| Revision as of 23:16, 21 December 2024 editRoySmith (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators92,158 edits →Current DYK: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:42, 29 December 2024 edit undoUndercoverClassicist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions16,132 edits →Current DYK: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| (117 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| == Errors with "]" == | == Errors with "]" == | ||
| {{tq|In France, Dominique Pelicot and 49 other men are convicted of the mass rape of his ex-wife Gisèle Pelicot|q=yes}}: It seems ambiguous whether: | |||
| # She was his ex-wife during the rapes | |||
| # She was his ex-wife at the time of the conviction | |||
| As they were married during the rapes, and they were married for 40+ years, I'd suggest rewording to {{tq|... convicted of the mass rape of his <del>ex-wife</del><ins>longtime wife</ins> Gisèle Pelicot|q=yes}}, which reads fine regardless of whether the reader associates ''wife'' with the conviction or the rapes.—] (]) 09:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You honestly think longtime wife is better? ]] 10:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Better than misleading those not familiar with the case that he was stalking his then ex-wife and raping her. No, they were married at the time. —] (]) 11:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::FWIW, I saw "longtime" used by NPR: "Dominique Pelicot, Gisele's longtime husband". They were divorced for a short time before remarrying each other again. —] (]) 11:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think it's particularly bad as it is, but if you want it to be less ambiguous, the clear answer is to use "then-wife" instead of "ex-wife" or "longtime wife". ] (]) 11:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Or France 24 used "now ex-wife Gisèle Pelicot"—] (]) 11:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::"then-wife" is preferable, "now ex-wife" is acceptable, "longtime wife" to my ears has issues of tone. ] (]) 12:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"then-wife" is certainly an improvement over the existing plain "ex-wife", so I'd be OK with that. —] (]) 13:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Futhermore, as noted at ], "]" redirects to ], which is defined there as: "{{tq|... collective sexual assault of women, men and sometimes children, in public by groups}}". Don't know if there is anything more suitable. ] (]) 12:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that mass-rape does not seem right. I have been wondering why it’s not stated as a serial rape. ''']]''' 14:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think that would be much less misleading. ] (]) 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have changed to serial rape of his then-wife, as this was suggested at ITNC too. ]] 22:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *]: Update the death toll to 124. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: maroon; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 22:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Errors in "Did you know ..." == | == Errors in "Did you know ..." == | ||
| === ] === | === ] === | ||
| *{{tq| that a reviewer identified an "audible contempt" for men in the songs of Ceechynaa, who entered the UK singles chart earlier this month with "Peggy?}} I fail to see how this does not living person"]]. I'd think contempt for half the populace is a negative thing. Pinging {{u|Launchballer}} and {{u|Jolielover}}. ] 00:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| "that David Green published more than 200 research papers before his 18th birthday" - not seeing this in the target article which only says "In 2008, when Green was aged 72, a number of his former students, colleagues and collaborators published a collected volume of research papers 'in honour of the work of David Headley Green on the occasion of his 18th birthday, 29 February 2008'; a reference to his leap year birthday". I know the last main page hook is a quirky one, but this one is misleading to say the least. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not undue; she is literally notable for songs about that. Otherwise, "that the "''']'''" musician ''']''' worked in the sex industry before her music career?" should work instead. Pinging also {{yo|Crisco 1492|Z1720}}.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 00:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Yeah, I wouldn't call that "undue", or even necessarily negative. Same reason I'd expect a bon mot like "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" to be allowed for a blurb for ] or ]. — ] (]) 01:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I think this one is for you. ] ] 23:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Seconding this; the hook also specifically refers to songs by her which should not be a violation. ]] 09:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is a blatant breach of WP:DYKBLP. Her having a "contempt for men" is not something that sources widely agree on, and is clearly a negative description of her, so is unudue negativity in a DYK Hook. There is no issue with having it in the article, where it sits in context, but not as a standalone one-liner on the main page. Not keen on focusing on her work in the sex industry either for similar reasons. I've amended to mention the review which is more positive sounding "proudly waving the sexual liberation flag". If this is no good then I think a pull might be the only other option. — ] (]) 09:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For the future, I'd also point out that we've got a ] violation here: we shouldn't use "identified X" for a subjective judgement, but a more subjective phrase like "considered", "believed", "judged", "opined" or so on. "Identified" implies that we are endorsing this judgement. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{tq| ... that nearly 300 construction workers showed up to work at 8 am to continue building reactors 5 and 6, unaware of the Chernobyl disaster?}} The source reads "Despite the disaster unfolding next door at 8am that morning, the 286 construction workers of the day shift clocked on." I can't find any mention as to whether the workers were aware, though it's possible the reference didn't fully load for me. Pinging {{u|Hawkeye7}} and {{u|Bollardant}}. ] 00:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | === ] === | ||
| Line 47: | Line 32: | ||
| === ] === | === ] === | ||
| *Need to remove 2023 stuff. Not applicable to 2024. | |||
| === ] === | === ] === | ||
| Line 65: | Line 49: | ||
| === ] === | === ] === | ||
| * At "more than 3000 years" maybe insert comma in 3000 per all over thousands in blurb? ] (]) 09:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{done}} — ] (]) 10:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Please place error reports above and do not edit below this line. --> | <!-- Please place error reports above and do not edit below this line. --> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:42, 29 December 2024
Wikimedia project page for Main Page error reporting Shortcuts | Please submit error reports only for content that is currently or will imminently appear on the Main Page. For general discussion about the Main Page, kindly use its talk page. |
 | National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously:
|
To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.
Main Page toolbox- Protected pages
- Commons media protection
- Associated
- It is currently 16:52 UTC.
- Purge the Main Page
- Purge this page
- 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 16:52 on 29 December 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 because this is not a talk page. (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.
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)Today's FA
Tomorrow's FA
Day-after-tomorrow's FA
Errors with "In the news"
Errors in "Did you know ..."
Current DYK
that a reviewer identified an "audible contempt" for men in the songs of Ceechynaa, who entered the UK singles chart earlier this month with "Peggy?
I fail to see how this does not "unduly focus on negative aspects of living person". I'd think contempt for half the populace is a negative thing. Pinging Launchballer and Jolielover. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not undue; she is literally notable for songs about that. Otherwise, "that the "Peggy" musician Ceechynaa worked in the sex industry before her music career?" should work instead. Pinging also @Crisco 1492 and Z1720:.--Launchballer 00:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wouldn't call that "undue", or even necessarily negative. Same reason I'd expect a bon mot like "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" to be allowed for a blurb for Irina Dunn or Gloria Steinem. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seconding this; the hook also specifically refers to songs by her which should not be a violation. jolielover♥talk 09:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a blatant breach of WP:DYKBLP. Her having a "contempt for men" is not something that sources widely agree on, and is clearly a negative description of her, so is unudue negativity in a DYK Hook. There is no issue with having it in the article, where it sits in context, but not as a standalone one-liner on the main page. Not keen on focusing on her work in the sex industry either for similar reasons. I've amended to mention the review which is more positive sounding "proudly waving the sexual liberation flag". If this is no good then I think a pull might be the only other option. — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- For the future, I'd also point out that we've got a MOS:SAID violation here: we shouldn't use "identified X" for a subjective judgement, but a more subjective phrase like "considered", "believed", "judged", "opined" or so on. "Identified" implies that we are endorsing this judgement. UndercoverClassicist 14:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not undue; she is literally notable for songs about that. Otherwise, "that the "Peggy" musician Ceechynaa worked in the sex industry before her music career?" should work instead. Pinging also @Crisco 1492 and Z1720:.--Launchballer 00:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
... that nearly 300 construction workers showed up to work at 8 am to continue building reactors 5 and 6, unaware of the Chernobyl disaster?
The source reads "Despite the disaster unfolding next door at 8am that morning, the 286 construction workers of the day shift clocked on." I can't find any mention as to whether the workers were aware, though it's possible the reference didn't fully load for me. Pinging Hawkeye7 and Bollardant. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Next DYK
Next-but-one DYK
Errors in "On this day"
Today's OTD
Tomorrow's OTD
Day-after-tomorrow's OTD
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Friday's FL
(January 3)Monday's FL
(December 30, tomorrow)Errors in the summary of the featured picture
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
- At "more than 3000 years" maybe insert comma in 3000 per all over thousands in blurb? JennyOz (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Done — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Any other Main Page errors
Please report any such problems or suggestions for improvement at the General discussion section of Talk:Main Page.
| Misplaced Pages community | |
|---|---|
| For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard. | |
| General community topics | |
| Contents and grading | |
| WikiProjects and collaborations | |
| Awards and feedback | |
| Maintenance tasks | |
| Administrators and noticeboards | |
| Content dispute resolution | |
| Other noticeboards and assistance | |
| Deletion discussions | |
| Elections and voting | |
| Directories, indexes, and summaries | |