Revision as of 12:46, 26 April 2010 view source203.212.24.123 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:46, 26 April 2010 view source Favonian (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators287,477 editsm Reverted edits by 203.212.24.123 to last revision by Dumelow (HG)Next edit → | ||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
::Per ], I've reverted the addition (and referred Allen3 to that discussion, of which he presumably was unaware). —] 23:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC) | ::Per ], I've reverted the addition (and referred Allen3 to that discussion, of which he presumably was unaware). —] 23:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Picture of the day |
== Picture of the day photo credits requests for comment == | ||
== to credits requests for comment == | |||
''']''' --] (]) 02:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC) | ''']''' --] (]) 02:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
Line 76: | Line 75: | ||
== New Layout == | == New Layout == | ||
When did this new layout occur and why? ] (]) 22:28, 25 |
When did this new layout occur and why? ] (]) 22:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Erm, what new layout? ] | ] 22:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC) | :Erm, what new layout? ] | ] 22:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
::I assume this is a reference to the unusually short TFA/ITN. In which case, it is just a coincidence that two days in a row has FAs w/no pics (and thus took up less space), forcing ITN to shorten as well. --] (]) 00:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | ::I assume this is a reference to the unusually short TFA/ITN. In which case, it is just a coincidence that two days in a row has FAs w/no pics (and thus took up less space), forcing ITN to shorten as well. --] (]) 00:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::I am quite liking the fact that I can see most of the DYKs and OTDs now and that only the most recent (and hence |
:::I am quite liking the fact that I can see most of the DYKs and OTDs now and that only the most recent (and hence relevant) ITNs are shown. Could we look at permanently shortening TFA blurbs? Quite often I don't have the enthusiasm to read them all anyway - ] (]) 11:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
---- | |||
== Tallinn Bronze Soldier == | |||
The current text in "On this day" sounds as if Estonia was a "Soviet war memorial". I recommend rewording it: "Controversy surrounding the relocation of the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, a Soviet Red Army World War II memorial in Tallinn, Estonia, erupted into mass protests and riots." ] (]) 06:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | The current text in "On this day" sounds as if Estonia was a "Soviet war memorial". I recommend rewording it: "Controversy surrounding the relocation of the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, a Soviet Red Army World War II memorial in Tallinn, Estonia, erupted into mass protests and riots." ] (]) 06:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
: Agreed, but moving to ]. ] 08:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
: Agreed, but moving to ]. ] 08:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:46, 26 April 2010
↓↓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:
|
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
Wikimedia project page for Main Page error reporting ShortcutsNational 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 16:15 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 16:15 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. (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)
General discussion
Shortcuts
Main Page Bias
I'm a little dismayed at the pro-Earth bias apparent on the Main Page today. Can we please feature some articles about extraterrestrial topics like astronomical phenomena, interstellar cultures, and Madonna? Aylad 12:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Happy Earth Day!
- meh i'll accept a little pro-earth bias on earth day. we have extra-terrestrials on main page all the time -- Ashish-g55 13:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Even worse is the complete lack of independent third party coverage in reliable sources. A Google search brings up only Earth-based sources created by people with a clear conflict of interest. The fact that off-Earth sources devote only two words to their coverage of the topic clearly show that it is non-notable. I would nominate it for deletion but I already know that the discussion will be completely overtaken by a bunch of meat-puppets all !voting keep. ;) Zunaid 13:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I knew it. I just knew that the smart-alecks would be out on this one... I should have been faster to get in here! Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Meh. I've argued about Misplaced Pages's terracentrism before. It always falls on deaf ears.--Fyre2387 22:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'd vote to delete it. A. Vogon 21:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Meh. I've argued about Misplaced Pages's terracentrism before. It always falls on deaf ears.--Fyre2387 22:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- 137.22.11.102 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I knew it. I just knew that the smart-alecks would be out on this one... I should have been faster to get in here! Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Surely somebody could drum up some sources written by Xenu. Woogee (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, it seems somebody heard you. Fixman 01:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Main page gender bias
Please note discussion at VPP#Main page gender bias. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the in the news section
It would look better to say in Bangkok Thailand, rather than in Bangkok and than latter in Thailand.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I disagree- I think it clarifies that there is ongoing disturbance in Thailand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Have to agree. Bangkok, Thailand is unnecessary if the location of Thailand is clear from the line and it is. And the part about "tension between anti- and pro-government protesters in Thailand." helps clarify that the problems exists outside of Bangkok. If we just said "A series of explosions in Bangkok, Thailand kills at least one person and injures 86 others during a peak in tension between anti- and pro-government protesters" it seems to imply the problem is restricted to Bangkok and IMHO isn't as well worded as the current anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note that this is also a bit of a English variety-dependent style issue. Common practice in the US is to disambiguate by default, e.g. add the comma separated country unless it seems overly redundant. In Britain, the default is to omit disambiguation, unless there is a genuine concern for confusion. If you are from the US, you're more used to seeing the phrase "Bangkok, Thailand", so a naked "Bangkok" looks "off"; whereas someone from the UK, used to seeing just "Bangkok", might see "Bangkok, Thailand" and think the writer was patronizing them for not knowing where Bangkok was. -- 174.24.208.192 (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose the reason for the American practice (apart from their notorious ignorance, of course) is that they've named so many places there after places elsewhere in the world. Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the links to the wikipedias that have more than 40,000 articles
The macedonian wikipedia has more than 40,000 articles, can you please add a link on the main page in the section of wikipedias with over 40,000 articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivostefanov (talk • contribs) 21:53, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Done. --Allen3 22:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- As noted in the template's documentation, "Wikipedias determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted."
- Per Template talk:Wikipedialang#Macedonian Misplaced Pages, I've reverted the addition (and referred Allen3 to that discussion, of which he presumably was unaware). —David Levy 23:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Picture of the day photo credits requests for comment
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Picture of the day photo credits --MZMcBride (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
New Layout
When did this new layout occur and why? Simply south (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Erm, what new layout? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I assume this is a reference to the unusually short TFA/ITN. In which case, it is just a coincidence that two days in a row has FAs w/no pics (and thus took up less space), forcing ITN to shorten as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am quite liking the fact that I can see most of the DYKs and OTDs now and that only the most recent (and hence relevant) ITNs are shown. Could we look at permanently shortening TFA blurbs? Quite often I don't have the enthusiasm to read them all anyway - Dumelow (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I assume this is a reference to the unusually short TFA/ITN. In which case, it is just a coincidence that two days in a row has FAs w/no pics (and thus took up less space), forcing ITN to shorten as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Tallinn Bronze Soldier
The current text in "On this day" sounds as if Estonia was a "Soviet war memorial". I recommend rewording it: "Controversy surrounding the relocation of the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, a Soviet Red Army World War II memorial in Tallinn, Estonia, erupted into mass protests and riots." 193.40.37.161 (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, but moving to WP:ERRORS. f o x 08:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)