| Revision as of 05:16, 1 December 2021 editPFHLai (talk | contribs)Administrators82,424 edits →Today's OTD: re: 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:17, 1 December 2021 edit undoPFHLai (talk | contribs)Administrators82,424 edits →Errors in "Did you know ...": new dayNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| == Errors in "Did you know ..." == | == Errors in "Did you know ..." == | ||
| === ] === | === ] === | ||
| *''... that The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe isn't a book that perhaps cannot be written?'' - What the heck does this mean? Is this a witticism going over my head? ''<small>]</small>'' 16:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|theleekycauldron|Philafrenzy|Whispyhistory}} It's in what DYK calls the "quirky slot". Now, you gotta admin that it's quirky. But exactly what it means, I'm pinging the nominators and promoter, etc. ] (]) 17:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{yo|Maile66}} it ''is'' unnecessarily confusing. The idea stems from the last prose paragraph: | |||
| :::<blockquote> Nicholas Hooper in '']'', identified some patchiness and omissions in the text with the coverage of Spain uneven and little about Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, but acknowledged that the task of the authors to compress over 1,000 years into 350 pages was difficult. He felt that the book had value but needed more interpretation and that it was not the ideal one-volume history of the period needed in schools and by first-year undergraduates, but accepted that "perhaps that book can never be written". </blockquote> | |||
| :::Perhaps the hook should be: | |||
| :::: ... that ''''']''''' isn't a book that "perhaps ... can never be written"? ] (] • ]) (]) 18:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's not that hard to understand if you think about it for a moment as our readers will do. It isn't a book that can't be written so it must be the one that can be written in the circumstances. I think readers will enjoy decoding it and then visit the page to read more. If they don't get it they are even more likely to visit. Turning it into a quote spoils the quirkiness of it which is based on sources and well sums up the dilemma of producing that sort of summarising book that inevitably leaves much out. We don't need to pander to those who can't be bothered to think, or to read the article, or are the usual crew of malcontents. I stand by the original hook. ] (]) 20:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've no objection to the hook building off an interesting turn of phrase in the article, but the quote here is perfectly straight-forward English and the hook is mangled gobbledygook. Honestly, I think you could approach something decipherable by just dropping "perhaps." ''<small>]</small>'' 23:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: from what i can tell, the current hook appears to apply to every book ever written, so i was admittedly more interested in the discussion here than in the article itself. the hook may be quirky, but i do not think it does the book any favors, perhaps in the same way that i would not want my epitaph to be "dying was not a person that perhaps cannot be alive". to be honest, i did not enjoy decoding the hook, but i must admit that i clicked on the link to the article, if only to resolve my confusion. interestingly, ] piqued my curiosity enough to read the rest of the article.{{pb}}please note that i have no experience writing dyk hooks, so am only offering this (perhaps minority) opinion as a reader who had bothered to think about the hook and read the article. admittedly, though, i might belong to "the usual crew of malcontents". ] (]) 00:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm probably among the usual crew of malcontents, but I was coming here to test the waters on this one too. We're an encyclopedia, that should always trump quirky clickbait. ] <small>(])</small> 01:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I guess I'm one of those who is obviously too stupid to understand the quirky hook's sentence structure, going based off of the apologia above. I agree it ought to be changed, though. ''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 03:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::+1 user who feels this hook is gobbledygook and needs to be changed. From the quotation above, is it supposed to mean 'was challenging to write'? ] ] 12:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Agree with User:Dying, this applies to every book ever written. It isn't an interesting thing about this particular book. It is also trying way too hard to be quirky, and is winding up with torturous phrasing that will simply confuse most readers. Should never have been approved. --] (]) 12:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Awful hook, grammatically garbled and completely confusing. It's also relatively misleading. (And using a contraction which isn't in a quote? Tut tut) ] (]) 12:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I agree that it is a confusing and ungrammatical hook. Is this really the most interesting thing we can say about the book? ] (]) 14:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::So we've had a heck of a lot of belly-aching about this hook, but I guess this is likely going to fall off the main page without anything done, even though it was brought up the day prior to its posting. What can we do to ensure this is addressed ahead of time going forward?--''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 19:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{yo|WaltCip}} get involved with the DYK process 🤷 not much else I can tell you on that one ] (] • ]) (]) 22:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe have admins who act on it once there is consensus of there being an issue? ] (]) 23:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * ''... that the documentary ] has been criticized for racial inequality among its 50 featured pioneers of the internet?'' - this is misleading and based on quackery. Apparently there was a complaint during the nomination process that the "hook is not particularly interesting" (), so it was instead replaced with innacurate click-bait (I don't mean to be abrasive, but that's how the situation looks like). The hook seems to be based on a vague paragraph from the "Nerds" article which starts like this: "Nigerian computer scientist ] ". If one ventures to the article assigned to the computer scientist, though, we see that he's quite the quack, and the claim apparently refers to his insistence that it was he who "invented the Internet". There are other issues, but this should be enough already. ] (]) 16:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Both of the above seem to stem from the fact that DYKs are being nominated just because an article is new or recently expanded and not because the editor has actually found a truly interesting thing while writing or expanding it. --] (]) 17:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::That assumption does tick me off. I liked my original hook, but it wasn't good enough apparently. So I went with the new hook due to feeling like I had no choice. Maybe stop assuming shit? ] (]) 22:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::Pinging those who were insinuated as being part of getting "inaccurate click-bait" on the main page - hook idea from {{U|PCN02WPS}}, promotion by {{u|theleekycauldron}}, and {{u|Casliber}} who moved it to the queue. ] (]) 23:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yeah, I disagree with the notion that the hook is misleading or inaccurate, unless someone can prove that Emeagwali didn't actually say the words that were printed in Anna Everett's book. Emeagwali does seem to be heavily (and deservedly) criticized for self-aggrandization, but I don't think many dispute his veracity on the experience of black people in computing, and this particular criticism was reprinted in a reliable secondary source. I wouldn't, however, object to inline attribution of the hook to Emeagwali. ] (] • ]) (]) 23:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::It would only be inaccurate if no one criticized the film for the issue. ] (]) 23:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{u|Mentor397}} said this on the article talk page - "While he is factually correct, perhaps Nigerian Computer Scientist, Philip Emeagwali's own controveries should be mentioned as well. The point he brings up may be valid, but not if he's the one bringing it up, based on his own debunked claims." Apparently there is some type of disconnect due to the comment opening with Emeagwali being factually correct. ] (]) 23:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::i really don't think it's on us to mention anything that tarnishes someone's reputation when we report on their opinion. If we link Emeagwali in hook, the readers can find Emeagwali's faults, but it's not explicitly relevant to the hook or the bolded article. ] (] • ]) (]) 23:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :These hooks already left the main page... ] (]) 03:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::usually, someone comes along and removes it—I would, but I'm too involved ] (] • ]) (]) 03:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I know. I just hate seeing this plastered here longer than needed with the annoying false assumption. ] (]) 03:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::it's always easier to chuck stones at what someone else has made—don't let it get to you, you had a plenty interesting article and hook. two today, no? ] (] • ]) (]) 03:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | === ] === | ||
| ⚫ | === ] === | ||
| *"... that the undefeated 1955 Hillsdale Dales football team declined a Tangerine Bowl bid because the bowl insisted that four black players—including national scoring leader Nate Clark—stay home?" - suggest linking ], as it is a term likely to be unfamiliar to many. ] (]) 23:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | *"... that the undefeated 1955 Hillsdale Dales football team declined a Tangerine Bowl bid because the bowl insisted that four black players—including national scoring leader Nate Clark—stay home?" - suggest linking ], as it is a term likely to be unfamiliar to many. ] (]) 23:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ::Good idea. Not sure why this hasn't been acted on yet. ] (]) 03:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC) | ::Good idea. Not sure why this hasn't been acted on yet. ] (]) 03:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | === ] === | ||
| == Errors in "On this day" == | == Errors in "On this day" == | ||
Revision as of 05:17, 1 December 2021
Shortcuts | Please submit error reports only for content that is currently or will imminently appear on the Main Page. For general discussion about the Main Page, kindly use its talk page. |
 | National 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 14:29 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 14:29 on 8 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 because this is not a talk page. (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
Today's FA
Tomorrow's FA
Day-after-tomorrow's FA
Errors with "In the news"
Andersson was only PM for a few hours last week. Not one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.214.139 (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Errors in "Did you know ..."
Current DYK
Next DYK
- "... that the undefeated 1955 Hillsdale Dales football team declined a Tangerine Bowl bid because the bowl insisted that four black players—including national scoring leader Nate Clark—stay home?" - suggest linking Tangerine Bowl, as it is a term likely to be unfamiliar to many. DuncanHill (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Good idea. Not sure why this hasn't been acted on yet. SL93 (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Next-but-one DYK
Errors in "On this day"
Today's OTD
This is caused me to do a double take:
1991 – More than 92 percent of voters approved the independence of Ukraine as declared on 24 August.
I think what is meant is:
- 1991 – A referendum to ratify the 24 August Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine passed with more than 92 percent of the votes.
Sparafucil (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sparafucil. The blurb has been revised as suggested. --PFHLai (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Tomorrow's OTD
Day-after-tomorrow's OTD
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Friday's FL
(January 10)Monday's FL
(January 13)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
- The blurb's missing a full stop at the end of the last sentence. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Tomorrow's POTD
Any other Main Page errors
Please report any such problems or suggestions for improvement at the General discussion section of Talk:Main Page.
| Misplaced Pages community | |
|---|---|
| For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard. | |
| General community topics | |
| Contents and grading | |
| WikiProjects and collaborations | |
| Awards and feedback | |
| Maintenance tasks | |
| Administrators and noticeboards | |
| Content dispute resolution | |
| Other noticeboards and assistance | |
| Deletion discussions | |
| Elections and voting | |
| Directories, indexes, and summaries | |