Jump to content

Talk:Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Main page)
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Main Page error reports

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 06:25 on 10 September 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. (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

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today's FA

Employed as the house band at the Café de Paris, a German bombing raid in 1941 hit the nightclub, killing Johnson. is a dangling participle. Suggest While the band was employed. Also, Johnson filled the vacancies with Caribbean musicians, the band's popularity grew, and it changed its name to the West Indian Dance Orchestra. is, while not technically grammatically incorrect, rather jarring as a three-item list that changes subject on the second item. Suggest ... musicians; the band grew in popularity and changed ... -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I would say that both are fine (the second isn’t an error, and the suggested replacement more clunky than the extant version), the first could be changed, although it doesn’t actually need it. - SchroCat (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least the dangling participle really does need to be fixed. Not only is it unambiguously bad grammar, it is confusing to read. JMCHutchinson (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing confusing about it, but I've already said it could be changed (even if unnecessary). If an admin wishes to act on it, they are free to do so. - SchroCat (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

  • "one of the most prolific writers in the world" does not sound like a definite fact to me. Srnec (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two reliable sources that back up the claim. Would you like to be a bit more specific why you think there's something wrong here, Srnec? Schwede66 01:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been discussions on WT:DYK about the need to move to move away from superlatives. This seems a good example, the fact is the "hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels", the "making him one of the most prolific writers in the world" is just vague puffery not adding much. CMD (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there have been discussions about the need to move away from poorly-sourced superlatives, which this is not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussions encompassed all superlatives, they started because of the identification of claims that didn't seem true. At any rate, the sources in this case are "which must be reckoned among the highest outputs ever on a world scale", which is a statement that pretty much says it is not the result of an analysis, and a second source of which the closest text I can find to supporting the claim is "a lifetime of unparalleled productivity". The article body text from this was "arguably one of the most prolific writers worldwide", which became "one of the most prolific in world literature" in the lead and "one of the most prolific writers in the world" in the DYK, losing a small caveat at each step. CMD (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of those discussions were around being "the first", which people sometimes have doubt whether the author only considered their country or the Western world. "One of the" gives more leeway, as it's ambiguous what percentile is referred to. —Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, leeway to indicate the definite fact is not known. The article states the fact supporting the status of "the most prolific writer in Poland" (a smaller corpus than the world) is calculated "by the number of published editions of his works", which is an unexpected way to define it, as presumably each edition is not a whole new work of writing, especially not the ones after the author's death. CMD (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a suggested rewording? @Piotrus, Gerda Arendt, and SL93: Pinging you from the nom.—Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict, Bagumba:) I had criticised the hook for speaking only of quantity but nothing came up, - with no image we don't even get a hint at his period. We could cut the claim, - 200 novels should be impressive enough for those who don't care about content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a problem here. The sources verify the fact, and they are high quality sources. This just seems like an "I don't like it" complaint rather than an actual issue.4meter4 (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source says "which must be reckoned", how is that a verification? CMD (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The wording for the rest is fine, remove "making him one of the most prolific writers in the world" and the remaining hook is a definite (and impressive) fact. CMD (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflicts, saying the same) The "fact" - in many words - is rather redundant to the high number, almost no surprise (at least to me). - Hook possibility: just have the question mark after "novels", in case of doubt what I meant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Friday's FL

(September 13)

Monday's FL

(September 16)
Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Shortcuts

Linter error?

I see a Linter error this evening on the Main page. —GoldRingChip 01:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=1244332750"