Jump to content

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Main Page

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayron32 (talk | contribs) at 15:51, 29 January 2020 (→‎Today's FA: seems resolved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

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 09:28 on 29 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 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 the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with In the news

  • ... crash near Calabasas, California: In the Kobe blurb, replacing "near Calabasas, California" with "near Los Angeles" (or supplementing) would be more accessible to readers than the less-known Southern California city, especially when the exisiting blurb is already using near. See this New York Times article, for example.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be about 30 miles away. I agree that this is more accessible and probably precise enough for most readers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even "in southern California" would be more meaningful to most people. --Khajidha (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly oppose a change in wording. You are sacrificing tons of precision just to dumb down and pander to an imaginary audience who isn't going to bother clicking "Calabasas". Practically everything in Southern California is "near Los Angeles", it's just a question of "how near". Personally, when I read the blurb I knew exactly where that is because I have driven through it. Why don't you throw us a bone here? Elizium23 (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How does it help the reader to have this particular city named? It is just a blurb, you know? The exact details are in the article. And, as mentioned, it was merely "near" the place, not in it. --Khajidha (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Calabasas is not generally known as a locale outside California, and in fact it's part of Greater Los Angeles, so it would make sense to say "near Los Angeles" as a locator. – Sca (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: How near? About 25 mi. (40 km) W of downtown L.A. on U.S. 101 – but keep in mind Los Angeles is a gigantic, sprawling urban agglomeration maybe 100 mi. across, so Calabasas is indeed "near" by U.S. standards. – Sca (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sca, You're speaking of Los Angeles county, but the genius updating the blurb has linked to the City of Los Angeles, which is about as irrelevant as you can get without being technically wrong. Sure, link to the County if you're allergic to bringing up Calabasas and encouraging people to discover its article... see if I care? Elizium23 (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a bad idea and a bad precedent to set. We are an encyclopedia not a newspaper. We have wiki links for reason. Where do we draw the line? Most people don't know Elazığ. Actually, most people do not know the cities we wiki link from the main page. We already had California in the blurb. Why was it necessary to make the blurb less precise? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why any user would want to make our readers scratch their heads and have to search for the location of an obscure municipality or suburb is quite puzzling. That obviously fails to serve ITN's purpose of providing basic information. – Sca (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. Linking to articles that do not often get attention helps improve them. How does linking to an article like Los Angeles, that does not require any more assistance in garnering attention, assist in "making a great encyclopedia"? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If our readers scratch their heads, good!!! That is the point! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The point being obfuscation, evidently. Good grief. – Sca (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." What is actually obfuscation is to say "near Los Angeles". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take your pick: confuse, make obscure, make unclear, blur, muddle, jumble, complicate, garble, muddy, cloud, befog.
– Sca (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imagine calling Calabasas "obscure". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 21:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguably in a case like this, the closest city is not as important (as the crash did not affect the city), but more roughly where in California it happened - north, central or south? Establishing the crash was near LA gives me a rough sense of the necessary geography without having to click a link. Now, if we were talking, say, an earthquake epicenter at Calabasas, that better be the linked city, since that's directly involved in that type of story. --Masem (t) 15:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Masem and Sca, I agree with the change.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My exact reasoning. --Khajidha (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do, however, wonder why we are using the horribly vague "In China" for the Wuhan coronavirus story. --Khajidha (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Khajidha, how am I, a poor stupid reader from Southern California, supposed to recognize obscure cities in the continent of China, much less click on a wikilinked one to explore and discover the vast wealth of knowledge Wikipedia hides and jealously guards from the unwashed masses? Elizium23 (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actual people in Wuhan have gotten sick and died. The helicopter crash was onto an open bit of land that just happened to be within city limits. No one in the city was hurt or killed. No residence or business was damaged or even really threatened by the brushfire. Not at all comparable. --Khajidha (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On the assumption this was a real question, cases have occurred in nearly all regions of China now. If we changed it to state Wuhan city or the relevant region, we would also have to adjust the number of cases and deaths to match. This information is not prominent in the English-language surveillance reports I've seen, nor in the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What if, instead of wikilinking a city it wasn't in, we put "in Los Angeles County" which gives name recognition, but also accuracy, because Calabasas is contained therein. Elizium23 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's basically why I mentioned changing to a simple "southern California" earlier. --Khajidha (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "... near Calabasas in southern California" would have worked with only adding 10 characters to the original blurb. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Would agree with the above suggested wording by Coffeeandcrumbs. The current wording of "near Los Angeles" is pandering.--WaltCip (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Walt. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. Readd Calabasas to the blurb. Ridiculous to see it removed without full consensus. Also, no link to 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash yet? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 21:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't make readers unnecessarily chase links. To Americans, the Southern California city of San Diego is the country's eighth largest city, let alone California's second largest. People outside the US are less likely to be familiar with California geography. Calabasas in LA County or near LA would be more succinct if Calabasas were to be mentioned at all.—Bagumba (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bagumba, the Main Page is a PORTAL and its raison d'etre is to LINK to articles of interest. Your accusation that it is 'unnecessary' is dumbing down the audience and reducing them to front-page skimmers. A good reader will be drilling into every link we provide and learning more about the story. Linking to a city that has NOTHING TO DO with the crash is a disservice to our esteemed reader populace and it is an insult at best. Elizium23 (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The City of Los Angeles has NOTHING TO DO with Bryant's death and it is an error to link to the city on the ITN blurb. Please modify it to one of the other suggestions, because this is the worst possible outcome currently facing readers who are hungry for good, accurate information. Elizium23 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bagumba, since Calabasas is entirely omitted from the current blurb, the disservice to the ignorant reader is complete: our hypothetical reader has no idea how large California is or the sprawling nature of Los Angeles County (because it is not the city that matters here at all.) We serve the lowest common denominator by naming a conveniently close metropolitan centre, and we can't even give a compass direction or distance from there. Bummer. Elizium23 (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The story is that Kobe died. We only mention where it happened to give the reader general context - it wasn't in Kansas or Kathmandu. The granular distinction being discussed here is really of no consequence to non-Angelenos. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know where Durham is. How can I possible figure out where Robert de Comines died. Oh the humanity! Whatever will I do to figure out where Durham is! I am at a complete loss! Who will ever tell me where Durham is? I wish there was an article on Wikipedia dedicated to telling me this and a convenient link to it so I can find that information quickly. Or I wish instead a completely different bigger city I recognize was named instead so I do not have to bother. The calamity! The horror! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No one knows where Koniuchy is. We should instead name the recognizable city of Vilnius which is near by. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the time the present-day capital of Lithuania, Vilnius, and the little (125) village of Kaniūkai were juridically part of Poland and were officially still known by their Polish names, Wilno and Koniuchy. As the 20th-century history of this region is quite complex, to avoid confusion it would be best to leave Koniuchy – the name of the place at the time – in the blurb as is. – Sca (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: if I've read it correctly, I don't think C&C was making a serious proposal to change the name of the Lithuanian location, they were just making a point about the whole Calabasas/Los Angeles drama above, and what they perceive as double standards in dealing with blurbs regarding California versus those regarding Europe.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the current blurb is erroneous. Los Angeles has nothing to do with the helicopter crash. It's akin to claiming that a presidential inauguration took place "near Annapolis."--WaltCip (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the L.A. metro area has a population of about 18 million, and as "one of the largest urban agglomerations in the world" is instantly recognizable internationally. – Sca (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it in good taste to call Byrant a "former" basketball player in his obit blurb? I'm pretty sure it isn't, and it's also somewhat inaccurate relative to "former professional" player. Please Either delete the word former or add the word professional. 2601:647:5E80:1850:34F1:2FEF:434A:4924 (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with this point. Whether or not he was professional, he probably still played the game in some form up to the time of his death. And it's not usual style to refer to someone as a "former X" after they're dead anyway. We had this debate a few days ago, the word "former" was (IMHO correctly) removed for a while, but then a few people complained and it was put back in. So I suppose a clear consensus would be needed to remove it again.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That last conversation was cleared here. As a point of reference, the blurb for George H. W. Bush's death referred to him as "Former U.S. President".[1]—Bagumba (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling someone a basketball player implies more than just that they shoot a few hoops now and then. I would always understand it to mean that they were a professional or at least took part in regular, organized, non-professional competitions (rec leagues, school teams, that sort of thing). Shooting hoops with your buddies wouldn't count. --Khajidha (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what this boils down to, is what is the usual way of referring to people when reporting news items of this nature. Looking at news sources this seems to depend on whether it's part of the headline or part of the prose body of an article. Looking online, I haven't found any headlines at all, referring to him as a "former basketball player". (Let me know if you find any). But there are some sources that report it thus in the prose. Here is one example where we see both: [2]. The headline says "US basketball player" but the body of the article says "Former basketball player". So the question is whether our ITN blurb is supposed to be a headline, or a piece of descriptive prose. I think the answer is clearly the former, mainly because we always write it in the present tense. So it should be "Basketball player Kobe Bryant dies..." but in an accompanying article we would write "Former basketball player Kobe Bryant has died..." I'm aware this isn't a particularly scientific or MOS-based analysis, but it may give some clue to those in doubt, as to why the current formulation is quite jarring and unprofessional-looking to some of us. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Conversely describing him as a basketball player reads as an error to me, as he had retired from the game. Sca's suggestion of "basketball star" seems to avoid the problem. --Khajidha (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest change to basketball star. "Former basketball player" sounds rather odd for a famous, longtime player who left the sport quite recently. They can read about his career in the article. – Sca (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here's one headline using "former basketball player": https://www.time24.news/a/2020/01/former-basketball-player-kobe-bryant-dies-sports.html And one using "retired NBA star": https://www.journalgazette.net/article/20200126/WEB/200129870 Shutterstock titles their recent pictures of him with "former", as well: https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/news/obituary-%E2%80%90-former-basketball-player-kobe-bryant%2C-41%2C-and-daughter-gianna%2C-13%2C-die-2020-01-26 --Khajidha (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the regular version in addition to the protected Main Page version below.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 5)

Monday's FL

(July 1)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&oldid=938175408"