Revision as of 00:01, 20 May 2015

Main Page error reports

• WP:ERRORS
• WP:MP/E

National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously: Misplaced Pages does not prefer any national variety of English. While Misplaced Pages strives to use language common to all English varieties, some spelling, grammar, or terminology may differ or be absent in a reader's preferred variety. Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see a comparison of American and British English.

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Main Page queue

In the news

candidates

discussion

admin instructions

Did you know

nominations

discussion

queue

BotErrors

Protected pages

Commons media protection

Associated

• Error reports
• General discussion
• FAQ
• Help
• CSS
• Sandbox
  • CSS
• History
• Alternatives
• April Fools'

• It is currently 18:19 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 18:19 on 9 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. (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"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• Please wikilink Limia tridens, the little fish in the photo. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 12:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  It already links Limia, although hidden behind different text. Secretlondon (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Limia tridens and Limia are not the same thing. Also, per WP:SURPRISE, not having a wikilink for an obvious (or at least potential) article indicates (incorrectly, in this case) to readers that no such article exists. Abductive (reasoning) 13:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  The photo is being used as an example of limia Secretlondon (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  The idea is to boost the article that an editor made for a DYK. I understand that. But the Main Page is for readers, not editors seeking points in the WP:CUP. Abductive (reasoning) 13:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Abductive - the caption should link to the species. It already uses the full species name, so just adding some square brackets is sufficient. Modest Genius 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Link added. RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or is the DYK about treatment of Jewish POW's a misrepresentation of the article to which it links, and potentially down-playing antisemitic activities of the Nazi regime? The text is: "... that while Germans murdered millions of prisoners of war during WWII, the survival ratio of Jewish POWs was generally tied to the army or nation they served with, and not to their ethnicity?" This can easily be read as Jewishness was irrelevant to their treatment. Reading the actual article, the article says there were very large differences in treatment of POW's depending on the country with which they fought, but in all cases referred to in the article, Jewish POW's were treated worse than non-Jewish from the same military background. It seems to me that this is a very contentious topic, a topic where right-wing extremists are happy to misinterpret any text they can find. We are doubly, triply obligated to be super-careful in our wording, and today's DYK falls woefully short of the necessary care. Could we take it out, and run it again after better wording has been agreed? Elemimele (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I read the target article the other day and have now looked at the DYK nomination. It had not occurred to me at the time of reading the article, but Elemimele's concern is justified. ALT3 is the other hook that one of the reviewers liked, and it certainly intrigued me when I read the article (maybe I should have known that, but I didn't – hence I was surprised). Not sure whether that works for others (it didn't for the final reviewer), but I'd prefer ALT3 over something that raises concerns. Hence, I've swapped it. Schwede66 17:30, 9 January 2025 (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

Monday's FL

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

• T:MP
• WT:MP

Formatting/Layout of "Did you know..."

I feel that the line "from Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content" should be moved below the bulleted list. Here is a screenshot to better explain: http://i.imgur.com/AUb9G2e.png I feel very strongly about this for some reason. Fractal618 (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't really say that I agree. Looking at the picture, I'm not sure how that would be better. Perhaps you could elaborate further? Eman235/talk 19:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Where it is now interrupts the flow of the phrasing. "Did you know..." is a lead in clause to each of the items listed. It should be read as "Did you know...that at least one species of the goblin spider Unicorn (male pedipalp pictured) practices genital mutilation?" Moving the "From Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content" to the end allows this to be more evident. I would suggest changing it to "All of the above are from Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content." to improve the grammar. Alternatively, one could simply switch the "From Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content" and "Did you know...". It's like those "Caution Automatic Door" signs that, going on actual word order, really read "Automatic Caution Door". --Khajidha (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Better idea: move the "From Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content" to the end and rephrase as "...that all of the above are from Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content?" --Khajidha (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

And when the equipment starts answering back the word 'caution' could become a verb. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all. The Caution Automatic Door signs is a great analogy. At least I know now that the flow of phrasing doesn't bother just me.Fractal618 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if it's to be moved to the bottom it needs rephrasing. That flow always has bothered me; but at the bottom, the colon looks weird. On the subject of automatic caution doors: Eman235/talk 22:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Or we could change the name of the section to "From Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content", and put "Did you know…" inside the box just above the items. A much more logical sequence. Awien (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there any bold admins around? Eman235/talk 01:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Awien: that was my other suggestion, I just like putting the "from Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content" last because it can then be worked in as a final item in the list. Eman235: You'll notice that my last suggestion changed the colon to a question mark to make it fit into the pattern. --Khajidha (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Khajidha, didn't mean to steal your idea. In any case, either suggestion is better than the present fractured grammar, but as for finding a bold admin ... lots of luck! Awien (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else think there should be an RfC about this? Eman235/talk 21:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody disagrees that a fix is in order. I'm fine with moving "The above are drawn from Misplaced Pages's new or improved content" (or similar) to the bottom, so nobody who has expressed an opinion has any problem with that. RfC seems kind of a big deal when what's really needed is a bold admin, but if that's what it would take ... Awien (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Use {{admin help}}? Ask Jimbo? Look through Misplaced Pages:List of administrators/Active and ask ALL of them? Eman235/talk 23:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No objection, but no action … sigh. Awien (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(Adds) Just to recapitulate, what we have now is this:

Did you know...From Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content:…that the globehead parrotfish etc.

In other words, fractured syntax.

Seriously, isn't there ONE admin who cares? Awien (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Did you know . . ." is already deliberately fractured to be completed by multiple statements, '. . . that'. The explanatory phrase in italics acts as a parenthetical, it's the ". . .", that break the syntax, not the explanatory phrase -- so that's probably why you don't get people getting all that up in arms about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You have a point, and I can see how the proposed re-wordings would be clearer. I think your problem finding a bold admin is the location of this discussion. I'm going to link to it from Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know.

Thank you, ONUnicorn(?). Fingers crossed. Awien (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Leave it alone -- it's perfectly fine as it is. As Alanscottwalker has explained, the syntax isn't fractured because the typography makes it easy to see that there's an interruption (or suspension, if you will) between the ellipses ... ellipsises ... ellipseses ... whatever. EEng (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty imperious for just a fellow editor, EEng. Also not much of a grammarian. Awien (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I hide the true extent of my knowledge so as not to overawe you. But in any event this isn't a question of grammar. EEng (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so moved by the argument about "fractured syntax" as about the idea of improving the flow. Fractal618's screenshot makes a direct connection from "Did you know..." to "... that the globehead parrotfish..." That catches the reader's eye. At the end, we could make the line into a sentence: "See more new and recently improved content here." Yoninah (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Or alternately -- rename the section "from Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content", then put "Did you know..." where that text used to be. Eman235/talk 04:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker and EEng, the two sets of suspension marks don't alter the fact that "Did you know that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram etc. etc. " is a grammatically correct sentence, or as some people prefer to phrase it, one that flows. "From Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content:" is a sentence fragment that can't be inserted into it because it's a completely separate idea and therefore needs a sentence of its own. An example of a real parenthesis in the DYK sentence could be something like "Did you know (that's a rhetorical question, because we know you don't) that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram etc. etc. " The suspension marks simply serve as a visual link between the question in the heading and the various items completing it.

As for getting up in arms about it, bitter experience teaches us that getting anything on the Main Page changed is a bit like trying to push the Naha Stone up a mountain. But we did succeed in getting "Today's Featured Article" changed to "From today's featured article", and "More" to "Full article…" and the sky didn't fall. Hear that, admins? Six in favour, only two against, with either solution acceptable to the six. Awien (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You're preoccupied with sentence structure, but not everything is or needs to be a sentence. EEng (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"Did you know . . ." is a section title, and the sub title is not a separate idea, it is another way to complete the idea. It says where Did you know comes from. Did you know our new content. And it's not here where this would be decided, it is an RfC on the Did you know project page. (And no, several different ideas of 'do something else', don't make a consensus)Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well...if no-one objects to an RfC at WT:DYK, I'm going to go ahead and start one! Eman235/talk 00:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Eman235, ONUnicorn already mentioned the question at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know and linked here, but it might help if you were to add a summary of the discussion so far, along with a clear proposal as to what change(s) we're suggesting. I can't now, it's past my bedtime. Cheers, Awien (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

An RfC would be good. Some previous discussions I found:

• Talk:Main Page/Archive 171#Wording of "Did you know..." section (in general) (Oct 2012)
• Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_89#Formatting of DYK box (Dec 2012) Harrias 15:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Footer formatting

Right now, all section footers use a mdash-separated list for their footer links. For technical reasons, I was asked to make {{In the news}} less error-prone because it is all hand-formatted (including the logic). I fixed that in {{In the news/sandbox}}, and turned the footer into a proper horizontal list (using a subtemplate), which shows bullets instead of mdashes. That change is well received, but in the interest of consistency, we felt the need to ask if this is an issue here? If this inconsitency is too much of a problem, we can do two things:

1. Don't use bullets for In the news.
2. Make other sections use horizontral lists/bullet as well.

The first option is, understandibly, very undesirable, as it forces ITN to revert to an unworkable template. The second option is an oppurtunity to make all section footers more accessible by using proper HTML lists, and makes managing the sections a whole lot easier. Note that the languages section already uses horizontal lists. I'll be happy to adapt any relevant templates. -- ] {{talk}} 10:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support option 2 and thanks for your work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support option 2. To the best of my knowledge, the current formatting exists because someone happened to create it years ago and we've yet to replace it with something better. Indeed, Edokter, thanks for enabling us to do that. —David Levy 20:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support option 2  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support option 2, thanks Edokter, Stephen 22:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2, and if someone could write a script to generate it based on the previous days' TFAs, even better. - Dank (push to talk) 01:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • POTD has this, but not in any reusable way. This will have to be a separate project. -- ] {{talk}} 11:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • So does TFL. TFA in fact goes all the way back to February 2004. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Dank means the line with "Recently featured:". TFL (and all ohter, except POTD) still requires those links to be added manually. -- ] {{talk}} 16:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, I understand that now. So for future TFA and POTDs that have not been created, I guess for now we can only change the preload templates {{TFA preload}} and {{POTD row}} to display the lines instead of the bullets. And as for TFL, I believe the change should be made on the example code on Template:TFLcontent/doc#Usage. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
        • POTD is good. TFA, TFL will switch June 1st. The main point is that maintaining those recents line will be much easier, as they are now regular wikilists instead of non-semantic, hand-formatted, ndash-separated lines. -- ] {{talk}} 12:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• I don't care but for the record, they're ndashes, not mdashes. EEng (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for coming. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Love it Looks very clean and nice, dig what you've done for ITN in the new template, go with option 2 and make this main page standard. The subtemplate idea is long overdue, and will make posting of RD and ongoing much easier. --Jayron32 04:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2 is excellent! Makes it easier for the admins as well, as mentioned above. --Tone 15:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Very well! I have already prepared all the changes and I will roll them out between now and wednesday, starting with ITN. Not all changes will be immediate; most TFA and TFL pages are already prepared until the end on the month, so their 'Recently featured' lines will still show dashes until then (the actual changes are made in their /preload templates). I will post updates here. Please post bugs when you see them (not that I expect any). -- ] {{talk}} 11:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Updates

• Today's featured article  Done, now visible ('Recently' visible June 1st)
• Today's featured list  Done, now visible ('Recently' visible June 1st)
• In the news  Done, now visible
• On this day  Done, now visible
• Did you know  Done, now visible
• Picture of the day  Done, visible from May 20th

-- ] {{talk}} 12:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not replace any dashes with middots by hand. It is not proper list markup and creates inconsistencies in the archives. Thank you. -- ] {{talk}} 11:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

U.S. Constitutional convention

Actually, 12 states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention--Rhode Island didn't send any. Foreignshore (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this an error report? If so WP:ERRORS is your venue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

ITN proposal: All sports items go to a sports "ticker"

For those interested, there is a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:In the news on a proposal to put all sports items into a sports ticker (presumably like "Recent deaths" and "Ongoing" currently are. Please comment there if you have any input. -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

i want to report man for blocking

listen i dont know how it is done so im write here if any of you from the wikipedians see that please block http://en.wikipedia.org/User:RolandR he twisting wiki facts only cuz he can not accept them and does not fit to his opinion thank you.