Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, 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.
  • 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 (02:39 on 13 December 2017), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-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.
  • Can you fix the issue yourself? If the error is with the content of an article linked from the main page, consider attempting to fix the problem rather than reporting it here.

Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article[edit]

TFA today[edit]

TFA tomorrow[edit]

Errors in In the news[edit]

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day[edit]

OTD today[edit]

OTD tomorrow[edit]

  • Hanukkah still maintenance tagged, I note some edit warring going on too in an attempt to include this regardless of quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a shockingly bad article at the moment, regardless of how important it is. 10 hours to fix it. Black Kite (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The article is violating copyright and I asked Diannaa to take care of it. --Mhhossein talk 15:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The article is well referenced. Several tags are IMO extremely nitpicky or unnecessary. There is a tag asking for references, directly above a paragraph with references. I don't know why Black Kite calls the article shockingly bad, but is more than welcome to improve it. But it should not be removed from the main page. Looking at a few sites in the copyright notice, I think it's more likely they are quoting Wikipedia and not the other way around, especially considering timing.Sir Joseph (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No, it should not be featured on the main page if it does not meet the minimum quality threshold for OTD articles. Right now, it doesn't. It should be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • What are the thresholds? Right now I see a large article with just a few CN tags. That should not preclude an entry. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) To strike some middle ground here; it is NOT shockingly bad; the two current refimprove tags are still not dealt with; each heads up sections where entire paragraphs or subsections lack any clear reliable sources. That's not a huge obstacle to overcome (i.e. someone interested could fix it up in short order), but those issues DO need to be fixed in order to make it main-page ready. In summary; no it's not far off, but yes the issues (small as they may be) are sufficient to keep it off the main page. Additionally, not tagged but should be is the dreidel section: most is unreferenced, but it probably could all go anyways. Specific descriptions of the rules are best left elsewhere; we have a stand-alone article on the ritual for a reason. If that were pared back to a paragraph synopsis, and if the two sections currently tagged for improved referencing were similarly fixed, I would feel comfortable for endorsing this for the main page. Again, not awful, but still needs some polish. --Jayron32 18:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The first link on that list is clearly a Wikipedia mirror (i.e. it was here first) so isn't a copyvio. The second link on that list is the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, which is in the public domain. That can't be a copyvio either. The next several (which only have scores of 33% or less) are all false positives. The matching text is all short common terms, and there isn't even a close paraphrase issue. So no, there is no copyvio issue. There are two hits for articles that match text here in any substantial way: 1) is a mirror of our article and 2) is a public domain source, which is perfectly legal to copy. --Jayron32 19:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • So, less things to fix...thanks for the feedback. --Mhhossein talk 19:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I got rid of much of the dreidel section and added many refs, I believe the article is well enough to be on the main page. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No, that's not true. Not only does it have 12 [citation needed] tags, it has at least one section full of unverifiable claims. I restored the tag that was prematurely removed. Please provide inline citations for all those claims before removing it again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I am reading many of the linked articles, and it's amazing how many of them have no inline references. I also still reiterate how I feel many of the CN tags are nitpick tags and I think you or Mhossein are being overly aggressive. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Please tell me precisely which target articles in tomorrow's OTD have "no inline references"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't say that. I said I was reading many of the articles linked to find references and many of the articles have no inline references. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Those ones aren't going onto the main page though, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I cleaned up the article a bit and added more refs. I don't see any issue with keeping this listed. Any CN that still may remain are minor issues not taking away from the whole article and can still be fixed without having the article pulled. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I also note this article has been on the main page many times before. I am trying very hard to not get frustrated by the aggressive tagging but it's hard. There is a certain point where articles don't need to be a FA to be on the main page, and I think this article has way surpassed that point. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The only major outstanding issue now is that Timeline section. But does it actually need to be there? It's all covered in the sub-articles anyway, could it be replaced with a short piece of prose or even excised completely? Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it's a good "at a glance." And since everything is covered in sub-articles, I don't know why each entry needs a reference. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I mean is it even needed (especially the second two sections), regardless of sourcing? The article is about Hanukkah, does it need lists of battles and heroes for subjects which have their own articles and the article has previously discussed? I would say not, though I'm no expert. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, for now, I got rid of the timeline section since it is not really needed. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I would say this is OK for the Main Page now. There are still a few tags that could do with a source but I've seen far worse at OTD. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "1769 – Dartmouth College in present-day Hanover, New Hampshire, U.S., was established by a royal charter and became the last university founded in the Thirteen Colonies before the American Revolution." It wasn't established in "present-day Hanover", it was established in "over 300 years ago Hanover". We seem to be getting a lot of these time-travelling blurbs lately. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    That's a quibble over some ambiguity regarding the term "present day"; it is often used (without misunderstanding) to mean "in the place that is today called..." If the terminology confuses you, however, perhaps you can propose some alternate wording which means the same thing but is equally consise? --Jayron32 18:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Nevermind. While fixing another issue, I changed it to a less amiguous term. --Jayron32 18:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    (ec)"what is now", as has been used before does that, but it appears that Hanover was Hanover at the time. Or we could just omit Hanover altogether. I don't think it's a quibble, it's a valid point about sloppy wording. DuncanHill (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Regardless, I had fixed it before you told me to, with the words you sent backwards in time to tell me to fix it with. The issue is that while it was Hanover, it was not Hanover in the U.S. State of New Hampshire, as neither of those entities (The U.S. state of New Hampshire nor the U.S. as a country) existed at the time. It was Hanover in what is now New Hampshire in what is now the United States. That wording is awkward, if true. Putting the qualifier at the beginning is both accurate and simple. If we left off all qualifiers it would be wrong, and if we put it elswhere in the sentence it is awkward. --Jayron32 19:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    I didn't send any words back in time. There was an edit conflict. Or were you trying to make a joke? DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Errors in the current or next Did you know...[edit]

DYK current[edit]

DYK next[edit]

"... that the water source for Carson Hot Springs in Nevada originates 6.6 miles (10.6 km) below the earth's surface?" The water source originates? Sounds bizarre. I would suggest "that the water source for Carson Hot Springs in Nevada is 6.6 miles (10.6 km) below the earth's surface?". Of course, the water will have got to that point underground from somewhere else beforehand, but it's good enough for a blurb. DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture[edit]

POTD today[edit]

POTD tomorrow[edit]

Errors in the summary of the last or next featured list[edit]

General discussion[edit]