman as a full blurb but we didn't post Paco de Lucia despite massive global coverage. You may call it systemic bias but it's quite logical and above all, it's a matter of consensus. Not a big deal. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Trafalgar High School[edit]

Trafalgar High School, established for non-whites in Cape Town, defiantly refused to move after its part of the city was declared "whites only"?

Using the word defiantly a little attention grabbing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Sources say it had large role fighting against the apartheid. Th4n3r (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Change Gaza conflict to Israel–Gaza conflict[edit]

I propose that we change the Gaza conflict link in the Ongoing Section to Israel–Gaza conflict instead. There's certainly nothing wrong with calling it "Gaza conflict", and it has the advantage of brevity, but using "Israel–Gaza conflict" would make it more consistent with the current events portal phrasing as well as matching the name of the linked article. I'd love to know what you guys think about this. WinterWall (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding seven characters would still keep the name within the realm of brevity, and would appease anyone alleging one-sidedness. Sound sensible to me. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
There was an extremely long and unsurprisingly temperamental debate about this recently. The general consensus was that wars and conflicts are usually named after the place where they're fought, rather than the participants (Iraq War, not US-Iraq War; Falklands War, not UK-Argentina War). The ongoing section is already (over)long, and at least the current naming gives a reasonable symmetry - "Gaza conflict" alongside "Libyan conflict" and "Ukrainian unrest". Smurrayinchester 08:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone else get the impression that this is a campaign to assign blame?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course it is a campaign in assigning blame, if the people making these suggestions really wanted to include all of the participants they wouldn't be arguing for a title that leaves out one (hint: "Gaza" is not a participant, it is a location not a polity).--Khajidha (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about that, I can see that it can be an issue on both sides.
It seems it's true some people feel the current title is unfair or POV I think because it doesn't reflect Israel's involvement in the conflict. At least I believe this was the suggestion in the previous discussion although it wasn't really explained (one of the most disappointing things about the previous discussion is how little discussion there actually was about the reasonings for name change, just the suggestion it was POV).
OTOH I'm sure there are others who feel the current title is unfair because it doesn't adequetly reflect the fact Israel is directly affected by the current conflict.
Personally, although generally more sympathetic to the Palestinian POV, I don't actually feel that there is any urgent need to add Israel to fairly reflect their involvement, or that adding it will somehow reflect any responsibility/blame on them. It's not like there's any confusion that Israel is involved. I'm actually much more sympthetic to the reverse, i.e. by excluding Israel we're not reflecting that they are affected.
But since most of the media accept that the conflict has affected Gaza much more than Israel, whoever is to blame, I don't feel it's a big deal.
Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
How inclusive the title is and which names to assign to the participants are two orthogonal issues. I, for one, would prefer the front page link to read "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and the linked article to be titled "2014 Israeli–Palestinian conflict" so you're categorically wrong in your assertion that "if the people making these suggestions really wanted to include all of the participants they wouldn't be arguing for a title that leaves out one". Not enough people share my POV to sway the consensus on the article talk page, and not enough people share my POV for me to suggest "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" here. That's why I'm compromising and settling for the lesser evil of "Israel–Gaza". WinterWall (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Please reread that discussion and notice that the vast majority of the responses (including my own) were directed at the temperamental OP (that is, the poster) instead of the topic itself. Only three people, HiLo48, Formerip, and Khajidha, brought up the location-of-conflict argument, and HiLo48 only brought it up to teach OP a lesson about AGF. Two posters among a dozen is hardly consensus. WinterWall (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Nasty old discussion aside, it boggles me why can't we use the article title, excluding the <year>, of course... –HTD 15:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)