Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

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 00:52 on 20 August 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 because this is not a talk page. (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 today's or tomorrow's On this day

OTD today

The link for the real Hieronymus Karl Friedrich von Münchhausen is a redirect to the fictional character loosely based on him. It's a little confusing when you click on the link for an On This Day item -- which the reader presumes to be on this day in real life. Maybe not the best choice since there's no article for the real Münchhausen? freshacconci (✉) 12:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why its a problem. Wikipedia has information about the person; it's verifiable, and it isn't really all that important how it's organized as to its verifiability. He's a real person, he has a birthdate, and we have information about him. --Jayron32 12:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It's confusing. When you click on the main page link you get this sentence "Baron Munchausen (/ˈmʌntʃaʊzən/[1][a], German pronunciation: [ˈmynçˌhaʊzn][4]) is a fictional German nobleman created by the German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in his 1785 book Baron Munchausen's Narrative of his Marvellous Travels and Campaigns in Russia." Other sections of the main page usually require half decent articles to be linked (I recall when Ornette Coleman died, his name was removed from the recent deaths because the article was deemed poor -- and that was for an existing article, not a redirect). It's not a big deal but I found it confusing (and indicative of the somewhat random criteria for much of the main page items, aside from featured articles. freshacconci (✉) 20:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Using the actual name as the link (as Freshacconci did above) takes you to the section about the real person. Why not use that for the Main Page link? --Khajidha (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

OTD tomorrow

• Jerusalem Day - date is not verifiable by an inline reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The fact that 28 Iyar falls on 12-13 May this year is a calendar fact, akin to saying that 12 May this year is a Saturday, so that does not trouble me. The more interesting question is whether a Jewish observance, which of course starts at sundown, should be listed on the initial evening or the following day; I understand our practice is the former? Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Well actually, it's unrealistic to assume readers understand that 28 Iyar falls on 12-13 May this year. How is that verifiable to a non-Jewish reader? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I've referenced it in the infobox. I don't believe that formal celebrations start the evening before, and the source I've cited seems to back that up. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Dweller: celebrations do start the night before, usually with fireworks displays. Actually, the article itself cites the opening ceremony by government dignitaries and "White Night". Yoninah (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I believe we've usually put such celebrations on the first full day they occur, rather than the night before. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Errors in the current or next Did you know...

DYK current

• "that in the novel New England White, Stephen L. Carter writes about the murders of a black professor and a schoolgirl set in a town described as "the heart of whiteness"?" how, exactly, does this meet the DYK rule "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way."? As far as I can tell, the subject is, indeed, a "work of fiction" and it is set in a "fictional town" and the murders are "fictional" and the quote about the "fictional town" is part of the "work of fiction". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The subject and verb of the sentence ("Stephen L. Carter writes") are both "real world." I'm not familiar with DYK policies, but based on your comments, it looks fine to me...? Especially as the term "novel" used in the opening phrase indicates that the murders, etc, are fictional. 168.8.192.22 (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

wrong, the subject of the hook is the work of fiction, it’s in bold right? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Curiously, I seem to have inexplicably named the "subject of the sentence." However, it is a real-world factual facty fact that in the novel, the real-world author does indeed factually write fiction about fictional murders. Cheers 168.8.192.22 (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah you missed the point. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• " that until the Netherlands competed at the 2014 Winter Paralympics, all ten of the country's prior Winter Paralympics medals had been won by one woman, Marjorie van de Bunt?" well actually, all ten of the country's prior medals were still won by one woman, regardless of what happened subsequently. Probably better to say "all of the country's Winter Paralympic medals had been won by one woman, Marjorie van de Bunt". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment we have about 25 minutes before this pair hit the main page. The first must be pulled, the second should be rephrased. Let's go!!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the Paralympics one but I'm not familiar enough with DYK to act on the novel. -- Luk ^talk 11:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

HOOK WHICH FAILS DYK CRITERIA IS NOW ON MAIN PAGE, please pull it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"Stephen L. Carter writes about the murders of a black professor" is a sentence about the real world in my opinion. I don't see a strong justification for pulling this. —Kusma (t·c) 12:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Kusma: But it's a work of fiction! Yoninah (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• The hook is in violation of WP:DYKSG#C6. Even if uninvolved users think it looks okay, many hooks just like it have been rejected at DYK and this should not set a precedent. In fact, it was swapped while in the queue so no one could really comment on it before it went to the main page. It should be pulled. Yoninah (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"in the novel New England White, Stephen L. Carter writes" certainly "involves the real world in some way" - that is all that the rule requires. It is designed to stop hooks like "Kellen Zant is a black professor in a town described as "the heart of whiteness"" which might cover up the fictionality. Nothing to fix here. This is absolutely not the place to start a new interpretation of policy, not least because "no one could really comment on it". It is you who are attempting to create a "precedent". Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, I don't think anyone has mentioned any "policy" and allowing this to stand when every other hook of its type in the past has been rejected is indeed setting a precedent that the rule can be simply ignored if the author's name is added to the hook, thus somehow "relating it to the real world". Utter bollocks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a real world example. Thus, it's a valid blurb. Screaming about it will not get the blurb changed.--WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

No, just adding the author's name does not make it a real world example. The hook should be pulled. If all you need to do is add the author's name to any fictional hook to bypass the rule, then the rule is is a farce. This should be pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the rule is useful, and works perfectly well. Hardly any hooks on fiction would work if what you are suggesting was correct - but it isn't. The rule is designed to ensure that hooks about fiction make it clear that that is what they are. Stop trying to bully the admins. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Give it a rest Johnbod, I'm not "trying to bully" anyone. Such accusations are personal attacks and will not be tolerated. Just because you and other are actually wrong about this, it doesn't mean I should just give up trying to protect the integrity of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec x2) I agree with Johnbod. I think it's necessary to think about why particular rules were created (in this case, to prevent completely fictitious hooks from being presented as reality) instead of interpreting them in the strictest terms. The way I read this hook is Stephen L. Carter, a real person, writes about an interesting subject (changing aspects of racial issues). Probably not the best hook with clarity nor is it really hooky, but I see no reason to pull. Alex Shih (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've just rendered that rule obsolete. This kind of "in-universe" hook with absolutely no relationship to the real world is exactly what the rule was designed to avoid. And you've just sanctioned it. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's wrong to allow this to remain. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Even in this obscure venue, 5 editors have turned up in just over 2 hours to disagree with this view, with 3 agreeing. If the rule is capable of this range of interpretation, it should be clarified. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hardly obscure, it gets as many hits as a DYK per day, and has nearly a thousand page watchers. And we're not counting votes, we're working on the basis that those of us who understand the wording of the rule, and have seen hooks summarily rejected which are practically identical to this, are keen to continue to enforce a consistent approach here. Some of the people disagreeing with the view don't even understand what the "subject" of the hook actually means. They seem hardly in a position to start giving an interpretation of the DYK rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps DragonflySixtyseven who added this rule back in February 2009 can clarify. Supplementary rules at DYK started out as "unwritten rules" that are gradually added after obtaining consensus at WT:DYK; for this particular one however I was unable to locate the actual discussion. Also pinging Art LaPella, who has been involved in many of these rules. Alex Shih (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Why would we need to invoke the individual who came up with a well-known, well-understand and, until now, a well-enforced rule nine years ago to opine on this? Are we to assume if they say it's okay then it's suddenly okay? What a strange approach. I'd simply read the rule and apply it. Which isn't being done here. And all the filibustering that continually goes on here in this section of the ERRORS page allows the illegal hook to remain in prime position on the main page. Bravo admins, bravo. Of course, if there was any room for discussion or misintepretation of the rule, and given the clear opposition to this hook based in fact then a decent admin would pull the hook and allow it to re-submit once the debate was over. But we don't seem have that approach here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The spirit of the rule, I think, is more important than the exact wording -- and I don't think this blurb violates the spirit of the rule.--WaltCip (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see, now all we have to do is add an author name and the rest of the blurb can be completely fictional. That's what the rule is designed to eliminate. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, all you have to do is to make it clear the hook relates to fictional material. The wording "in some way" is obviously a tad vague, and needs to be clarified to avoid this sort of misunderstanding. I will make a proposal on the main DYK talk later. We all know that a vehement and agressive manner can enforce all sorts of nonsense on individual nomination pages, so if this sort of extreme interpretation has been being pushed there, we need to check what the dyk community actually wants. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way" it's clear that the hook here doesn't involve the real world in some way, the hook being related to a fictional novel, fictional characters and a fictional quotation. And "Yes, all you have to do is to make it clear the hook relates to fictional material." is completely 100% wrong. That's never been the way the rule has been implemented. I'm not sure what's so difficult for you all to understand here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"This is the plot of a book by so-and-so" does not actually involve the real world. --Khajidha (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• MEANWHILE the hook remains on our main page despite being under a considerable cloud. It should be pulled even if there's no prejudice against it running again once this apparently controversial rule is clarified for those who don't understand its implementation. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, since I was pinged, I'll take my turn, but the drama will go on. I wrote the originally "unwritten rules" because people were routinely denying DYKs for reasons known only to insiders, so I wrote down the rules others were using (and as I have often said, there should be only one integrated set of rules. And as I have also said, the rules should be used consistently enough to be predicted by outsiders - but then 30% of TRM's "errors" are in defiance of a guideline, so it's funny for him to be championing rules.) Anyway, "involve the real world in some way", as that rule has been used in practice for years, is covered by the word "novel". The rule was intended to prevent a hook like "Did you know that a black professor and a schoolgirl were murdered in the heart of whiteness?" Art LaPella (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"but then 30% of TRM's "errors" are in defiance of a guideline" prove that or retract it. But in any case, errors don't have to be "in defiance of a guideline", as you probably (should) know. Aha, you think the link to the real world is "novel". Brilliant. That's not been the interpretation for some years now. But thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic, but to answer prove or retract: "30%" was an estimate of your requests to fix redirects. When I point out WP:NOTBROKEN, your response was to argue why we should do it anyway, not to follow or even try to change the rule; hence, "defiance". And the word "manga" (analogous to "novel") isn't in your example below. And I've been here more years than you have. Art LaPella (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

No you haven’t. Get your facts straight before making such claims, ironically at ERRORS!! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

??? Art LaPella (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was here before then. Cheers! Probably best you pick another fight with someone else right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You were here on Wikipedia (I was earlier), but I meant here doing Main Page errors. And if you weren't so excitedly wrong, you wouldn't be so much fun to pick on. Art LaPella (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You're wasting your time on me mate, you raise no interest or excitement whatsoever. Everything I do in response to your limited posts is calculated. You're simply playing out a role I envisaged for you some years ago. And doing a good job too. Picking on me is a useful turn of phrase when it comes to looking for evidence for getting someone site-banned, so please continue to use such vernacular. "doing Main Page errors" isn't so much about posting issues, but more about having the background knowledge to understand what is and what is not an error. And let me assure you, this is an error. I know you might have posted something a few years ago here (well done you!) but wow, how irrelevant. Next you'll be telling me that an admin only needs 20 supports to get the mop or that we should all bow down to Jimbo as head of the Church of Wikipedia. Still, at least your lame posts have made me smile today, more than rest of this sorry shitstorm which has demonstrated beyond doubt the inadequacy of certain admins and the DYK process once again. Cheers for the lulz. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Gatoclass, interestingly (and I can't find it) we had a discussion about some anime character who had motion sickness, and the hook was acceptable because the character's condition was based on a friend of the author. I suggested another hook, which you said (and forgive my paraphrasing) was in-universe or based in fiction, in any case it failed this DYK rule. Can you recall the discussion, the diffs etc, so we can see the most recent example of the implementation of this rule to benefit those who are unclear as to its purpose? Thanks, DYK admin! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not really relevant, but linking the discussion to save time for people: ([1]). Alex Shih (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    • How tide and basically incorrect! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Stephen L. Carter is a law professor who writes both fiction and non-fiction regarding American racial and political issues as well as other matters. The subject-matters of his novel speak to Carter's own unusual career path as a senior academic who also writes popular fiction on such topics. As such, I believe they have "real-world" rather than just "in-universe" relevance and the hook is therefore acceptable. If there is a desire to clarify the DYK rule that is fine, but I don't perceive this (at most) borderline case to be an emergency or require pulling the existing hook. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  But Carter is not the subject of the hook. So the hook fails. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  I do not agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  The subject of a DYK hook is the bold target article Brad. Sorry you didn't know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  I do know that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  It seems not. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Our supplementary rule says "the hook must involve the real world", not "the subject". Alex Shih (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Which it doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, unless you mean, what I said above, just adding the author name to the hook bypasses all necessity to keep hooks in some sense of real world terms? Brilliant work! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The hook is technically in breach of the rule in my view. But as I've said on many previous occasions, this is a rule honoured as much in the breach as the observance, it hasn't been strictly enforced for years, and there have been occasional discussions about repealing it (not a good idea in my view). I did consider pulling this hook, but decided it was a pass given that the novel deals with a real-world topic of more than usual interest in current world affairs, racism. Gatoclass (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't support repeal, but (as said above) I will propose on main dyk talk a clarification of the wording to reflect the sense that I and many others have expressed above. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This is obviously not the place for such a discussion Johnbod, but I will say that I would probably lean toward opposing any watering down of the rule as it's proven a very useful bulwark against the acceptance of many very subpar hooks and I'd be concerned that more equivocal language may lead to more problems than it solves. Gatoclass (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The hypocrisy demonstrated here is astonishing. Utterly confounding. You rejected out of hand a suggestion of mine of a similar nature, but it turns out that if I'd have suggested "in manga" to be added to it, you would have been just fine with it? Unbelievable. So now we can fully accept any completely fictional in-universe hook, as long as it's got the name of the author and a statement that it's in a "novel" or a "cartoon" or a "video game", right? If no, then why is this running? If yes, then why does the rule even exist? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

No, not the same issue at all. Your proposed hook for the other nomination was an unambiguous fail given that it was completely in-universe. The point I have made here is that while the hook might be considered to be technically a breach of the rule, it's within the spirit of the rule given that it deals with a real-world issue of topical interest. Gatoclass (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, so like I said, if "in manga" had been added, per this precedent today, it'd be just fine. The hook running now is 100% in-universe. It relates to a fictional set of murders, a fictional town and fictional quote. It's definitely not within the spirit of the rule. You made a major error here and it's opened the door. But you're the self-appointed DYK admin I suppose, so whatever you say, goes, or else you filibuster it to death here at ERRORS. A good position to hold I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm not proposing that merely adding the word "manga", or "novel", or the name of the work or the author is sufficient to meet the condition, because although it's possible to make such a case, I don't believe that such an interpretation would follow the intended spirit of the rule. What I've said here is that I think a reasonable case can be made for this hook on the basis that the novel deals with a real-world issue of topical interest, ie racism. You don't have to agree with that, but I think a defensible case can be made for it. Regardless, as I've already said, this is a rule for which exceptions have been made on many previous occasions. The rule is an important filter to prevent garbage hooks making it to the main page, but it's not something that's ever been enforced rigidly. Gatoclass (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It's somewhat ironic that you think it stops garbage hooks. In actuality it stops interesting hooks. But you're running your own show, unilaterally deciding on which rules apply and which ones don't from hook to hook, and that is really abhorrent. We don't need it. Indeed, if I knew that the DYK rule wasn't actually a rule at all, and that Gatoclass, the self-proclaimed DYK admin could simply ignore it at will then I wouldn't even bother reporting errors here, other than to get you to take me to Arbcom, of course, as you have threatened. You've wasted a huge amount of my life, and I hope you realise that. This has set a new precedent, a very overt one, which will need further examination, especially since it flies directly in the face of the fundamental DYK criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

So, to be clear, this fails a fundamental DYK criterion yet even the self-proclaimed DYK admin is content with it running. Wow. What a glorious wate yet again. Pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What a kerfuffle about nothing. The hook is perfectly fine, not misleading, the absolutely normal way to talk about a work of fiction. Awien (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello? It's not about it being "misleading", it's about it being in direct violation of the DYK rule mentioned at the start of the thread. Honestly, feel free to contribute here, but if you don't appraise yourself of the whole situation and history, don't expect any useful responses to your assertion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment ironically I'll try the whole "synopsis" thing again. This hook was posted, but after an error report was posted that it contravened a DYK rule. Seven hours later it's still on the main page despite a huge amount of confusion as to whether or not it meets the DYK criteria. As I noted some hours back, a good move would have been to remove it pending further discussion as for DYK (like most of Wikipedia) there's no deadline. It wouldn't have harmed Wikipedia one iota to take this prolonged discussion elsewhere, and in actuality may have resulted in a more robust and better described criterion. Instead, we have hawkish defenders of the status quo, individuals who are determined to derail the conversation, users (and very experienced ones) who don't even seem to understand the meaning of the word "subject" with regard to DYK, all interjecting and making a bugger's muddle of the whole situation. The hook should never have run, and once a complaint was raised, the promoting admin should have done the right thing and acted on their own doubts by pulling it back to nominations for further, offline, less frantic discussion. This has been a serious fail all-round, primarily by those who staunchly defended the right of a dubious hook to remain, but secondarily by those who even knew it was an edge case, and in that situation once called out, should have acted appropriately. Sadly none of that happened, we've had a wasted day and nothing has been gained here at all since even the self-proclaimed DYK admin is discouraging discussion about removing or reducing the rule which has been summarily ignored here. Little wonder DYK is in such complete disarray. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"Stephen L. Carter is a law professor who writes both fiction and non-fiction regarding American racial and political issues as well as other matters. " This was a lot more interesting than the hook we got. Something relating this novel to the author's experiences as a law professor would have been the sort of "real world ties" that TRM, myself, and others understood this guideline to be about. --Khajidha (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Khajidha, nice to know there are a few of us left. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Evidently, but not enough to form a WP:CONSENSUS to pull the hook. Nothing has gone wrong here IMHO, that's the way Wikipedia works. You can raise the issue here, but given that the hook is apparently both correct and verifiable it would need a consensus in the discussion or a decision made at WP:DYK itself for us to consider pulling it. It's not doing readers any harm by remaining, and the wording makes it clear that it is in-universe.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about forming a consensus, this is about the clear and distinct fact that the hook failed a basic DYK criterion but was passed all the way to main page by various reviewers and admins, and then defended by other admins. Clearly a serious dereliction of duty all round, the only course of action here was to pull it before it was posted to resolve the issue, yet the (once again) successful filibustering has enabled this erroneous hook to set an unhealthy precedent and degrade the already pitiful quality coming out DYK onto the main page. I'm sure you're all very satisfied by the outcome, I'm embarrassed for Wikipedia that we have such detritus on the Main Page and worse, that we've now opened the floodgates for more such shit appearing, enabled by all of you. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What an utter and complete waste of kilobytes over a blurb that's only going to be up for 24 hours. Was it really worth it? 174.64.100.70 (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, just 12 hours (and counting -- DYK should have updated at midnight UTC). Anyway, the above discussion was worth it to me. Without revealing which side swayed me, I will say the debate demonstrated to me that Wikipedia is not worth donating my money to.--184.248.25.74 (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Precisely. 174.64.100.70 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK next

• " destruction (pictured) of the Explorer S-1 satellite " actually that's the destruction of the Juno II launch vehicle pictured, as evidenced by the caption in the target article. The satellite was the payload of the launch vehicle. And is there any reason this hook's target article isn't linked from the Juno II article? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  The Explorer S-1 satellite is on the top of that launch vehicle. It was destroyed as well. I'm not sure I follow the problem. Can you perhaps propose the new hook you desire us to replace the current one with? Maybe that will make it clearer what you want changed? --Jayron32 14:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  I'm curious by the idea that the satellite was on the top, are you sure it wasn't internal to the launch vehicle? In other words, the image doesn't depict the destruction of the satellite per se, but of the vehicle containing the satellite. Take a look at File:Juno II rocket.jpg, there's no sign of any satellite, it's internal to the rocket. As I noted, in any case, the image is of Juno II exploding, as stated by the caption in the article. Seems clear to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  You wouldn't label a picture of the Challenger explosion as "picture of the death of Christa McAuliffe", this is the same idea. --Khajidha (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, the satellite is presumably at the top of the picture, protected by a payload fairing. Inside or on top is thus a semantic question (I don't think the fairing is usually considered part of the launcher.) Art LaPella (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  The payload is inside the launcher and the picture is of the destruction of the launcher. That’s fact. Everything else is just someone’s opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Apparently you missed my point. Give me a new hook to replace this one with.--Jayron32 19:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry, I thought we voted in admins who were capable. My apologies. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  I'm capable, I just think you're wrong. --Jayron32 21:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Wrong about what? The satellite is not shown in the image. The launch vehicle was destroyed, taking the satellite with it. Is it that hard to understand? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  "destruction (pictured) of the Juno II launch vehicle carrying the Explorer S-1 satellite."--Khajidha (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Again, thanks. I'm somewhat surprised and simultaneously not surprised, and yet thoroughly disappointed that our admins couldn't have thought their way through that terrifying mental labyrinth, but hey, it's only DYK, and everyone knows DYK is shit and an embarrassment to Wikipedia, so it would probably have been better to leave it for the lulz. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  TRM, your concern about keeping a high standard for the main page is appreciated. However, the way you interact with others leaves much to be desired. If you're that concerned about DYK's lack of [whatever], please form an RFC and please stop berating others on this page. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  No, bugger off and do something useful like fix the issues that are continually raised here. The way admins leave issues unaddressed, the way certain admins delay and do nothing, is nothing short of criminal. I will not stop berating others on this page, and and I will not "form an RFC" (thanks) because that's a complete waste of time. Fix the issues raised here, or delete this page. I'm not about being sensitive to admins, they know their role and if they continually fail in it, then I'm happy to see them removed from the role. Get over it, get smart, do the right thing, fix the main page when requested to do so. Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  ... that a power failure resulted in the spectacular destruction (pictured) of the Juno II launch vehicle carrying the Explorer S-1 satellite five seconds after its launch? doesn't scan very well. Can we have a proposed full hook?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  ... that a power failure resulted in the destruction of the Juno II launch vehicle (pictured) carrying the Explorer S-1 satellite, five seconds after its launch? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  OK  Done. That seems OK to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, only ten hours of wrangling to get that sorted. WTF. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the last or next featured list

FL current

He was declared as the "best bowler ever"

− − The 'as' in the above sentence is anti-grammatical. Better would be:

− − He was declared the "best bowler ever"

− − or

− − He was declared to be the best bowler ever

− −

I"m not so sure, it reads just fine. You could add "being" after as if you wanted to. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

−

"Declared as" reads unidiomatically to me also, and seems to be an uncommon usage except for a specialized meaning in computer science. I suspect this might be an EngVar issue (although the OP is from New Zealand which cuts against that). What do others think? Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

−

Agreed. I would suggest "He was declared to be Test cricket's 'best bowler ever' ... ". Gatoclass (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

−

Agreed. Almost anything is better than "declared as", but how about rewriting in the active voice? Wisden named/called him the best... Awien (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

−

I would go with 'In 2002, Wisden Cricketers' Almanack called him the "best bowler ever" in Test cricket' Modest Genius ^talk 11:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

−

• Perfect, MG. Maybe we can get this done? Awien (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

−

Need an admin! Awien (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

− − See, in English, the active voice is usually to be preferred to the passive.

− The chief use of the passive is to avoid specifying the agent. We see this in politispeak and bureaucratese, where “I/we f**ked up; I/we’ll try to do better next time” becomes “Mistakes were made. Measures are being put in place so that a recurrence can be avoided”. You’ve seen it.

− − That’s why the passive carries an aura of evasiveness, prevarication, untrustworthiness, and so on.

− That’s why we should avoid the passive whenever possible.

− That’s why we should replace “was declared as … by Wisden” with “Wisden declared (called/named) him the best”: active voice, clear, direct, straightforward.

− − That’s it, class. You may go now. On your way out, please dump any passives you find lying around in the wastepaper basket. Thank you. Awien (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

But sometimes the agent isn't important or isn't the focus of interest. I would argue that this is one of those cases. The important thing isn't who named him "best" but that he was so named. Your active voice phrasing makes Wisden the focus of attention. --Khajidha (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

So at least take out the offending "as". Awien (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I performed a last-minute, almost literally, removal of the offending 'as'. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

FL next

Please report any such problems or suggestions for improvement at the General discussion section of Talk:Main Page.