Page semi-protected

Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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

Main Page error reports

To report an error in current or upcoming Main Page content, please add it to the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quotation of all or part of the text in question will help.
  • Please 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 20:27 on 1 July 2022), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not give you a faster response; it is unnecessary as this page is not protected and will in fact cause problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • Done? Once an error has been fixed, rotated off the Main Page or acknowledged not to be an error, the report will be removed from this page; please check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the relevant article or project talk page.
  • Please respect other editors. A real person wrote the blurb or hook for which you are suggesting a fix, or a real person noticed what they honestly believe is an issue with the blurb or hook that you wrote. Everyone is interested in creating the best Main Page possible; with the compressed time frame, there is sometimes more stress and more opportunities to step on toes. Please be civil to fellow users.
  • Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, consider first attempting to fix the problem there before reporting it here if necessary. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. In addition, upcoming content is typically only protected from editing 24 hours before its scheduled appearance; in most cases, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

I think that there likely should be a comma after "In 1901"? I could be wrong, though. Clovermoss (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Schwede66 03:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undone, there's no need for a comma in that position. Stephen 05:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

  • Not necessarily an error, but Yair Lapid's becoming Prime Minister is in the greater context of Knesset voting to dissolve itself and Bennett's resignation. TartarTorte 13:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The focus of the discussion at WP:ITN/C was the change of leader, which is an ITN/R automatic listing. I think that expanding to discuss the government breakdown issues would need a separate discussion and consensus. Does that event even have a page?  — Amakuru (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

'Sandra Melhem ... was awarded for her humanitarian relief work' is ungrammatical. Melhem is the recipient, not the award. Please change to 'received an award for' or 'was given an award for'. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Maile (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping nom @Elias Ziade; that construction isn't actually incorrect. She was awarded [something is implied] for her work. valereee (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly ungrammatical in British English. It might be grammatical in other varieties. Secretlondon (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: when I looked at the sentence structure, " ... was awarded for her humanitarian relief work ..." My immediate thought was, "awarded what?" It left the reader dangling, and not in a hooky way that made me want to click on the link. — Maile (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next DYK

  • Kwaku Ohene-Frempong hook. There's a potential ambiguity about "he": the doctor or the newborn son? Of course one works out that a newborn son will not be in medical school, but a rearrangement does make it easier to read first time: "that Kwaku Ohene-Frempong, an expert in sickle cell disease, decided to devote his life to the study of the disease while still in medical school after his newborn son was diagnosed with the condition?" Jmchutchinson (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping noms @Thriley and @Spencer. valereee (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you. That reads far better. Thriley (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, although I have eliminated a further potential ambiguity by moving "while still in medical school" earlier. Otherwise it might sound like he spent his whole life studying the disease in medical school. Hope that's OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

(July 1, today)

Monday's FL

(July 4)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Bombing of Hamburg and the main page


This media file was originally pulled because of article neutrality issues in 2015 (See here). The article is much better now according to a discussion here, albeit not perfect; however, that means we now need to consider the video. First of all, this is propaganda, and somewhat obviously so, but, as such, it's downplaying and sanitising things pretty severely. This was a horrifying, brutal firebombing that destroyed whole districts of Hamburg, and killed a lot of civilians. Compare this video to, say:

Royal Air Force Bomber Command, 1942-1945. CL3400.jpg

So I suppose the question is: Would putting this on the main page, with a paragraph or two to provide context, advance our educational goals, or is it simply too misleading to be able to be used in an encyclopedic manner outwith articles? Can we mitigate issues? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 00:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've read a book on the bombing of Dresden in World War II and it was a most sobering piece of literature. The video is, as you say, propaganda. But propaganda and war are bed-fellows. In my view, if we balanced the propaganda video with a decent write-up based on the (now arguably reasonably well-written) article, that should meet our educational goals. War is disgusting business and if you are at the receiving end of it, you know all about it. Propaganda tries to justify the actions. If we present this juxtaposition well, while still shocking, it does have educational value. And I suppose you are thinking of running this on the anniversary date of the firestorm (27 July attack just before midnight; firestorm on 28 July), maybe we could balance this further by showing the photo (or a similar one in the same set which is a better crop) in the 'On this day' section. Schwede66 04:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the potential writeup made in the 2015 discussion is better than what we originally had. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think I'll start by nominating that photo I mentioned on FPC. If we can get something to pair it with, it'll probably help matters. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting the FPC underway. I've had a go at a complete rewrite of the blurb that puts the propaganda-aspect of it at the centre. See what you think. Comment here and/or edit the words directly. Schwede66 10:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have an unrelated different question. Does a 240p scan of such poor quality print meet PotD's quality standards? ApLundell (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ApLundell: Video is hard to judge, especially video featured in 2007, back in the days where the maximum upload size was quite low. There's a reason why we try to feature FPs in order. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 08:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know whether or if a better version can be found, given that the video was uploaded back in 2005? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 draft blurb

This US newsreel from August 1943 covering the Allied bombing of Hamburg, Germany, in World War II, by the United StatesEighth Air Force is a typical example of wartime news broadcasts used as propaganda. One of these bombing missions, code-named Operation Gomorrah, was flown over a period of eight days between 24 July and 3 August 1943. Initial missions saw the use of blockbuster and delay-action bombs and the introduction of new countermeasures against anti-aircraft guns. On the 27/28 July raid carried out by the Royal Air Force, concentrated bombing created a firestorm that incinerated more than 21 square kilometres (8 sq mi) of the city. Overall, Operation Gomorrah bombings killed 37,000 civilians and destroyed much of the city.

The clip states that Hamburg is "Germany's principal seaport and number-one war center" and that the bombing caused "devastation of war plants". The reel is silent on the deliberate destruction of entire residential neighbourhoods. The effectiveness of the Hamburg raid had relied on careful research on how best to cause a large fire in a German city – as opposed to the popular view that it was an accidental occurrence due to unusually dry weather conditions.

A "was" is missing" in the final sentence. Jmchutchinson (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Thanks. Schwede66 17:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good to me. I think the only real objection might be whether people accuse the last bit of Original Research or Synthesis. My inclination is it's fine in this case - statement of simple facts, all of which are in the article - but directed towards the video that forms the subject. Any objections? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 00:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None here. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the other image is going to pass. @Brainulator9, Schwede66, and Jmchutchinson:: Think we should put them together as a pair of images? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 02:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pairing this makes sense and further helps with balancing what could otherwise be argued against as showing propaganda on the homepage. Schwede66 02:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Spliting of Papua and The News Section of The Main Page

Sidang Paripurna DPR ke-9 2015.jpg

A few hours ago the "DPR" indonesia's lower house of the national legislature, voted to split the province of papua into three provinces, South Papua, Middle Papua, And Mountanious Papua. So the question is: How could i add this to the main page's news section, and is it important under wikipidia's guidlines. I have so much more questions to ask sincerly yours Makerman 88

Refrences

Further Reading (Just to get the sence of the situation in papua)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Makerman88 (talkcontribs)

Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates to nominate an article. There needs to be a high quality update to an article (probably Papua (province)) which covers the split — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]