Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Main page)
Jump to: navigation, search


Main Page error reports[edit]

Shortcut:
Main Page toolbox
Yesterday
February 12
Today
February 13, 2016
Tomorrow
February 14
TFA TFA TFA
SA/OTD SA/OTD SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
TFL (Friday)  
TFA/OTD/POTD/TFL Queue
In the news: candidates · discussion · admin instructions
Did you know: nominations · discussion · queue
Protected main page images
Protected pages associated with Main Page articles
Error reports · General discussions · FAQ · Help · Sandbox
Main Page history · Main Page alternatives · April Fool's
It is now 22:15 UTC
Purge the Main Page
Purge this toolbox

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.
  • 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 (22:15 on 13 Feb 2016), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit protected}}, which will not give you a faster response, and in fact causes problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • Done? Once an error has been fixed, or has rotated off the Main Page, or has been acknowledged as not an error, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history for discussion and action taken.
  • 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]

Sorry but I see no benefit to the recent admin edit that changed the image and the wording of the opening sentence. Even if the new picture is considered superior in clarity to the original, it does not illustrate an actual RAAF aircraft, which is the whole point of the article. Furthermore I found the sentence easier to read in its former state than now regardless of any appeals to the authority of MOS. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not handling image issues. Pinging David Levy and Chris. - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the edit to the first sentence, FWIW, what MOSNUM says is: "Avoid beginning a sentence with figures [but this is fine:] ... Twenty-three men were killed." - Dank (push to talk) 04:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures:
  •  five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.
  •  86 men and 103 women, not eighty-six men and 103 women
  •  There were 3 deaths and 206 injuries (even though "3" would normally be given as "three") or Three died and two hundred six were injured (or "two hundred and six" for British English, even though "two hundred six" would normally be given as "206"), not There were three deaths and 206 injuries.

We seek to avoid beginning a sentence with a figure, but not by spelling out a quantity that also appears in that style. —David Levy 05:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, I've replaced the image. My apologies for failing to realize that a photograph contained within the article was inconsistent with "the whole point" thereof. If that's accurate, I suggest its immediate removal.
Secondly, my citation of the MoS wasn't an appeal to authority; it was an explanation of the change. I've reworded the sentence again, this time switching to active voice. —David Levy 05:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Tks for the sentence reword, the active voice is an improvement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The first link in the blurb should always be to the TFA itself, so I have delinked Royal Australian Air Force on its first appearance. BencherliteTalk 07:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the image, my understanding is that this aircraft (repainted to resemble those operated by the No. 82 Wing) was presented by the National Museum of the United States Air Force to the Royal Australian Air Force (whose museum displays it more than 25 years later) in commemoration of the RAAF's lease of 24 similar aircraft from the USAF. I disagree that misses "the whole point of the article". To me, it's at least as relevant as a commemorative statue would be. It also happens to be discernible when the photograph is displayed at a small size. Conversely, I can barely make out anything in the current thumbnail, even after I increased its size by more than 25%. However preferable it may be to display a pair of Phantoms actually flown by the RAAF, that benefit is lost when they're unrecognizable. —David Levy 13:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Errors in In the news[edit]

Errors in the current 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:

TFA and video games[edit]

Just a heads-up, eight TFA's from October 2015 to February 2016 have been video game related. That's a little under two per month, if we are concerned about topic diversity and systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we should call the police. GamerPro64 18:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The TFA subject matter directly reflects the WP:FA subject pool availability. The way to fix that is to work on articles from other subjects and get more of those up to FA quality. Unless you're just not interested in taking an active role in improving Wikipedia article content on subjects you are interested in... --Jayron32 19:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Perish the thought. ‑ Iridescent 19:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
What Jayron said. WP:FANMP shows us that 6% (72/1205) of FAs not to have run on the main page are related to video games. That means that if the TFA possibilities are selected in proportion then about 21 or 22 TFAs per year will be video games, so "a little under two per month" is actually about par for the course. Then look at all the empty sections in WP:FAMP where the TFA selectors (I am no longer one of them) have no options left - chemistry, computing, mathematics, philosophy, engineering, food and drink, geology, language and linguistics... The TFA selectors do their best, with the occasional help of the community at WP:TFAR, but with the best will in the world they cannot schedule articles that people haven't written at all, or haven't improved to FA status. BencherliteTalk 19:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, defensiveness and criticism of WaltCip really aren't called for here. I appreciate the explanation of why this condition exists and, apparently, will continue to exist, but I don't see that WaltCip criticized anyone or even complained. He just pointed out a potential problem that perhaps others weren't aware of. And by the way, it's a valid observation even in light of the explanation of why video games are so heavily represented. The reasons given only point to where the problem would have to be solved, if in fact it is a problem. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I make a simple observation and the criticism is immediately turned back upon me and my contributions. Jumpy are we?--WaltCip (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a suggestion above that the proportion of TFA articles on a particular topic ought to mirror the proportion of available articles on that topic. There is no reason at all why this should be the case. Indeed, if there is a disproportionate number of available articles on a trivial topic, such as video games, then it is not desirable. 109.153.236.235 (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not a fan of video games at all, but I'd like to know what makes you think it's necessarily a trivial topic. Some of them have made significant cultural impacts. Besides, what is trivial to you may not be so to another person; it's fairly subjective after all. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The simple answer, as has often been said - develop more articles in other fields to TFA standard (and accept that topics in some areas will be promoted more often than the perceived significance of that field would warrant). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This answer, which is always the one trotted out, is totally bogus. 109.153.236.235 (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
How is "improving Wikipedia articles about underrepresented topics" bogus. Can you explain why that is something we want to NOT do? --Jayron32 22:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The bogus part is the idea that no one should be allowed to point out a problem unless they are willing and able to fix it themselves. Some people do not have the wherewithal to create featured articles. That does not mean that they are not allowed an opinion on TFA choices. 109.153.236.235 (talk)
So, why bother if all you want to do is tear down the work of others? There are only two solutions: write better articles in underrepresented areas, or refuse to post what we already have. Only one of those solutions fixes the bias problem at Wikipedia. The problem is not the existence of bias in favor of certain subjects. That's well known, and telling everyone it exists serves no useful purpose. Since you're interested in fixing the problem, the way to fix it is to deliberately work on improving underrepresented areas. Telling everyone what they already know is just talking to hear yourself talk. That helps nothing. --Jayron32 14:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
What's bogus is the assumption that it's somehow wrong to run a specific article based on the sensitivities of those who refuse to participate. TFA needs featured articles. There are only so many featured articles. The only way to change what gets run is to write a new featured article, and anyone who complains about what is used yet refuses to take part in at least trying to offer something else is only making more noise than difference. GRAPPLE X 01:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
What other solution is there? Can you offer an alternative instead of just rejecting these suggestions? We cannot and should not disparage improving any article to FA status regardless of what it's about. Scarlettail (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The more featured articles the better, of course. However, if there are a disproportionate number of TFAs on a particular subject area, then the solution is to feature fewer of them, not to require that more be produced on other subjects. 109.153.236.235 (talk)
All you end up doing in that case is creating a bottleneck for the future that'll result in a greater density of similar subjects being run together later; spreading them out now stops them from making up a larger percentage of WP:FANMP than they already do. GRAPPLE X 09:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
If I'm reading the numbers right (and I might not be) it looks like Featured Articles are being promoted at less than the replacement rate. So probably every FA will get it's day onWaltCip the main page. Best to spread them out evenly. Otherwise at some point in the future they'd have to schedule a Video Game Month or some such nonsense. I assume that 109.153 would be even more irritated by that. ApLundell (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@WaltCip: What nobody seems to have mentioned, is that this issue (with varying subjects), comes up very very very frequently. (See the sections on "Cricket", "It has happened.", and "Outrageous US centrism on the main page again" at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_176 for example). It's an in-joke amongst many editors, and a sore-point for many other editors (who might perhaps overreact... >.> ).
This type of thread would perhaps be better off, if immediately wrapped in archive top/bottom tags, with result= See Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#I think that the articles listed on the Main Page are awful and much more important articles should be there instead. Isn't the Main Page biased towards certain topics? What can be done about it?
HTH. ;-) Quiddity (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
FAQs should be linked immediately. If the response to that link isn't covered by the FAQ answer, I would hate to hat (archive) it; if the response isn't The Solution, at least it shows we need a longer FAQ answer. Art LaPella (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
If you would like to further help mitigate the systemic bias in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.Stadt 20:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

IP - I resent you calling my answer bogus (and it is 'a statement of fact and so cannot be insolent' besides).

What criteria would #you# use to define articles/fields that are suitably worthy to appear on the MP? What are you doing to improve articles in those fields? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Perhaps this'll be interesting for the readers of this thread: according to our count, we actually scheduled one fewer video game article than we should have in 2015. Military history was also underrepresented last year (based on simple percentages) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

American Football[edit]

Discussion is trailing into snarky commentary. Reasons for the Super Bowl being featured on ITN have been clarified, no need for further discussion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please don't kill me, but I fail to see what makes an American Football game so important that it merits a spot on "In the news". It doesn't even seem to be an international match that is reported. LucVerhelst (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It's based upon the amount of news coverage it receives (both in the US and internationally). In the news items do not necessarily make headlines everywhere (in fact they rarely do). Read up on section 10 of Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items "Low controversy ITN/R items" for the specific consensus on the Super Bowl. Regards, Jolly Ω Janner 08:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Sporting events have also often been posted for being the most competitive/prestigious competition within their sport, even if they're not necessarily an international competition. There is, as yet, no bigger game in gridiron football, so the Superbowl is the big ticket as far as that's concerned. GRAPPLE X 09:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Have bog snorkeling events ever featured? 109.153.124.128 (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Look at it this way—it's never been rejected. GRAPPLE X 10:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed; if you can demonstrate that bog snorkeling is in the news, and develop a quality article about it, I would be interested in seeing such a nomination. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
There are also Trobriand cricket, conkers, darts, and a host of other more or less obscure games most of which are unlikely to suffer from the usual types of unfair practice (though may have some of their own). 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest you read about the Super Bowl to understand why it is on the Recurring items list for ITN. As stated above, we post many championship games from the top levels of many sports(most of which are on the Recurring list). As stated on the ITNC page, we post many single-country events, and prohibiting them would mean very little would be posted. You are able to propose removing the Super Bowl from the Recurring list at its talk page if you wish- though I think such a move would not gain consensus. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I should live to see the word "conker" on the ITN ticker.--128.227.181.196 (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Other IPN - a challenge for someone (along with other obscure sports and hobbies). 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.