Misplaced Pages

Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:04, 18 September 2019 view sourceZzuuzz (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators136,901 editsm Reverted edits by 206.219.135.12 (talk) to last version by The Rambling ManTag: Rollback← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:11, 14 January 2025 view source Modest Genius (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,331 edits →Usability and discoverability: correct self- it's not there on mobile 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|small=yes}}}}<!-- {{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}}}<!--

Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page using the "NEW SECTION" tab, or use the "EDIT" link beside the section heading to add to it. The section edit link and "New section" tab are important, so please use them. Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page using the "NEW SECTION" tab, or use the "EDIT" link beside the section heading to add to it. The section edit link and "New section" tab are important, so please use them.

-->{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}} -->{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-vandalism}}}}
⚫ {{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Annual readership|title=the Main Page}}
⚫ {{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
⚫ {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200k |maxarchivesize = 200k
|counter = 194 |counter = 208
|minthreadsleft = 3 |minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(3d) |algo = old(3d)
|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Annual readership}} {{MPH alert}}
⚫ {{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
{{Centralized discussion}} {{Centralized discussion}}
{{bots|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=539296113#Could_we_maybe_turn_off_SineBot_on_this_page.3F --> {{bots|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 ] -->
] ]
__TOC__ __TOC__
Line 22: Line 23:
= Main Page error reports = = Main Page error reports =
{{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}} {{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}}
<!-- ---------------
Please do not write anything here.
Please go to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors to place an error report.
To discuss the contents of the Main Page, please start a new discussion using the "New section" button above, or use the "" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.
--------------- -->


= General discussion = = General discussion =
{{Shortcut|T:MP|WT:MP}} {{Shortcut|T:MP|WT:MP}}
<!-- --------------- <!-- ---------------
Please *start* new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT link beside the section heading to add to it. Please *start* a new discussion at the bottom of this talk page (e.g. using the "New section" button above), or use the "" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.
------------------- --> ---------------- -->
==Usability and discoverability==
==Non-breaking spaces in dates==
I would expect the main page of the encyclopedia to prominently feature both a table of contents and a search feature. This page has a lot of trivia, which is a nice secondary function, but no longer seems to serve its primary functions very well. It does have a search feature, but it's a small icon up at the top in a bar of icons, rather than being front and center and already open with a box to type in words (in the style of a search engine, like ).
There are two separate complaints currently in MPE re the lack of non-breaking spaces in dates.

My personal opinion is that non-breaking spaces should be used in all blurbs on the Main Page. However, others may disagree. Please can we discuss whether or not the following instruction should be introduced? ] (]) 14:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The use of non-breaking spaces is mandated in blurbs on the main page when used in dates and measurements. ])]<!-- votes here, simple support/oppose and signature. -->
* '''Support''' ] (]) 14:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. As far as I'm concerned they should be mandated on all public-facing parts of Misplaced Pages, but life's too short to argue with the handful of zealots who act as the self-proclaimed gatekeepers of ]. On the Main Page, where the relatively narrow columns makes it more likely that any given piece of text will be at the end of a line, it should be a no-brainer.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 15:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
* Yeah, I '''support''' this too. It just makes sense to keep dates all on the same line, rather than splitting them in twain. — ] 00:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''' for consistency and better style, although I have encountered some opposition in the past from ] regarding this issue in the context of TFA blurbs. I note also that all of the OTD templates would need to be lightly reformatted to nowrap the date at the very top, but this isn't really a major problem as it's highly unlikely to be wrapped anyway. &mdash;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif">''']'''</span>&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b> '']''&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b> 16:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''Question''': Is there any objection to leaving TFA blurbs alone (at blurb reviews, WP:TFAR and WP:TFAA) for a week before they're subjected to any non-MOS-compliant edits, so that FAC writers and reviewers will be dealing with text that's familiar to them while they're editing and reviewing the blurbs? If that's acceptable, then I don't need to take a position. (Note: I removed "etc." from the end of what we're voting on ... none of the voters so far seem to be endorsing a blank check on nbsp rules.) - Dank (]) 18:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as "proposed". I understand why this may be ''more'' of a problem on the main page where column width is narrower and thus breaking spaces mid-date etc is more likely to occur, but why isn't this ''still'' a problem in every other article across Misplaced Pages? Surely this should really be discussed as a MOS adjustment which would then naturally flow to main page blurbs, hooks, etc? Are we going to add a specific formatting rule in each of TFA, TFL, TFP, DYK and OTD to mandate this? Where does that instruction live in each case? I don't have a major beef with this but it seems to be the cart leading the horse. ] <small>(])</small> 19:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – Per discussion below, this is already MOS. I support rigorous application of ] on the Main Page, even if it is not widely used or very important on articles. ---&nbsp;]<nowiki/>and] 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
;Discussion
*{{ping|Dank}} Perhaps I'm being dense, but I don't understand what you're asking for. --] (]) 19:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
**You're never being dense, Floq. I'm asking that any non-MOS-compliant edits be deferred until writers and reviewers have a chance to discuss the blurbs. I'm not going to lead any charges here ... I'm not a pro- or anti-anything warrior. I'm almost always happy with the way Main Page discussions turn out. But no one is disputing the facts: neither MOS, nor the usual practices among Good Article and Featured Article writers, support what's being proposed here. I don't want to get dragged into other people's fights. If you guys will just leave us alone for a week while we do blurb reviews before you add nbsps or other cosmetic changes, I don't think this is an issue that my writers are going to care much about one way or the other. - Dank (]) 19:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
*{{ping|Ravenpuff}} - if the date is highly unlikely to be split in a header, then it can be left alone. {{ping|The Rambling Man}} - let's walk before we can run. Yes, this is something that ''could be mandated'' at MOS, but this proposal is put forward to address a specific problem in a specific place. {{ping|Dank}} Early indications are that there will be support. How does an implementation date of 1 October sound to you? Does that give enough time for people to get used to the idea? ] (]) 04:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
*:Well no, it's the other way round as far as I'm concerned. Blurbs should follow MOS, not make up their own rules. Are there other rules unique to blurbs which aren't covered by MOS? If so, where are they described? ] <small>(])</small> 06:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
*:I've left a pointer and a note at ]. - Dank (]) 17:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
*::Doesn't seem to be much interest from the FAC regulars. ] (]) 07:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
*I asked a couple of fundamental questions about the logistics of such a mandate, I'm still wondering how this works in practice. ] <small>(])</small> 17:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
*: {{ping|The Rambling Man}} It's been a while since this discussion has been active, but the way I see it is that this proposal for greater use of non-breaking spaces in Main Page content is more or less already in line with the Manual of Style's guideline on their use (at ]), just that most editors don't seem to bother with using them when writing articles. What's being proposed here, in my opinion, is just to mandate a more rigorous application of the above guideline so as to maintain better style on our welcome mat. &mdash;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif">''']'''</span>&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b> '']''&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b> 09:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

== Propose archiving ] twice a day when DYK is on 12-hour schedule ==

I have been discussing the idea of saving the Main Page twice a day when ] is 43200 and go back to once a day when it is 86400. I discussed the matter with {{u|Amalthea}} over ] and proceeded to work with {{u|Danski454}} to create some templates to use on ]. You can find them at:
*] – this will be used to create the templates each year like the one for 2019 below
*] – this template can be created using the template above using the following:
<pre>
{{subst:Main Page history generic calendar|venue=Main Page history|year=2019}}
<noinclude>
{{documentation}}
]
</noinclude>
</pre>
To work properly, the individual year templates like ] have to be edited manually when we switch back and forth (which I will handle myself for the foreseeable future). A demo of how they look can be seen at ], which over the next few days will start growing redlinks labeled ], ], ], ].... These redlinks would be blue when Amalthea (bot) starts archiving twice a day after consesus is formed here.

I will write template documentations and ensure implementation of this plan moving forward. But before I do, I wanted the community's blessing and comments. Please feel free to ask questions and point out any issues we have not foreseen.

'''TL;DR''': I would like to archive the Main Page twice a day when there are two DYKs a day. Just need your blessing or criticism.---&nbsp;]<nowiki/>and] 13:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
* Sounds like a good idea to me. It's clearly sensible to have both morning and afternoon versions of the MP archived, when they differ. Thanks for looking into this. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 14:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
* Good idea, and since it's a manual edit and you're willing to take care of it, I think it would be useful --] (]) 16:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
* Two shapshots sounds fine but I think the first on a day should still be called ], so such page names always exist. A second snapshot could then be called ]. I suggest the bot starts adding a non-expanded template call at the top and bottom of snapshots so we can provide information, navigation and categories if we want. For example {{tlx|Main page history top|2019|9|17|time|number}} and {{tlx|Main page history bottom|2019|9|17|time|number}}, where "time" is the time of day the snapshot was made, and "number" is 1 for the first snapshot of that day, and so on. Some of the parameters could be deduced from the page name but it's good to have them directly. ] (]) 01:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
*:{{u|PrimeHunter}}, I tested your first proposal at ] and see no problem with implementation. As for your second suggestion, can we discuss further elsewhere, perhaps my user talk page or Amalthea (bot)'s talk page before proposing a formal change here. I want to make sure it is done carefully and thought-out thoroughly. ---&nbsp;]<nowiki/>and] 16:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
* This sounds like a viable idea, but I also note that snapshots are currently taken by Amalthea (bot) at 11:20&nbsp;UTC. This might not capture the "best" version of the day's Main Page, as errors are routinely posted at ] throughout the day; hence, I propose that such snapshots are taken as late as possible (say 11:59 or 23:59), to ensure that any resolved errors in hooks/blurbs are reflected in the corresponding Main Page history. &mdash;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif">''']'''</span>&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b> '']''&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b> 09:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
*:{{u|Amalthea}}, do you see any issues with this suggestion? ---&nbsp;]<nowiki/>and] 16:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

==Hyphenation of compound modifiers==
:''Note:'' Much of this, from the AP newsletter ''Connecting'', is common sense, but may be helpful to some:

<big>'''Clarifying AP Stylebook guidelines on use of hyphens'''</big>
:By '''Paula Froke''', ''AP Stylebook'' editor

''On recent stories about the new AP Stylebook and hyphens''

We have not changed our guidance on use of hyphens in compound modifiers before a noun, and we certainly aren't getting rid of such hyphens. We did expand on our guidance, and we added some detail that has been given in Stylebook Online's Ask the Editor for years. We did change two specific entries to conform to long-standing guidance (first grade student, first quarter touchdown). But reports that we are somehow reducing hyphen usage are just plain wrong. We do hyphenate first-half run. We do hyphenate bases-loaded triple. We do hyphenate disaster-ready.

On the other hand, neither we, nor anyone else, would hyphenate common noun phrases such as chocolate chip cookie, real estate transaction, climate change report, high school teacher, News Leaders Association. We changed from first-grade student to first grade student because the meaning is perfectly clear without the hyphen, just as it is in high school student. Same with first quarter touchdown. There is no such thing as a quarter touchdown.

The entry says, in part:
:Think of hyphens as an aid to readers' comprehension. If a hyphen makes the meaning clearer, use it. If it just adds clutter and distraction to the sentence, don't use it.

Later, we say:
:When a compound modifier – two or more words that express a single concept – precedes a noun, you must decide: Hyphenate that modifier, or not? Often there's not one absolute answer. But in general: No hyphen is needed if the modifier is commonly recognized as one phrase, and if the meaning is clear and unambiguous without the hyphen. Examples include third grade teacher, chocolate chip cookie, early morning traffic, special effects embellishment, climate change report, public land management, first quarter touchdown, real estate transaction.

Do use a hyphen if it's needed to make the meaning clear and avoid unintended meanings: small-business owner, better-qualified candidate, little-known song, French-speaking people, free-thinking philosophy, loose-knit group. (Think of the different possible meanings or confusion if the hyphen is removed in each of those examples.)

::– ''FWIW.'' – ] (]) 13:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

:Also ]. They consider several stylebooks including that one. ] (]) 14:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

::@], I agree this is useful, but ] is what we go by here, not AP. This would be better suited for a ] over there, not the talk page for the main page.]<sup>]</sup> 16:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
:::No website's "manual of style" is an island entire of itself; every English-language website is a piece of the internet, a part of the record of English usage. – ] (]) 14:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


It's a bit weird we visibly link to ], but the only link to ] (which is important enough it's linked to from every page on the site) is hidden behind the pancake menu icon in the upper left. We do have templates like ] that could be used directly on this page as a better gateway to actual articles, for those that are curious but don't have any particular query in mind or are looking for inspiration. ] (]) 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I would also suggest that if this is moved to the MOS talk pages, that it not be quoted at such an extent; in an article we would properly consider this copyvio. ] (]) 16:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


:Agree about the trivia, but remember opinions here come from the trivia writers. Last time I looked at portal usage statistics, it looks like a few people click to see what they are, and most of them don't click anything further. ] (]) 03:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


:This appears to be an objection to the ], not the contents of ] itself. The default skins on desktop and mobile both have a large search box or icon right at the top of every page. The desktop skin also has a link to ] in the menu shown on every single page. If you don't like the way that requires opening the menu before that link is visible, I suggest you bring it up on an appropriate talk page for the skin (perhaps ]) or at the ]. ] ] 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
==Michael Edwardes==
When this Main Page lists "Recent deaths" in the "In the News" section, it could include ]. ] (]) 17:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
:See ] for nominating candidates for the ITN section. ] <small>(])</small> 18:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:11, 14 January 2025

Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion
↓↓Skip header
Welcome! This page is for discussing the contents of the English Misplaced Pages's Main Page.
For general questions unrelated to the Main Page, please visit the Teahouse or check the links below.
To add content to an article, edit that article's page.
Irrelevant posts on this page may be removed.
Click here to report errors on the Main Page.

If you have a question related to the Main Page, please search the talk page archives first to check if it has previously been addressed:


For questions about using and contributing to the English Misplaced Pages: To suggest content for a Main Page section:
Main Page and featured content
Main Page topics
Today's featured article
Featured articles
Did you know...
In the news
Current events portal
Selected anniversaries
Today's featured list
Featured lists
Picture of the day
Featured pictures
Featured topics
Page semi-protectedEditing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled due to vandalism.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208

Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Main Page error reports

Wikimedia project page for Main Page error reporting Shortcuts
National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously: Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see a comparison of American and British English.

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

Main Page toolbox
Yesterday
January 13 		Today
January 14, 2025 		Tomorrow
January 15
TFA TFA TFA
SA/OTD SA/OTD SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v. POTD Main Page v. POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v. POTD regular v. POTD regular v.
TFL (Monday)  
In the news
candidates
discussion
admin instructions
Did you know
nominations
discussion
queue
BotErrors
Protected pages
Commons media protection
Associated
  • 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 14:45 on 14 January 2025) 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)

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

  • ... that of the 156 Conestoga wagons (pictured) brought to the Braddock Expedition of the French and Indian War, only one remained intact by the campaign's end? That's not what the article seems to say. "Only a few wagons of the Braddock Expedition ultimately remained, and they were returned to their original owners when the vehicles arrived at Wills Creek in Pennsylvania." and "In total, 156 wagons are thought to have been employed for the disastrous Braddock Expedition, the only wagon to survive intact being that of William Douglas." meaning that only one wagon survives until now, but multiple survived the expedition (or else they couldn't have been sent back to their owners surely). Fram (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, surely it should be 'employed by' or 'taken on' the expedition 'during' the war, not 'brought to ... of'. Modest Genius 13:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    A rewording does not seem to be in the scope of Errors. The definition of "brought" is "take or go with (someone or something) to a place." which seems close enough to "taken on". SL93 (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Pinging nominator PrimalMustelid. SL93 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is not what the source says. It says (I quote):
The number of Pennsylvania wagons that arrived back at Wills Creek has not been definitely established. For the service of their wagons, 30 owners received payment for a period greater than the 51 days, but of these, only 10 were paid for services beyond what appears to be July 20. Only the wagon of William Douglas, out of 146 wagons involved, seems to have survived the campaign intact. Inasmuch as the other owners were reimbursed for loss of their wagons, it is likely that those few that arrived back at Fort Cumberland were so badly damaged as to render them unserviceable, and therefore not worth driving back to eastern Pennsylvania.
In short, the writer is talking about the situation at the end of the campaign, where only the one appears to have survived the campaign in serviceable condition, the others being too damaged to be worth retaining.
Please note that I am about to log off so will not be able to respond further today. Gatoclass (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
So am I expected to emend the hook and/or article, or has the situation resolved itself? PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Can someone please pull or correct this? What's the purpose of this page? Fram (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Per Gatoclass, my read is that several wagons were in some form you could vaguely still call a wagon, not completely smashed to bits but not usable, a la a totaled car. Only one was actually intact. That could very much be clarified in the article, but as long as there's not a hook–source disagreement, I'm not currently seeing a need to pull. If another admin disagrees, they're welcome to hit the button. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
There is no indication that the wagons which were returned to their owners where "not usable". Only of the "those few that arrived back at Fort Cumberland were so badly damaged as to render them unserviceable" do we know that they were so badly damaged, but it seems (from Gatoclass' pst) that there were only 10 kept in use after 10 July anyway, the others either already damaged or sent back to their owners. There is no indication, in the source nor in the article, that all 155 other wagons were not "intact". Fram (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not following your logic at all. The source plainly states that Only the wagon of William Douglas, out of 146 wagons involved, seems to have survived the campaign intact. If it's the only one to have survived intact, then none of the others made it back to their owners, otherwise they too would have "survived intact". Gatoclass (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. You state "none of the others made it back to their owners", but the article states "Only a few wagons of the Braddock Expedition ultimately remained, and they were returned to their original owners when the vehicles arrived at Wills Creek in Pennsylvania. " Like I already said in my opening post. It can't both be true at the same time that "none of the others made it back to their owners" and "a few wagons were returned to their original owners". Fram (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the article contradicts itself by misstating the source. But that can be fixed simply by editing the article to comply with the source, there is no need to pull the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
If only someone had pointed out yesterday that the hook and the article contradict each other, e.g. by stating about the hook "That's not what the article seems to say." with the relevant quotes. What an utter waste of time is this page and some of its responders yet again. Fram (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
If only someone had the ability to improve an article... the fifth bullet point at the top of this page might prove instructive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Fram, with respect, the point of your original post was hardly crystal clear. It appeared to me that you were claiming only one of the wagons is still extant today. If you'd simply said the article contradicts itself, there would have been no room for misinterpretation.
Regardless, I have now edited the article to conform with the sources. Gatoclass (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
With similar quantities of respect, looking at this for the first time now, the original report was crystal clear in describing the problem IMHO. The hook and the article said different things. That's a problem whichever way you look at it, and had I seen this yesterday I would have certainly replaced the hook and pushed it back to a later date. Better to err on the side of caution and give time for the issues to be ironed out. Also, the article now says 146 wagons but the hook still says 156. Which is correct? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Not at all. On re-reading the original post, it still isn't at all clear that the poster is trying to point out a contradiction - or that a contradiction even exists, because wagons could have been "returned to their original owners" in a non-intact state. And if Fram was trying to simply point out a contradiction, what was the point of the statement meaning that only one wagon survives until now, but multiple survived the expedition (or else they couldn't have been sent back to their owners surely). That only confused the issue. So you may think the point was "crystal clear", but it seems every bit as confusing to me now as it did originally. Perhaps it only seems crystal clear to you because you had the benefit of this thread to clarify matters?
Regardless, thanks for pointing out the number error in the hook - fixed. Gatoclass (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
If quoting the hook and then stating "That's not what the article seems to say" immediately afterwards is not "trying to point out a contradiction"... Fram (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, every question raised here is an attempt to highlight a contradiction of some kind - the point I have tried to make is that the content of the contradiction you were attempting to highlight wasn't clear - at least to me. But there's no point dragging this out any further. There was a misunderstanding, these things happen, I suggest we just forget about it and perhaps resolve to do a little better next time. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

  • 1991 – The Victoria Cross for Australia was instituted, making Australia first Commonwealth realm with a separate Victoria Cross award in its honours system. - pls add 'the' before "first". JennyOz (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Next Monday's FL

(January 20)

"45 men have served in 46 presidencies". That's true now, but that text will still display on inauguration day. The extra presidency refers to President Grover Cleveland, but Trump is about to enter the same status. So the number of men won't change, but the number of presidencies will. Despite Martin Luther King day, 46 will be wrong after noon Eastern Time or 1700 UTC, January 20. Art LaPella (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If someone remembers, this can be amended in real time on the day...  — Amakuru (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
OK. Art LaPella (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Friday's FL

(January 17)

Monday's FL

(January 20)

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

General discussion

Shortcuts

Usability and discoverability

I would expect the main page of the encyclopedia to prominently feature both a table of contents and a search feature. This page has a lot of trivia, which is a nice secondary function, but no longer seems to serve its primary functions very well. It does have a search feature, but it's a small icon up at the top in a bar of icons, rather than being front and center and already open with a box to type in words (in the style of a search engine, like ).

It's a bit weird we visibly link to Misplaced Pages:Contents/Portals, but the only link to Misplaced Pages:Contents (which is important enough it's linked to from every page on the site) is hidden behind the pancake menu icon in the upper left. We do have templates like Misplaced Pages:Contents/TOC navbar that could be used directly on this page as a better gateway to actual articles, for those that are curious but don't have any particular query in mind or are looking for inspiration. Beland (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree about the trivia, but remember opinions here come from the trivia writers. Last time I looked at portal usage statistics, it looks like a few people click to see what they are, and most of them don't click anything further. Art LaPella (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
This appears to be an objection to the WP:SKIN, not the contents of Main Page itself. The default skins on desktop and mobile both have a large search box or icon right at the top of every page. The desktop skin also has a link to Misplaced Pages:Contents in the menu shown on every single page. If you don't like the way that requires opening the menu before that link is visible, I suggest you bring it up on an appropriate talk page for the skin (perhaps Misplaced Pages talk:Vector 2022) or at the village pump. Modest Genius 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Category: