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 11:22 on 27 June 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

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Auf dem Weg durch diese Nacht (nom)

Wrong. 3 issues with it:

  1. The article, Auf dem Weg durch diese Nacht, states "Songs from the collection were performed in an evensong[...]", but doesn't states which songs, and thus doesn't state that this song was performed. Which means that the hook isn't supported by the article, and should not have been approved, never mind made it all the way to the main page of course. @Gerda Arendt, Hybernator, SL93, and Amakuru:.
  2. The source for the hook[1] is not available, so I wonder when it was last available and who actually checked it apart from Gerda Arendt. The Google Cache from 30 May is already empty[2], and in general it looks as if they remove posts after a week, which would mean that neither the reviewer nor the promotor actually have seen the source.
  3. Even ignoring the previous 2, what utter trivia. A random parish website informs us that a local band will perform at another church, and presumably lists either the songs they will perform, or just that it will be songs from that songbook. Why is thisworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, never mind chosen to put on the main page? It's not a world premiere, or a major event (say, a Papal visit or so), or something else which gives the song actual importance, attention, ... but a random event where it is presumably, perhaps, performed by a non notable band, as reported by a local parish website. Scraping the bottom of the barrel much? Fram (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is not about the event or a band, but about a song and a song collection of the same name. Sure, we could have just said, and could say now, that the song gave the name to the collection, however, DYK reviewers prefer something happening vs. facts about songs and collections, compare Template:Did you know nominations/Ich lobe meinen Gott, der aus der Tiefe mich holt. It gives a song some prominence not to be performed only in parish church services, and Katholikentag is a major event. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That song was performed in front of some 250,000 people, this collection for a crowd of about 1000 or so (not clear even whether it was performed by LeBandig outside for perhaps a few thousand people, as the unverifiable source title seems to imply, or by the choir inside the church for a much smaller crowd, as the article states). Fram (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There may be another issue with the hook: the Katholikentag programme [3] lists the performance as a "concert", not as a church service in the form of evensong, as the link to Anglican evensong implies. The article cites a grand total of one secondary source (Leschke), and that does not mention the song, only the collection. (The information about the song only comes from a database). —Kusma (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the hook by the boring but less clearly unverified
I am not convinced that as a song, Auf dem Weg durch diese Nacht passes WP:NSONG, but that is a different debate than the factual accuracy of the main page. —Kusma (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've started an AfD because there is indeed very little notability for the song. Fram (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily closed. Please wait until it is off the Main Page. (WP:SK, item 6). —Kusma (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What an utterly stupid rule. Fram (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That rule has been around since August 2008. You had plenty of time to complain about it... Schwede66 10:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your fascinating contribution here. Fram (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a "don't wash your dirty laundry in public" rule. If you want this hook pulled so the AFD can proceed, you are free to make your case here, but I will leave this one to others to answer further. —Kusma (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take it to AfD tomorrow, I doubt that the people who wrote the article or reviewed and promoted it will agree that it shouldn't be an article in the first place (or at best that the article should have been about the book, not about the song, as the book may be notable, though again not from the sources in the article). This really was a dreadful DYK all around. Fram (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Late: thank you for the rescue. I had no internet so was of no help. I found a source (from where the lost one was copied) and added that. The article is more about the song book than the song. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ps: I found the Katholikentag announcement rather mediocre, not even saying that it was a liturgy (held by a woman!) but do you think it would have been called after the song if that song was not performed? No, it was the closing number. Sadly, for these details I can't offer a more reliable source than the spoken word of my conductor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: please advise what you suggest doing with this hook. Aside from the notability question, is there anythign that needs amending, or are the issues so egregious that it needs pulling? (There seem to be a lot of different things mentioned above but no clear consensus as to what to do)  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would pull it, as a DYK which should never have been approved, but I pity the admin who does this as some DYK-aficionados will probably complain that no real pure error was present at the time of the pull. The article was about the song, the approval was for the song, the hook was for the song, and now we have a DYK hook about a book (song collection), with a hook sourced to a primary source (the diocese announces that one of their churches is performing at a religious festival). Fram (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Les Hijabeuses (nom)

Wrong. Or at least not in article, and not in part of source I could see (paywall) or other sources like the Guardian article or the Libé (again part before the paywall). @Alyo, Theleekycauldron, Evrik, Maury Markowitz, and SL93:. It is unclear who of the reviewers actually verified the hook, it seems to have been unapproved until the final tick which came without much comment (just that it's "more catchy"). Fram (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't approve it, but not on verifiability grounds – it's mentioned in this New York Times piece:

For years, France’s soccer federation has banned players participating in competitions from wearing conspicuous religious symbols such as hijabs, a rule it contends is in keeping with the organization’s strict secular values. Although the ban is loosely enforced at the amateur level, it has hung over Muslim women’s players for years, shattering their hopes of professional careers and driving some away from the game altogether.

We can add that part in the article as background. My question is, why are we calling the sport "soccer"? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 07:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned in the article: "had been forced to give up their competitive soccer careers or faced other opposition when playing because of the FFF ban". What am I missing? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 07:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Professional soccer" is not the same as "competitive soccer", just like you can play competitive baseball without being a pro player. That some have giving up their "hopes of professional careers" means that they hoped to become a pro player, not that they were pro players who had to quit because of the ban. There is no evidence that any woman has actually "left professional soccer" because of this, and still we claim it as the truth. Fram (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha – the wording of the source seemed ambiguous to me as to whether the last clause was targeted at professional, amateur, or both. Regardless, it sounds like we're in the clear if we just change "professional" to "competitive"? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 08:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to

which should improve the accuracy. —Kusma (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next DYK

  • "... that future Arizona state senator W. P. Mahoney founded the first miners' union in Arizona in 1912?"

Errors for the current DYK are still not corrected or pulled, so perhaps if I start this now at least these can be avoided in time? Anyway, hurrah, another "first" hook, another fail. @Onel5969, Jon698, SL93, and Cwmhiraeth:. According to this book, there were miners unions in Arizona at least as early as 1884. in 1896, the Union in Globe, Arizona was formed, and the Verde Mining Company in Jerome, Arizona, had a 500+ member union in 1900. The Miners Union Hall in Globe was even the largest building in the town[4]. Plenty of other sources for these early unions, e.g. also at Tombstone in 1884 apparently. No idea what that one newspaper source meant or who gave them that information, but it is plain wrong. Fram (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I will amend this to "a miner's union" if nothing better is suggested when I go to sleep tonight, but this clearly can't stay as is. —Kusma (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
minus Replaced with Ann Klein, the "first woman to run for governor of New Jersey"... at least until Fram identifies another woman who ran for governor there earlier... 😀  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thriley, DaffodilOcean, BuySomeApples, Narutolovehinata5, and Amakuru:

  • "... that Ann Klein was the first woman to run for governor of New Jersey?"

Wrong... in 1957 and 1969 there was Winifred O. Perry, in 1961 and 1965 there was Ruth F. Shiminsky, in 1946 there was Rubye Smith (I presule from the name that she was a woman), 1940 had Marion Douglas. No surprise there! Fram (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I was waiting for BuySomeApple's response but didn't get one. Mea culpa. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:22, 27 June 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)

Monday's FL

(June 27, today)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

Just to warn, this one uses slightly unusual formatting. I think it'll be okay, but if it all falls apart and can't be fixed, grab something from December and let me know. It's basically working by hiding the "main" image as a 1px copy of itself, and then putting in a gallery instead. This is, of course, a hack. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 00:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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]

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]