Talk:Main Page

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

Main Page error reports[edit]

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.
  • Please 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 (UTC, currently 15:54 on 19 September 2019), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}}, which will not give you a faster response; it is unnecessary as this page is not protected and in fact causes problems if used here, as this is not a talk page. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • Done? Once an error has been fixed, rotated off the Main Page or acknowledged not to be an error, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history for any 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 in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, consider attempting to fix the problem there rather than reporting it here.

Errors in the summary of the featured article[edit]

Today's FA[edit]

Tomorrow's FA[edit]

Errors with In the news[edit]

  • MVP is sports jargon (and, to a lesser extent, meme jargon). Our young, hip, savvy writers might well know it, but if a casual Polish or Thai or whatever reader who does not care for any sport that uses the term were to read it, they would surely find it meaningless. "Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page," from MOS:ACRO. (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Our English-speaking Thai readers would certainly know what an "MVP" is considering 3 Thais won the Southeast Asian Football Championship MVP award four times. Dunno about English-speaking Poles though... Howard the Duck (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • MVP is a well-enough known initialism, spelling it out will unduly lengthen the blurb, and if anyone is unclear as to its meaning there is a link to click. Stephen 01:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I've been speaking English in England for several decades, and I've no idea what it means. More to the point, it reads like it's about somebody called "MVP Ricky Rubio", so definitely needs rewording (WP:SEAOFBLUE). Bazza (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I have never heard anyone say 'MVP' in Britain. Not once. I know what it means because I've been around Wikipedia for long enough, but don't assume it's well known even among native English speakers. I agree that a link is enough explanation though, no need to spell it out. We should fix the WP:SEAOFBLUE though. Modest Genius talk 10:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Just so you Brits will know, it stands for Most Villainous Politician. Does that bring it closer to home? – Sca (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
It depends where you're looking from, but possibly applicable from both sides of the divide. Bazza (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
We take a back seat to no one when it comes to villainy!Sca (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Just a note that this was earlier changed from "Man of the match" to be more accurate. FWIW, MVP is almost never split out here in the US, it would be like splitting out "ATM" in that it would increase confusion, rather than make it clearer.LetUsNotLoseHearT 14:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Unwritten practice I believe its an unwritten practice that the main page is more lenient about MOS:ACRO and expanding acronymns for the sake of brevity. I'm more concerned that the fact about the tournament MVP is not mentioned in the bolded article about the final match (which only mentions a different award in the infobox, the "man of the match").—Bagumba (talk)

I think we (the Br-En speakers above) get that. The WP:SEAOFBLUE needs fixing still. Try (Ricky Rubio, the tournament's MVP, pictured). Bazza (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Errors in On this day[edit]

Today's OTD[edit]

Tomorrow's OTD[edit]

Errors in Did you know...[edit]

Current DYK[edit]

How did that hook for "implicature" get accepted? It would be cringemaking as a newspaper subhed; in a purported encyclopedia it's abject. jnestorius(talk) 14:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Next DYK[edit]

Next-but-one DYK[edit]

Errors in the featured picture[edit]

Today's POTD[edit]

Tomorrow's POTD[edit]

Errors in the summary of the featured list[edit]

Friday's FL (tomorrow)[edit]

Monday's FL[edit]

General discussion[edit]

Non-breaking spaces in dates[edit]

There are two separate complaints currently in MPE re the lack of non-breaking spaces in dates.

My personal opinion is that non-breaking spaces should be used in all blurbs on the Main Page. However, others may disagree. Please can we discuss whether or not the following instruction should be introduced? Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The use of non-breaking spaces is mandated in blurbs on the main page when used in dates and measurements. [Note: "etc." removed. - Dank (push to talk)]

  • Support Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. As far as I'm concerned they should be mandated on all public-facing parts of Wikipedia, but life's too short to argue with the handful of zealots who act as the self-proclaimed gatekeepers of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. On the Main Page, where the relatively narrow columns makes it more likely that any given piece of text will be at the end of a line, it should be a no-brainer. ‑ Iridescent 15:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I support this too. It just makes sense to keep dates all on the same line, rather than splitting them in twain. — 🦊 00:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency and better style, although I have encountered some opposition in the past from User:Dank regarding this issue in the context of TFA blurbs. I note also that all of the OTD templates would need to be lightly reformatted to nowrap the date at the very top, but this isn't really a major problem as it's highly unlikely to be wrapped anyway. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Question: Is there any objection to leaving TFA blurbs alone (at blurb reviews, WP:TFAR and WP:TFAA) for a week before they're subjected to any non-MOS-compliant edits, so that FAC writers and reviewers will be dealing with text that's familiar to them while they're editing and reviewing the blurbs? If that's acceptable, then I don't need to take a position. (Note: I removed "etc." from the end of what we're voting on ... none of the voters so far seem to be endorsing a blank check on nbsp rules.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as "proposed". I understand why this may be more of a problem on the main page where column width is narrower and thus breaking spaces mid-date etc is more likely to occur, but why isn't this still a problem in every other article across Wikipedia? Surely this should really be discussed as a MOS adjustment which would then naturally flow to main page blurbs, hooks, etc? Are we going to add a specific formatting rule in each of TFA, TFL, TFP, DYK and OTD to mandate this? Where does that instruction live in each case? I don't have a major beef with this but it seems to be the cart leading the horse. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Per discussion below, this is already MOS. I support rigorous application of MOS:NBSP on the Main Page, even if it is not widely used or very important on articles. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dank: Perhaps I'm being dense, but I don't understand what you're asking for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    • You're never being dense, Floq. I'm asking that any non-MOS-compliant edits be deferred until writers and reviewers have a chance to discuss the blurbs. I'm not going to lead any charges here ... I'm not a pro- or anti-anything warrior. I'm almost always happy with the way Main Page discussions turn out. But no one is disputing the facts: neither MOS, nor the usual practices among Good Article and Featured Article writers, support what's being proposed here. I don't want to get dragged into other people's fights. If you guys will just leave us alone for a week while we do blurb reviews before you add nbsps or other cosmetic changes, I don't think this is an issue that my writers are going to care much about one way or the other. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ravenpuff: - if the date is highly unlikely to be split in a header, then it can be left alone. @The Rambling Man: - let's walk before we can run. Yes, this is something that could be mandated at MOS, but this proposal is put forward to address a specific problem in a specific place. @Dank: Early indications are that there will be support. How does an implementation date of 1 October sound to you? Does that give enough time for people to get used to the idea? Mjroots (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    Well no, it's the other way round as far as I'm concerned. Blurbs should follow MOS, not make up their own rules. Are there other rules unique to blurbs which aren't covered by MOS? If so, where are they described? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    I've left a pointer and a note at WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    Doesn't seem to be much interest from the FAC regulars. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I asked a couple of fundamental questions about the logistics of such a mandate, I'm still wondering how this works in practice. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: It's been a while since this discussion has been active, but the way I see it is that this proposal for greater use of non-breaking spaces in Main Page content is more or less already in line with the Manual of Style's guideline on their use (at MOS:NBSP), just that most editors don't seem to bother with using them when writing articles. What's being proposed here, in my opinion, is just to mandate a more rigorous application of the above guideline so as to maintain better style on our welcome mat. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Propose archiving Main Page history twice a day when DYK is on 12-hour schedule[edit]

I have been discussing the idea of saving the Main Page twice a day when User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates is 43200 and go back to once a day when it is 86400. I discussed the matter with Amalthea over here and proceeded to work with Danski454 to create some templates to use on Template:Main Page history. You can find them at:

{{subst:Main Page history generic calendar|venue=Main Page history|year=2019}}
[[Category:Main Page]]

To work properly, the individual year templates like 2019 Main Page history have to be edited manually when we switch back and forth (which I will handle myself for the foreseeable future). A demo of how they look can be seen at Template:2019 Main Page history/sandbox, which over the next few days will start growing redlinks labeled 16a, 16b, 17a, 17b.... These redlinks would be blue when Amalthea (bot) starts archiving twice a day after consesus is formed here.

I will write template documentations and ensure implementation of this plan moving forward. But before I do, I wanted the community's blessing and comments. Please feel free to ask questions and point out any issues we have not foreseen.

TL;DR: I would like to archive the Main Page twice a day when there are two DYKs a day. Just need your blessing or criticism.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a good idea to me. It's clearly sensible to have both morning and afternoon versions of the MP archived, when they differ. Thanks for looking into this.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Good idea, and since it's a manual edit and you're willing to take care of it, I think it would be useful --valereee (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Two shapshots sounds fine but I think the first on a day should still be called Wikipedia:Main Page history/2019 September 17, so such page names always exist. A second snapshot could then be called Wikipedia:Main Page history/2019 September 17b. I suggest the bot starts adding a non-expanded template call at the top and bottom of snapshots so we can provide information, navigation and categories if we want. For example {{Main page history top|2019|9|17|time|number}} and {{Main page history bottom|2019|9|17|time|number}}, where "time" is the time of day the snapshot was made, and "number" is 1 for the first snapshot of that day, and so on. Some of the parameters could be deduced from the page name but it's good to have them directly. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    PrimeHunter, I tested your first proposal at Template:2019 Main Page history/sandbox and see no problem with implementation. As for your second suggestion, can we discuss further elsewhere, perhaps my user talk page or Amalthea (bot)'s talk page before proposing a formal change here. I want to make sure it is done carefully and thought-out thoroughly. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a viable idea, but I also note that snapshots are currently taken by Amalthea (bot) at 11:20 UTC. This might not capture the "best" version of the day's Main Page, as errors are routinely posted at WP:ERRORS throughout the day; hence, I propose that such snapshots are taken as late as possible (say 11:59 or 23:59), to ensure that any resolved errors in hooks/blurbs are reflected in the corresponding Main Page history. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Amalthea, do you see any issues with this suggestion? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have edited Wikipedia:Main Page history to use the new templates in preparation for implementation of this plan and, since there appears to be no opposition to this proposal, I have asked Amalthea to begin archiving twice a day. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Michael Edwardes[edit]

When this Main Page lists "Recent deaths" in the "In the News" section, it could include Michael Edwardes. Vorbee (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

See WP:ITNC for nominating candidates for the ITN section. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)