Talk:Main Page

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

Main Page error reports[edit]

Main Page toolbox
July 1
July 2, 2015
July 3
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: 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 16:22 UTC
Purge the Main Page
Purge this page

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 (16:22 on 2 Jul 2015), 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, 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]

Errors in In the news[edit]

  • Taiwan explosion – * Can we make it "a theatrical-dust explosion" to avoid the puzzling impression that it was just ordinary old dust? Sca (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    That would make it more confusing, I have never heard of the term "theatrical dust". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Agree with Sca, dust sounds a bit odd. It was more properly "powder" I think, and actually corn starch. I suggested an Alt blurb, but this was overlooked. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    I agree something needs to be done as the current blurb lacks clarity, but like TRM I think "theatrical dust" just makes it harder to make sense of. I like the last alt blurb, so maybe change "A dust explosion" to "An explosion of coloured corn starch"? Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, unfortunate connotations of woofle dust, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Well we have an article entitled dust explosion which seems to describe pretty much exactly what happened. Reliable sources seem to be using the term "dust explosion" as well, so I'm not entirely sure why we ought to modify the phrasing against such sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    BBC calls it "coloured powder". If other sources concur, there may be a case for using a piped link. First ten English sources use these: coloured powder (4); flammable powder (1); dust explosion (1); coloured theatrical powder (3); colored corn starch powders (1). The dust explosion article uses "Holi-like colored powder". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Why not just say explosion? Whether we use dust, theatrical dust or colored powder they all sound rather silly, bringing to mind what happens when you drop the cloth poof into a container of face powder.--Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Well I'm satisfied that since we have a dust explosion article and we're using precisely that term that we needn't change anything, but of course that's just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    An explosion of coloured corn starch powder certainly involves the dust explosion mechanism. But that mechanism can involve a variety of substances that are arguably not dust. As we assume readers will click the links provided, maybe we can't really argue it's "puzzling"? It just jars somewhat. But hey, maybe "puzzling" is good? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    The ITN blurb is basically a headline to draw reader interest to the relevant article, right? Most of the headlines I am seeing for this event simply say "explosion" and leave the details to the main article. That is the approach I would prefer because I find the phrase "dust explosion" to be jarring if used before being properly defined, but (as The Rambling Man says) it is linked right there if you want a definition. --Khajidha (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Over here in the U.S., the PBS Newshour used the phrase "a flammable powder." How about that – or "theatrical powder" – ??
Khajidha, as a pratical consideration, one must realize that millions of viewers simply glance at ITN, as they would at any other news summary.
Sca (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No, still not great, the point of dust explosion really is that you don't need a flammable powder, just a concoction of particles and air to create an explosive environment. And "theatrical powder", as far as I can tell, relates almost solely to the stuff people put on their faces, which isn't what this stuff was. The Rambling Man (talk)
According to the Dust Explosion article, "Dust explosions can occur where any dispersed powdered combustible material is present in high enough concentrations". Isn't a "powdered combustible material" a flammable powder? (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
But we're trying to refine the blurb, so we don't need to say "a dust explosion from flammable particles" or some such construction because "dust explosion" covers it, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Well it has to be oxidize-able, sand dust won't work, but some things that can cause a dust explosion are normally considered non-flammable. Metal can become flammable with enough surface area and even finer metal dust would corrode quickly to explode. You could make dust explosions from sand in fluorinating gases, though. There's a fluorine compound that ignites glass on contact. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What we have now is factually accurate, and if people are intrigued, they're invited to click the link to find out more. We don't have to define every term on the page, just give people the ability to click on any oddity to find out more. Which is what we're here for. I think it's about as good as it could be. --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Change "kills 1 person" to "kills one person" (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    Our house style is to render comparable quantities (human death counts, in this instance) in a consistent format – either words or numerals, not a combination of both. We don't spell out numbers expressed in three or more words, so the current inclusion of "140" points us to the numeral option (wherein "1" is non-preferred but acceptable in this circumstance). —David Levy 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Now the casualty toll of explosion is two; the Taiwan blurb must be modified. --George Ho (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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]


Dani Schaffel deleting[edit]

Hi, everyone can tell me it why the articel Dani Schaffel deleting? after 9 years? What was the info?--Maxie1hoi (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It was created in 2006 and deleted two hours later. The only content was as indicated in the deletion log: [[Category:4Kids Voice Actors]]. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There are 'wikis dealing with actors' - perhaps material on DS fits on them better? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Bad search result[edit]

Bad results on searching "Greece euro 2010". Actually: not just bad, it's useless. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean the search results for Special:Search/Greece euro 2010? Were you hoping to find Greek government-debt crisis? What does that have to do with the main page? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
PH: What does that have to do with main page - Reader Is King entrance, nothing more. Should I now apologise because not knowing the correct search terms for what I'm looking for? -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Lowercase sigmabot III archived the in the news discussion[edit]

Why did it stall in the first place? Howcheng? Eman235/talk 12:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. I haven't heard any other comments, so I'll probably put it in place soon. howcheng {chat} 16:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Great. Eman235/talk 16:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead photos don't match lead headline[edit]

Help me.

This issue has been bugging me for a while, but I'm not sure where to bring it up. My apologies if this isn't the right place. The issue is that the sections on the front page, i.e. "In the news", "Did you know...", "On this day ..." will often have a lead photo for that section, but quite often, the lead photo wouldn't be for the first headline in the section. So if a photo catches my eye, and I click the headline next to it, I'm led to a completely different article from what I expect. I know that the right head line will have (pictured) in it, but even knowing that I regularly click on the 'wrong' headline. Is there anyway to make sure that the lead photo always illustrates the lead headline? For example, in today's (2 July 2015) "On this day ...", the lead photo is Amelia Earhart, which is the 3rd headline down. The first headline is about Li Shiming's assassination of his rival brothers. We could have used the painting of Li Shiming as the lead photo instead.[1] But this is not just about "On this day ...", the other two sections regularly do this as well, and it bugs the hell out of me. Thanks, LK (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You missed a large discussion about this issue that happened throughout late last May and early June. Unless I'm wrong, apparently no consensus was achieved on a permanent solution. And thus the current practice seems to remain (the original reason for the current practice is still stated on the Main page FAQ). Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the pinnacle of perennial discussions and has apparently been going on since at least 2006. The last discussion in June got pretty close, but technical issues, personal preferences and inertia always gets in the way. Discussing it more can't hurt, I guess. But this has become a very battered horse. Isa (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Why should the photo remain on top if the story doesn't stay on top? How about moving the photo down as its corresponding story moves down? (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Howcheng, your comment is needed here (again) ;-) Eman235/talk 11:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There are technical reasons why the photo can't move down. The consensus is that some action is required and it looks like we will likely go with adding captions underneath the images while keeping them in their same locations. Unfortunately, testing has not been completed at this time. howcheng {chat} 12:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)