Talk:Main Page

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

Main Page error reports[edit]

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 (21:42 on 18 January 2019), 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 the featured article[edit]

Today's TFA[edit]

  • Satan is depicted as a goat in moonlit silhouette
Not in silhouette, as there is enough light on the goat to see its eye and some detail of folds in the cloak, and there appears to be a light source between the crowd of witches and the goat, so it is this, rather than moonlight, that places him in darkness. Kevin McE (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Well that's your opinion, but if the sources say that he is in silhouette then that's what we go with. Original research and all that.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It's the definition of silhouette: we shouldn't be relying on a source that misuses one of its terms. Kevin McE (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • who rules over a coven of terrified witches
He is not described as ruling over them in the article: the otherwise similar sentence says he hulks over them, elsewhere in the article that he preaches to them and holds court before them. Kevin McE (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure what "hulks" actually means, but if that's what the article says and the version was passed at FAC, and this sentence is basically lifted from the article, then it seems reasonable for the TFA to honour that. I've changed the word.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree: it is not a useful verb to use. I only cited it to say that there seemed to be no grounds for 'rules'; I would have preferred 'preaches to', 'is addressing', of something similar. Kevin McE (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Changed to "preaches to" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • a young woman in black sits at far right
This is not visible in the part of the picture shown on the main page, so will confuse the reader. Kevin McE (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this part should be removed and I think the possibility of confusion is small. As soon as they click through to the article, the woman can be seen. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
And if they don't click through (perhaps because the extract doesn't seem to make sense)... ? It doesn't say anywhere in the blurb that only part of the picture is shown. Kevin McE (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As in some of his earlier works, Witches' Sabbath seems to explore themes of...
This introductory clause is ungrammatical: "As in some of his earlier works, in Witches' Sabbath Goya seems to..." or "As do some of his earlier works, Witches' Sabbath seems to..." Kevin McE (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the inconvenience, but this month, I'm occasionally pinging FAC nominators and supporters for help dealing with complaints about blurb text. If you see anything in the blurb you don't like, please say so. Pinging: Ceoil, Iridescent, Modernist, Tim riley. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
      • The present text seems to me both grammatically sound and presentationally impeccable, Tim riley talk 21:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I am surprised that you do not consider presentation of a positional adverbial in the place of the subject of a verb to be ungrammatical. Kevin McE (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not an English professor, but isn't this a clear example of a dangling participle? WaltCip (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's not a participle, but it is dangling: see dangling modifier. Unambiguously ungrammatical. Jmchutchinson (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Witches' Sabbath seems to explore themes of aging, death, violence and intimidation.
These four themes are mentioned together in a sentence, and indeed a paragraph, that bears no reference to any other works: the only one of the four words to recur at all in the article thereafter is 'death', twice in relation to Goya's own death, and twice in the name of one earlier work (not works, plural, no citation of the other themes) Kevin McE (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
We should defer to the article, which has been through FAC. Any queries like this can be discussed on the articles's talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
But the article doesn't relate these themes back to his earlier works, only the blurb does. Kevin McE (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • a young woman in black sits at far right, withdrawn from the others, perhaps in defiance.
"A withdrawn young girl in black sits to the far right, apart and withdrawn from the other women; perhaps in defiance." was removed removed from the article in April 2018 and is not in the article now. It was unsourced. The body of the article cites Robert Hughes in Goya, p. 635, at Google Books who says she might be a postulant and is in the article. Suggest remove "perhaps in defiance". If you want to add a bit of a hook, the article mentions she might be "Goya's maid and probable lover Leocadia Weiss".

Tomorrow's TFA[edit]

  • Found only in the Cordillera Oriental mountain range of Ecuador (map shown), it lives in forests and grasslands at 3,380 to 3,720 meters (11,090 to 12,200 ft) above sea level.
The article reports that at one particular location, specimens were collected within that range; it does not report that the entire species lives within that rather narrow band. The lead to the article mis-summarises its own content (which frankly should have been picked up at FA stage, so please don't use that as a reason for discarding this report). Kevin McE (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I've given this a tweak, because the range is known from an extremely small number of samples. It should be noted, though, that species range, or size, or whatever, is always based on taking the range, or mean, of a finite number of samples; it is never completely known. For that reason, using a small number of samples to talk about size is generally okay. If there's a different error in the summary you haven't specifically mentioned, please do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
But these were all taken in the same area, so the range of altitudes is determined by that area, not necessarily indicative of the entire range. As to the edited version, it is not only known from Pacallacta (where these altitudes are taken) but also from at least Tablón, the altitude of which we do not know. While collection of specimens is of course necessary for determining details such as weight, range is determined by observation, and we have no declaration that the collection area is the only area in which they were observed. Kevin McE (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It is listed as a Vulnerable species
No need for capital: 'vulnerable'. Kevin McE (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "First collected in 1903 and formally described in 2003, "
Again, the lead has simplified the contanet of the article to the point of changing its meaning: we have no information about whether there were earlier formal descriptions, it was description as a distinct species that was novel in 2003. Kevin McE (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The lead isn't incorrect; it was indeed "formally described as a new species in 2003". The blurb glosses that over, and so I've tweaked that. If one of the @TFA coordinators: wishes to make a further tweak, I won't stand in the way. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The lead isn't incorrect now, but it was before I edited it to conform with the detail in the body text. Kevin McE (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Errors with In the news[edit]

Errors in On this day[edit]

Today's OTD[edit]

  • Conquistador Francisco Pizarro founded Ciudad de los Reyes, present-day Lima
The article says "Gabriel Moreira Romaní thus founded the city of Lima in Peru's central coast on 18 January 1535", which rather contradicts our blurb. Kevin McE (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Please suggest an improved wording if you can — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
What the article says "Gabriel Moreira Romaní founded the city of Lima in Peru's central coast", or "Spanish conquistadors (I would prefer invaders, but that is probably POVish)founded Ciudad de los Reyes, present-day Lima..."
Went with "Gabriel Moreira Romaní founded Ciudad de los Reyes, present-day Lima, Peru, as the capital of the lands conquered for the Spanish Crown by Francisco Pizarro." howcheng {chat} 17:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Welsh physician William Price was arrested for attempting to cremate his deceased infant son; he was acquitted in the subsequent trial, which led to the legalisation of cremation in the United Kingdom.
There is nothing in either Price's article or Cremation Act 1902 to identify 18th Jan as the date of the arrest, nor to establish any direct link between this event and the legislation 19 years later. Kevin McE (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Moved the article to Jan 13 and replaced with Unification of Germany. howcheng {chat} 17:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


  • Willie O'Ree: In the blurb, his name is preceded by African Canadian but that is wikilinked to Black Canadians, which states, "[...] in Canada controversies associated with distinguishing African or Caribbean heritage have resulted in the term 'Black Canadian' being widely accepted there." Furthermore, I did a search of Willie O'Ree for African and did not find it. -⁠-⁠184.207.223.227 (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    Changed accordingly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Marion Barry: Should it not be mayor of Washington, D.C. (mayor not capitalized)? -⁠-⁠184.207.223.227 (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    Changed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Disagree. In general usage, titles are capitalized only when they are immediately followed by names. "Mayor" by itself is not a proper noun. Sca (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I think you are agreeing with the IP who asked to remove the capitalisation — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Oops. Sca (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • 1943As part of Operation Iskra, the Soviet Red Army eased the Siege of Leningrad, opening a narrow land corridor to the city.
– Awkward structure. Suggest: "In Operation Iskra, the Red Army (or the Soviet Army) established a narrow land corridor to Leningrad, partially easing the protracted German siege."
After "Iskra", we could add ("the spark")." Suggest "partially" because the siege wasn't totally lifted until 1944. – Sca (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Changed as suggested, although I left out "the spark" as there's nothing in the Iskra article to suggest that it's related to the military operation. howcheng {chat} 17:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Iskra is a generic Russian word, but it did have a history in the context of Communism. Sca (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD[edit]

  • San Agustin Church (pictured) in Manila, the oldest extant church in the Philippines, was completed.
Nothing in the article claiming it is the oldest church in the country. Kevin McE (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


  • The French newspaper L'Aurore revealed that the Nazi SS officer Klaus Barbie
By 1972, he was a former Nazi officer. Kevin McE (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A tank barge and a tug grounded on a beach in South Kingstown, Rhode Island, U.S., spilling an estimated 828,000 US gallons
Inconsistency in punctuation of US: suggest both are without full stops, to avoid unsightly ., juxtaposition. Kevin McE (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A four-man team, using only skis and kites, completed a 1,093-mile (1,759 km) trek to reach the Southern Pole of Inaccessibility for the first time since 1967, and for the first time ever without mechanical assistance.
Those 4 men were not born in 1967, so their 2007 expedition cannot have been their first since 1967. Surely kites are mechanical assistance: they enable the harnessing of an external force to move the men and their equipment. The cited reference in the article does not claim it as without mechanical assistance. "A four-man team, using only skis and kites, completed a 1,093-mile (1,759 km) trek to reach the Southern Pole of Inaccessibility, the first people to get there since 1967, and the first to do so on foot." Kevin McE (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Errors in Did you know...[edit]

Current DYK[edit]

Next DYK[edit]

  • that Sir Harry Luke called ...
WP:HONORIFICS, drop the 'Sir' Kevin McE (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
No Sir! The Royal C (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
So dropped. Given that the article is at Harry Luke, I find it difficult to justify the "Sir". Vanamonde (Talk) 19:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
You misread WP:HONORIFICS. Sir is part of an exception: The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that. So we should leave it as written. The fact that the article title doesn't say Sir is not relevant. Titles and prose are governed by different rules. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: That's not quite right; that portion refers to biographical articles, not to any and all prose about people. The hook was written specifically for the main page. No previous consensus exists specifically with respect to this hook, and in the absence of consensus, the more general guidance at WP:HONORIFIC should apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • ... that when HMS Safari attacked small ships anchored in Ras Ali,
Any good reason for not telling the reader that they were barges, as the article does? Obscuring information os not the purpose of an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK[edit]

Errors in the featured picture[edit]

Today's POTD[edit]

  • In the splashing regime, the impacting drop creates a crater...
This is a very unusual use of 'regime', which might be commonplace within this particular branch science (although it is absent from Splash (fluid mechanics)). Suggest "In the case of splashing, the impacting drop...", or continue without a full stop: "Finally, higher Weber number drop impacts produce splashing when (or whereby) the impacting drop creates a crater ..." Kevin McE (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Changed it, but it still doesn't read very well to me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Finally....Additionally...."
Not finally then. Kevin McE (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Think this has already been changed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

These edits have made this materially worse. The original version was fine; not perfect, but ok.

  • The text is describing the behaviour of drops impacting on liquids. The result depends on the physical characteristics, or regime (yes, that is the proper word: look it up in the OED), and can be split into four types mentioned in the first sentence: floating, bouncing, coalescing, or splashing. The text was taken from the linked article on drop impacts (not splash (fluid mechanics), which does not deal with the first three regimes at all, and also does not mention the central jet) .
  • The next three sentences discuss aspects of the first three regimes: floating, bouncing, coalescing.
  • Then we get to some sentences on the fourth and final regime, the spashing regime. The first sentence on the splashing regime originally started "Finally", as that is the final regime in the list of four in the first sentence. That sentence now confusingly starts "Additionally", as if it were associated with the previous sentence, on the coalescing regime, rather than being distinct from it.
  • The sentence that started "In the splashing regime" has been merged with the previous one, linked with "whereby", to create quite a long and complex sentence. It could be reworded, but apart from changing "Additionally" back to "Finally" it is ok.
  • The sentence after that is describing a feature of the splashing regime - the central jet - which originally started "Additionally" as it was following on from the previous sentences also discussing features of the splashing regime, but now confusingly starts "Finally".
  • If pushed for an alternative for these sentences, perhaps this might be clearer: "Finally, a drop impact with a higher Weber number produces splashing, in which the impacting drop creates a crater in the fluid surface, followed by a crown around the crater. An additional feature of the splashing regime is a central jet, called the "Rayleigh jet" or "Worthington jet", which protrudes from the center of the crater."

It is now rather less than ideal. Can we please try to fix it. 213.205.198.156 (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Tomorrow's POTD[edit]

  • A virtual time capsule from over 100 years ago...
Suggest drop this introductory clause. The second part of it is a redundant journalistic gloss, tautologous as the previous sentence dates the film as being from 1906; the first part seems quite meaningless. What is a "virtual time capsule"? How is physical film "virtual", and in what way is this a "time capsule"? If this can be so described, then surely every single piece of film, every photograph, every audio recording, is a "virtual time capsule". The phrase is not sourced to any authority. Kevin McE (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It was produced by the four Miles Brothers: Harry, Herbert, Earle and Joe. Harry J. Miles cranked the Bell & Howell camera during the filming.
It seems oddly inconsistent to render Harry's name in two ways in successive sentences. However, the source does not detail what camera was used: it talks of a hand cranked Bell and Howell as the means of recording another piece of film (Triumph Over Disaster) by a different cinematographer, L Sprague Anderson. Suggest delete second of these sentences. Kevin McE (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list[edit]

Friday's FL[edit]

Monday's FL[edit]

General discussion[edit]

Misuse of wikipedia[edit]

Not relevant to main page. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 15:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia is widely read in India and is therefore becoming a battleground for the upcoming elections of May 2019. Just read the article “Amethi” (Rahul Gandhi’s constituency). It has North Korean style superlatives about Rahul and his family. Just like the Kim’s they make it sound much better than reality and paint a picture that the public should be grateful to them. Blackdog1304 (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing the main page, it is not a general forum for content disputes. I see you've already started a discussion on the article's talk page, which is a good thing. You should wait for other editors to weigh in and see what they think. Cheers! Isa (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dog photograph (DYK for 13 January)[edit]

No longer on main page. Discussion should take place on the relevant talk page. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 15:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncropped Cropped

I cropped this image shortly before its appearance on the main page. Another editor objected, so I've self-reverted and inserted the talk page exchange below to solicit additional comments (potentially applicable to other animal photographs in the future). Pinging its participants, Yoninah and EEng. —David Levy 02:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


Discussion[edit]

Moved from User talk:David Levy: David Levy 02:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, in photography class I learned that it's okay to show part of a human body (like a head-and-shoulders shot), but you always have to show the whole body of an animal, because otherwise it looks weird. Sorry to say, but this crop looks weird. Yoninah (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. EEng 00:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah: I took some photography courses and wasn't taught such a principle, so perhaps there are varying schools of thought.
Per your comment, I've self-reverted and initiated a thread on the main page's talk page.
David Levy 02:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Personally I don't mind either but I do slightly prefer the original as it just seems more natural to show the whole animal. The Royal C (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer the cropped picture, TBH. It's an individual animal in a personal and emotional context, so showing legs and the like seems like a waste of limited space to me. Kranix (talk | contribs) 19:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.