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 (UTC, currently 22:26 on 24 August 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 FA[edit]

Shouldn't ford be wikilinked in both blurb and article? Mjroots (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Could go either way, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Tomorrow's FA[edit]

Errors with In the news[edit]

The blurb states that "Brazil's National Institute for Space Research announces that it has detected more than 74,000 wildfires in the Amazon rainforest since January", whereas the article only states that that number has been detected in the whole of Brazil, with only "more than half" occurring within the rainforest. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The half figure you are referring to is for Amazonas (state) only. The Amazon rainforest covers several states. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
That's not what the lead of the article states - it says "at least 75,336 wildfires occurred in the country" and "over half the wildfires occurred in the Amazon, the world's largest rainforest". Which is correct? The sources used in the article refer to the "Amazon region", though it is unclear what this is referring to. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying and I agree some change is needed. I am only trying to avoid creating a new error by reporting that 39,194 fires in the Amazonas state as the figure for the Amazon forest as a whole. The media is confusing the Amazon forest with Amazonas state. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I investigated the sources cited for the claim and they fizzled (see my edits [1][2][3][4]. I have edited the article to fix it. I think it may be unnecessary to change the blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we should be removing sources because they don't support an article sentence - not if different sources say different things. We should adjust article sentences to match sources, not the other way round. I still think there is an issue here - if you look at the INPE satellite data directly, it's apparent that the 75,000 fires figure refers to the whole of Brazil, including many fires in non-rainforest areas. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Since we seemingly don't have an accurate figure for the rainforest itself, but we know the 74,000 is definitely too much, I've changed to the 39,000 figure for now. It is cited to the NY Times, even if we do suspect they've got their wires crossed. And if it's more than the Amazonas figure, then "more than 39,000" is still accurate either way. If anyone has a better wording or source, let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I suspect that the news reporting of this hasn't been done with great accuracy, hence the vague wording and differences between sources. However it really is worth looking at the INPE data that I linked to above - the table at the bottom shows the number of fires per Brazilian state, and it clearly shows, for example, that the state of Amazonas has had 7,225 fires this year so far. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I just added the table and I am beginning to agree with PaleCloudedWhite. The media sources seem to have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. We should just report the total number of fires in Brazil. NYTimes claims to have ~39K in Amazon (where they got that number god only knows). All other sources are reporting the >75K in all of Brazil. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Errors in On this day[edit]

Today's OTD[edit]

Tomorrow's OTD[edit]

  • Royal Charter doesn't need to be capitalised. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • African American: should be hyphenated as an adjective; also links to a redirect. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed both. Hut 8.5 17:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Errors in Did you know...[edit]

Current DYK[edit]

  • ...the Bush v. Gore decision certifying George W. Bush as the victor? Relying on my memory of the 2016 presidential election and without reading any WP articles: The victor of a presidential election is certified when the new congress (specifically the House of Representatives, IIRC) meets in January to count the electoral votes. How about changing the hook to ...the Bush v. Gore decision which effectively made George W. Bush the victor? —⁠184.248.98.236 (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, I'm almost certain that there were recounts elsewhere; the hook as written implies the one in West Palm Beach was the only one. The comma after recount must be deleted. Also, it should be vote recount or ballot recount, not voter recount. —⁠184.248.98.236 (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Fixed Thank you. All Bush v. Gore did, was result in Bush getting all of Florida's electoral votes. Other than that, I believe the comma should remain. — Maile (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Please move the comma to after decision. You will see that it makes the whole blurb make more sense. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Next DYK[edit]

Next-but-one DYK[edit]

Errors in the featured picture[edit]

Today's POTD[edit]

Tomorrow's POTD[edit]

Errors in the summary of the featured list[edit]

Monday's FL[edit]

Friday's FL[edit]

General discussion[edit]

[TFA: Taylor Swift][edit]

I played a Taylor Swift song for my daughter this morning because it was in the "new" section of youtube music. Later Amazon Music notified me that her new album is here. Now I see she is today's featured article. Is Wikipedia now part of the PR industry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.255.173.54 (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Although the main page content is deliberately chosen on occasion (i.e. April Fools Day, historical anniversaries, special events, etc.) I think this was a coincidence. In The News content aside, most of the main page content is planned weeks or months in advance. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
This was a result of this discussion. The nominator had originally wanted to do it in conjuction with her birthday in December, but it was decided that it would get more interest if it coincided with the release of her new album. AFAICT there was no involvement from her publicity team, although I have no doubt this pleases them; we have done this with a lot of other pop-culture–related FAs. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)