Talk:Main Page

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MAIN)
Latest comment: 50 minutes ago by Firefangledfeathers in topic Errors in "Did you know ..."
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

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 17:35 on 25 June 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 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

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

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Erismatopterus

... that young Erismatopterus formed shoals as a likely way to avoid predators? Should be changed to something like ... that young Erismatopterus formed shoals, likely as a way to avoid predators? or ... that young Erismatopterus likely formed shoals as a way to avoid predators?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanahary (talkcontribs)

  • The former is more UK-ENG, the latter is more US-ENG. I don't see an issue with either of them, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think Zanahary might just be asking for a link for shoals? I agree the syntax is fine for either and don't feel a need to change it, but I don't mind adding a link to shoals. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    On second thought, I think I agree the syntax is a little funky. "likely" modifying "way" sounds odder to me than modifying "as a way" or "formed", though I can't of course explain why, grammer-wise. We aren't trying to say Erismatopterus did this because it would probably work, we're saying they probably did this because it would work. Right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, the original wording is wrong, but either of the two alternatives is fine. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I just noticed another problem: shoaling behavior and its apparent motivation is ascribed only to Erismatopterus levatus, not to the whole genus. Zanahary 15:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "Erismatopterus is an extinct genus of percopsiform fish which lived during the early to middle Eocene epoch and containing the single species Erismatopterus levatus." There are no other species in this genus. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Gotcha. I don’t feel strongly, but wouldn’t it still be more correct to use the specific name? Zanahary 15:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Wait. The phrasing "formed shoals, likely as a way to avoid predators" implies that we know that it formed shoals and we hypothesize that it did so to avoid predators. The phrasing "likely formed shoals as a way to avoid predators" is going from the certainty that the species would avoid predators if possible, and hypothesizing that it formed shoals to do so. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes—the current phrasing qualifies as likely the effectiveness (whether objectively assessed or as understood by the Erismatopterus) of the practice for predator avoidance rather than, as it should, the certainty of the fact that the purpose of the practice is predator avoidance. Zanahary 15:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •   Done, going with Z's first suggestion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mel Carnahan

The source (which is the US Senate's official website) says "for the first time in history—voters knowingly elected a deceased candidate" I don't know why they equivocated with "knowingly", but that got turned into "the first person in U.S. history to win a U.S. Senate election posthumously" in the article, which is a stronger statement than the source supports. And of course repeated in the hook. Can we just stop running "first" hooks, please? RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, this CNN source backs up the claim, and I haven't found a counterexample yet. I'll go see if anyone elaborates on why they might hedge with "knowingly" theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Seeing more sources for the same. I think the move is to fix up the article sourcing, not to adjust the hook. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I swapped TLC's CNN source in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, someone might have died before the election without that being known to the public. It's rather unlikely now, but may have happened before.-- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Errors in "On this day"

(June 28)
(July 1)

General discussion