Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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

• 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 19:41 on 24 April 2024) 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, determined not to be an error, or the item has 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.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Today's FA

Death of Blair Peach

Why is the lede of the main page summary more passive than the article itself?

Lede:

Blair Peach died on 24 April 1979 after an anti-racism demonstration in Southall, London, England.

Article:

Clement Blair Peach (25 March 1946 – 24 April 1979) was a New Zealand teacher who was killed during an anti-racism demonstration in Southall, London, England.

I get that Peach was injured on the previous day, and died on 4/24, but it is bizarre to me to have "died after a protest" being the leading description here. imho the lede here should read

Blair Peach died on 24 April 1979 after being mortally wounded by police during an anti-racism demonstration in Southall, London, England.

I'm going to WP:BOLD and update the lede now, but wanted to put the talkpage note here for further discussion. Ford MF (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oh I guess never mind. Per Wikipedia:Today's featured article, the process is to leave a comment here for admins to review, which I have now done. Ford MF (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • "died ... after an anti-racism demonstration" sounds right to me. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

    Attending a demonstration isn't a generally lethal activity, so there is imho a logical disconnect here -- yes, he died after the protest, but also like, after eating breakfast that morning and going to sleep the night before etc etc -- that reads as a conscious choice to not foreground the actual subject of the article, which is police violence. Ford MF (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

The Glorious Cause

". . . that "The Glorious Cause: . . ." has been the first, second, and third volume of the Oxford History of the United States?" Mixes categories, so it is misleading or a trick statement. It was the first volume published, but it was never intended to be the first volume chronologically-—when it was published it was intended to be the second volume, but since then the period before 1763 has been divided into two volumes. So it is now the third volume chronologically. Because the sentence doesn’t define in which way it is first, second, and third, it’s a TRICK statement, not a sensible statement of fact. Wis2fan (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Notifying Hydrangeans (nominator), Storye book (reviewer), AirshipJungleman29 (promoter to prep), and Casliber (promoter to queue) for comment/input. Schwede66 04:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree with characterizing this as a "trick". The quirky phrasing is intended to make the hook "hooky", but I wouldn't consider this quirky summary of the series' and book's involuted publication history a "trick" so much as an amusement. Though intended to be chronologically second it was published first and later planned to be chronologically third. Still, if this is unbearably odious, Storye book also approved ALT1 (... that in 1982, historian Gordon S. Wood harshly criticized the book The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789, and in 2020 he recommended it to readers?). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Hydrangeans. Storye book (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a clear trick, designed to mislead readers. Not what Wikipedia should be doing. Also seems to violate WP:SYNTH and the guidelines at WP:DYKHOOK, which state "The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change, and citations in the article that are used to support the hook fact must verify the hook and be reliable." I don't see any sources saying it was the first, second and third volumes.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• For it being a "first volume", the body text of the article states It was the first volume to be published as part of the Oxford History of the United States.
  • The citation leads to Robert Middlekauff's new narrative history of the American Revolution is the first volume to be published in C. Vann Woodward's projected eleven-volume Oxford History of the United States (page 1060, bolding added)
• For it being a "second volume", At the time of its publication, The Glorious Cause was presented as the second volume in a projected eleven-volume series
  • The citation leads to this volume is the second in chronology and the first to appear in print (page 455, bolding added)
• For it being a "third volume", the body text states, Later, the series planned to produce two volumes on history before 1763 (The Glorious Cause will be the third volume chronologically).
  • The DYK nomination made no secrets and was transparent about how this was written: ALT0's viability depends on considering the arithmetic by which one concludes that if there are a volume I and II before The Glorious Cause, then The Glorious Cause must be volume III, to be an example of "[r]outine calculations [that] do not count as original research".
  • The citation leads to how little attention in this series is going to be paid to the colonial period. Peter Mancall, the author of Volume I, and Fred Anderson and Andrew Cayton, authors of Volume II, have to deal with whole centuries
  • If this application of WP:CALC is unbearable, there is a primary source that calls The Glorious Cause the third volume: The Glorious Cause is number III in The Oxford History of the United States.

If this remains intolerable, ALT1 was approved and so can be swapped in. I still remain taken aback by characterization of this amusing observation of The Glorious Cause' shifting place in the series relative to other volumes (published first, planned to be second, supposed to become third) as a trick contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. The purpose of WP:DYK is to encourage readers to click on the link and learn about something new. The goal of this hook—and of many hooks—is to prompt an amused confusion that motivates a reader to click the link and read the article to figure out how something seemingly contradictory turns out to be true when understood in context. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

"Three-fourths" looks wrong to me (first hook) - is it correct in Indian English? I would always say three-quarters, which is used in the article. However I can see this being confused with three quarters. Would 75% be better? — Voice of Clam (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Three-fourths seems readily intelligible to all English speakers. -- Sca (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, but 75% would be even more intelligible, and works the world over. I have amended it per that suggestion.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(April 26)

Monday's FL

(April 29)

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.