Page semi-protected

Talk:Main Page

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

Main Page error reports

To report an error on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quote of all or part of the text in question will help.
  • Offer a correction if possible.
  • References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
  • Time zones: The current date and time is displayed in Coordinated Universal Time (16:13 on 14 November 2018), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}}, which will not give you a faster response, and in fact causes problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • Done? Once an error has been fixed, or has rotated off the Main Page, or has been acknowledged as not an error, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history for discussion and action taken.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
  • Can you fix the issue yourself? If the error is with the content of an article linked from the main page, consider attempting to fix the problem rather than reporting it here.

Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article

TFA today

TFA tomorrow

Errors in In the news

Amidst

  • Amidst a constitutional crisis... -- "amidst" is a bit old-fashioned, and not even very easy on the ear -- how about just "amid"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Maybe ENGVAR, as "amidst" seems more common to these ears on the left side of the pond. ghost 12:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
You must be facing south. Sca (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I have no idea what grammar dictates. I only know that "Amidst..." sounds a little odd to me, but "Amid..." would sound a lot worse to me. Would "During..." be simpler and OK with people? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Comic-book

Though per Stan Lee, it should be "comicbook". With all due respect to this recently-dead transformative figure, I think that's a terrible idea. Wikipedia's front page should play by Wikipedia article rules. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, November 13, 2018 (UTC)
Our article is comic book, and so as two words we have to treat comic and book as compound modifiers. Stephen 22:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
There was a request at ERRORS/TFA yesterday to remove the hyphen in the compound modifier "high-school". What's the rule? - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
High school classmates could be read as his school classmates who were high. So grammatically, even though high school is not hyphenated on its own, as part of a compound modifier it should have been. Stephen 23:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
But how high do you have to get before you start thinking we could mean Stan Lee was a comic who created books? Even presuming "comic" didn't mean "cartoon", wouldn't we call him a comedic author? Clear enough that we don't need to start cobbling together new words. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, November 13, 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether the alternative parsing is plausible or not. The rule, on enwiki at least, is to hyphenate compound modifiers unless they are proper nouns. So comic-book is correct. And high-school was correct. See MOS:HYPHEN.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
MOS:HYPHEN says a hyphen "can help", not "you must do it". I don't care what the rule is, and until yesterday, I had generally been guessing correctly which way the winds were likely to blow on hyphen rules. I get that there's a judgment call required in how likely a misreading is if there's no hyphen. I may be misreading, but it sounds to me like I'm not going to know what to do unless we get more discussion of the rule. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
A Wikilink "can help" incredibly high people understand a situation better, too. Though it runs the risk of patronizing reasonably high people, many of whom only started getting high in the first place to pass the time in high school or dive deeper into a comic book. Just throwing it out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, November 14, 2018 (UTC)
Khajidha? Modulus? Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I've never seen either "high school" or "comic book" hyphenated when used as a modifier. While that is the general rule, some compounds are so well established that they don't need to follow it. Both "high school" and "comic book" fall into that category. --Khajidha (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
A Google Books search found about 40 "comic book creator"s before I found my first "comic-book creator". Up with which I will not put. Art LaPella (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
When the compound modifier is just a two-word noun that you can find in any dictionary (like high school or comic book), it really just comes down to personal preference when deciding whether a hyphen is needed or not. If you think those words are indelibly linked in the mind and no confusion in the resultant phrase could possibly occur, then a hyphen is unnecessary. Otherwise, add a hyphen. Personally, I wouldn't get too upset with comic-book creator. It's not as egregious as high-school students would be. Modulus12 (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a rough consensus here that taking the hyphen out would be best. Doing that now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me, but I think this moves the needle on hyphen usage at ERRORS just a little bit. We'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
From what I'm reading above, the MOS rule is typically correct, but there are a few uses (and this seems to be one) that are exceptions to the rule. In no way did I intend the change as some kind of precedent; just enacting consensus for what appears to be an exception to the rule. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wildfires

  • The wildfires in california main page article says 44, but the article on the Camp Fire says 48 and the article on the 2014 wildfire season says 42. I have no idea which one is correct. [Username Needed] 09:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Current count seems to be 48. – Sca (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day

OTD today

OTD tomorrow

Errors in the current or next Did you know...

DYK current

The first hook says: that the poet Edith Sitwell described Lady Angela Forbes (pictured) as "an elderly gorilla affected with sex appeal"? -- really?? we featuring a man insulting a woman a sexual insult of a woman on the front page?? Heard of #MeToo?? There was really nothing else that could have been put in the hook? Like her helping wounded soldiers? WTF?? Renata (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:Did you know & strike out "man". Renata (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Being bold, changed it myself to that the British socialite Lady Angela Forbes (pictured) organized soldiers' canteens in France during World War I? Renata (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Revert (ec) The hook was the suggestion of the editor who went to the trouble of creating this article and we should defer to the considered judgement of this contributor and the various reviewers, especially as the complainant didn't get the basic facts right and their new hook is comparatively dull. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored and the original hook seems reasonably jocular. Edith Sitwell was a famous character and we should also respect her legacy. Renata should please revert their improper use of admin privilege to edit through protection as they are WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
An admin has just unilaterally crafted their own DYK hook out of thin air and posted it to the Main Page, simply because they didn't personally like the existing one. The two are nothing alike. This looks like a completely out-of-process admin action, and it should be reversed on that basis. Modulus12 (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Once a hook is on the Main Page, it should be discussed here on ERRORS; if there are obvious mistakes or any other disqualifying factors, it should simply be pulled rather than having a new hook invented unilaterally, which is against the consensus building model and renders the entire process moot. This was an inappropriate action, but I am unwilling to revert since I was involved in approving the set. Alex Shih (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The admin in question should be strongly admonished for abuse of the tools (modifying through protection material to a personal preference). Plus while this new version remains, please someone change organized to organised. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
"Organize" in Oxford. Bazza (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
"Organise" in conventional BritEng. Irrelevant now in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
There is still time to remove this sexual insult from the Main Page (even if editors would rather spend their time discussing Oxford spelling: there are plenty of synonyms that avoid the "ise/ize" spelling issue entirely: established, arranged, set up, ran ...) 213.205.240.161 (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
If the subject of the hook was a man, would it still be a "sexual insult"? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes it would. If the subject of the hook was not a long dead upper class white British person it would much more of a problem. If this hook stays I want it to be clear this is not a precedent for future hooks featuring gorillas with sex appeal. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I see, so the "bunch of men" thing below and "sexualised slur of a woman" is completely unnecessary? It's about the "sexual insult" to a human being? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The subjects gender should not matter. I think this is a matter of basic human dignity. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I doubt this particular slight would have been cast by Edith Sitwell (who, let us be clear, delighted in her well-deserved reputation for cruelly acerbic criticism, of both men and woman), or repeated with such delight, if the subject was male. But in any event, the Main Page should not be repeating a remark describing anyone as a gorilla with sex appeal. Can we just change it please, the sooner the better. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Reverted. Original hook wasn't wrong, as a bonus the original objection was unfounded, change was imposing personal preference (with the added bonus of editing through protection to impose this). Correcting hooks is a valid use of editing through protection (even without discussion here or at WT:DYK), but no correction was made here. If there is consensus for a change, feel free to implement it of course. Fram (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that a bunch of men have had their opportunity to grumble about process (plus several others of indeterminate gender, but I suspect at least one and probably the others identify as male too) - and no doubt you will all protest this is nothing to do with gender when it plainly is - can we please address the substance of the complaint, which is that there is no reason to include this sexualised slur of a woman on the Main Page without any context (I'd also argue that there is insufficient context for this in the article too, at present) particularly when there are plenty of alternative hooks available from this woman's interesting life.

Along with a couple of people who replied at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, I prefer the version that Renata posted, with the spelling altered to British English. Or another alternative might that she "was ordered to leave the British Army base at Étaples in 1917 due to her swearing and because she washed her hair in a canteen". 213.205.240.161 (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't realise that the hook was promoted by a female editor. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
As I said let's not obsess about process, and focus instead on the substance, which is that it is unnecessary to use this sexualised insult on the Main Page. The source of the quotation appears to be Sitwell's autobiography, and it is picked out without much context by one of the references used in our article on Forbes. I have posted more at Talk:Lady Angela Forbes. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Sitwell's full comment comes from her own autobiography,

    ...Lady Angela Forbes, a bad hangover from the Edwardian era. This household pest strongly resembled, in colour, figure and profile, and in general, an impression of tattered hairiness, an elderly gorilla afflicted with sex-appeal. In her autobiography, which she was so unwise as to publish, she proclaimed that she was 'the despair of a good-looking mother,'...

So, what Sitwell is saying is that Lady Angela was unkempt and hairy, but was still attractive to men. Sitwell was perhaps being waspish or bitchy but so it goes. This still doesn't seem so shocking that we have to pull it to avoid scaring the horses. As this was the selection of the article's main author and was reviewed and approved by due process, it's not the business of WP:ERRORS to second-guess that formal peer review. Notice also that the suggestion about swearing and washing her hair seems similar in tone and so is no improvement. As that hasn't been formally verified and approved, we should not change lest we make matters worse by introducing an actual error of fact. Andrew D. (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Andrew for providing some of the context that is missing in a one-line hook. I trust you found my comments on the talk page and the link there useful, but you omitted Sitwell's next line about Forbes being referred to by young men with two words of one syllable, one biblical and the other veterinary, so there is clearly a sexualised context there. The acid nature of Sitwell's autobiography was recognised in the reviews when it was published posthumously in 1965. Another reason for us not to headline her extreme views on the Main Page.
Don't get distracted by the hair, it was just a possible alternative. I'd much prefer a hook that focuses to this woman's real actions and achievements, such as the buffets for injured soldiers, rather one limited to her non-conforming behaviour or sexual attractiveness. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Did anyone think to ping User:Moonraker or User:Caknuck? I thought the WP:WPWIR participants might have something to add. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I pinged the main author Moonraker when this fuss started. I do DYKs myself and have one up in the same set today – One-armed versus one-legged cricket – a hook about hooks! As an author, I take great pains over the choice of hook because this is a major element of the DYK process – choosing a good hook which intrigues readers so that they click-through. My father is visiting today and so I'll be showing him and others my handiwork. It is really annoying when busybodies tinker with hooks which have been carefully prepared. If others think they can do better then they should participate in the DYK process themselves, doing the hard work of writing articles, making QPQ reviews and coping with all the bureaucracy. So, I feel very strongly that Moonraker should be consulted and that we should not lightly change this hook. As for Sitwell, I'm not sure what two words she was hinting at. One Biblical and one veterinary – Holy cow? Andrew D. (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: no, the two words were said to be of one syllable. And I suspect they were used separately rather than in combination. Perhaps this and this?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I fail to see why this is acceptable. Notwithstanding any sexual content it is dated to refer to people as gorillas, niggers, or any other victorian insults that noted literary critics may have used at the time. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it is about untidy clothes and hair, so more about gender than race, but just as unacceptable. As the link shows, it is also a misquotation by Anita Leslie (the source used in the article): Sitwell wrote "afflicted" not "affected", and "sex-appeal" with a hyphen. So those were real errors in the live version until they were corrected a few moments ago.
Can someone please just change to "...that the British socialite Lady Angela Forbes (pictured) set up soldiers' canteens in France during World War I?". Thanks. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I gotta say - referring to a female as a gorilla on the main page, without the context given above, is really not very good. Would we allow this if it was someone from Africa? It's derogatory and nasty and utterly lacking in context. I thought one of the rules of DYK was to avoid featuring negative hooks... just because the person referred to is dead doesn't make it less derogatory. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I do agree with you, we should have picked a better hook for this article. By highlighting this fact above all the others we're subtly implying that this is the most noteworthy thing we could say about her. That probably is a matter for DYK regulars to hammer out rather than an error that should be "fixed" by an administrator though. And as an aside it is interesting that both the insult in question and the editor who brought the matter to DYK in the first place are female. Not everything is as obvious as it seems. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It was also a female editor who promoted the DYK to a prep set. What should have happened is that this should have been pulled back to noms rather than see an abusive use of admin tools to set a personally preferred hook. I also asked above if the issue would be considered the same if the subject was a man (i.e. a man referred to as a gorilla without context). If not, why not? If so, why has this devolved into such a divisive discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Asked and answered, and here we go with the process again. Coulda shoulda. Why is there such resistence to changing this clearly abusive hook? Would it be simpler to remove it, or replace it? 213.205.240.161 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Not at all, no-one has answered why the divisiveness when it's nothing to do with gender. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting hook which drew me into reading three different articles. The hook did its job IMHO. -LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 14:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the best comment so far. Pity the article doesn't do a better job of putting this insult into context. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Would have been nice to know why there was so much animosity between them. Was a pleasure to read about them both, especially as one if from my hometown, which I had no idea about! New thing every day. -LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 15:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Anyone can edit the article. Feel free to do so IP, to make it say what you prefer. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Societal change isn't retroactive. History is what was, and the quote is apparently what was said at the time. However, for current public consumption (out of context) it's a poor DYK choice, as it's likely to engender animosity. Sca (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Renata did what she thought was best. I'm no fan of the hook either, but having had more experience than Renata at WP:ERRORS, I'm aware that DYK is often more about clickbait than about respect for other humans. Renata can be forgiven for not knowing this basic fact, no need to hyperventilate about abuse of tools. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The whole idea that an alledged encyclopedia’s articles are so deficient that they have to be pimped out with cheap clickbait is depressing and disgusting.

The idea of describing the process for selecting them as “peer review” rather than the more obvious “blind leading the blind provides some comic relief for it, though. Qwirkle (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK next

DYK next next

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

POTD today

POTD tomorrow

Errors in the summary of the last or next featured list

FL current

FL next

General discussion

Requested move 24 October 2018

– Not a subtemplate of {{Main Page}} (a redirect to {{Main Page toolbox}}), but instead of the actual main page. Main-page-related cruft tends to get put in Wikipedia namespace, so the CSS page should go there too. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. IffyChat -- 14:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

TemplateStyles CSS pages must have the sanitized-css content model to function, and only .css pages in the template namespace have that by default. I think it will keep the content model if moved outside of the template namespace, but if not, an admin can change it with Special:ChangeContentModel. (No opinion on which namespace is most appropriate, but when creating it, Template was the only option.) --Yair rand (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - did not understand Yair rand's comment, nor do I understand what this "template" does as it has no documentation, but if indeed it's not a subtemplate of {{Main Page}}, then this clearly needs to be moved to a different name. --Gonnym (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
    Gonnym, Wikipedia:TemplateStyles may help you understand the comment. In short, the template will store the CSS rules which will be used to style the main page using the TemplateStyles extension of MediaWiki. Personally I would prefer that the Main Page be replaced with {{Main Page}} and all the markup be moved to Template:Main Page which is what Wikidata and Commons do. However, I think that I am among a minority. — fr+ 10:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have added this comment to the top of the CSS page to help clarify it (To any admin: feel free to improve my wording.) Remember, the Main Page is unique in that it is in the main article namespace, but is used like a portal, whose content is largely generated by templates. Unless there are modifications elsewhere (such as using Special:ChangeContentModel), my understanding is that a TemplateStyles CSS page must currently remain in the template namespace for it to function properly. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    Counterexample: Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the mainpage is a portal, so shouldn't it be Portal:Main Page/styles.css ? -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    No, because that would be inconsistent with Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox, etc. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Zero benefit. This is similar argument to mainpage being in article space and attempt to move it being consistently shot down. Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css is also wrong, since mainpage is not in the project namespace, unless you can move it to Main Page/styles.css, then template namespace is the only and best place for it. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support better place to put it than the template space. Keeps everything as sub pages of one page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not only is there no benefit but it is supposed to be a template and not a page Abote2 (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Tentative support. As noted above, most of the non-mainspace pages related to the Main Page are in projectspace, and I don't see why this should be different; it helps to put everything together. "Tentative" because maybe moving this page across namespaces would cause technical problems (as it would if we moved the aforementioned module, for example), and of course it's more important to avoid breaking something than to have everything in the same general area. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Bumping thread to prevent archival. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I added {{Do not archive until}} to the top of this section to prevent archival. Remove the code when you'd like it archived. Modulus12 (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit-this-section links

It's possible to generate content (including links) that's only visible to administrators; if you are one, try viewing the Main Page source code logged out and look for the big red "Administrators! Yes, you!" warning or the edit-this-editnotice link that you get when you edit the page while logged in.

With this in mind, could we add little "edit" links, only visible to admins, to the dynamic sections of the Main Page? I'm thinking TFA, ITN, DYK, OTD, and the featured picture and list. DYK and ITN are of less importance, since one can always go to Template:DYK or Template:ITN, but since the others use a daily subpage structure, the only ways to reach them are to scroll down and find them on the transcluded templates section, or memorize the naming structure (which isn't the same in all of them) and go to today's date, e.g. Template:POTD protected/2018-11-10 or Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 10, 2018. You can't just go to the abbreviations: Template:TFA is somehow stuck on a featured article from two weeks ago, Template:OTD is a redirect to Template:Update (maintenance template), Template:TFP doesn't exist, and Template:TFL redirects to a navbox for transport in London. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think {{Main Page toolbox}} has all the links you're looking for. It's at the top of Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, which is also transcluded to this talk page. Modulus12 (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
So can we add admin-visible-only links from it to the right parts of the Main Page? Having them on a template that's on another page isn't significantly different from having them in the "pages transcluded on this page" section when I click edit. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Nyttend it should be noted that 'admin only'-links are not guaranteed to be admin-only. Alternate views, apps, things like wikiwand, screenreader, pdf print, etc are not guaranteed to know to hide such content. This is why generally we use them sparsely in things like maintenance templates, but not in main content. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I was unaware of that. I figured the settings to hide them from non-admins were done on the server side: the server detects if you're an admin or not, and all other programs are never given an opportunity to see that these links exist. I wouldn't have proposed this had I known that. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)