Talk:Main Page - Wikipedia

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 18:27 on 8 October 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.

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Current DYK

• ... that Nyah Mway is believed to be the first Karen American to be killed by police?

@Apocheir, Zingarese, and SL93: Per WP:DYKHOOK, "first" hooks (whether or not they are hedged with "is believed to be") are exceptional claims that require strong sourcing. In this case, Times source says only that the mayor of Utica believes Nyah Mway is the first, which I wouldn't call strong sourcing – it seems pretty clear from the article that the Times wasn't able to verify the claim independently. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The hook is wrong in any case because the source says he was the first "Karen killed in the United States" by police, not the first "Karen American".

Other than that, an easy fix for the hook would just be to attribute, along the lines of "that the mayor of Utica described 13-year-old Nyah Mway as the first Karen person to be killed in America by police? Gatoclass (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

With respect to the sourcing, [1] (presently citation 2 in the article) says:

[...] said Myra Dahgaypaw, a board member of U.S. Campaign for Burma, a human-rights organization. She said it was the first time she could recall the police killing a Karen person in America.

I'm not sure if her statement plus the mayor of Utica's constitutes "multiple high-quality sources", but here's a crack at a rewrite:

... that Myra Dahgaypaw, a board member of U.S. Campaign for Burma, said that Nyah Mway was the first Karen to be killed by American police?

If the sourcing is still too weak we could choose another hook from the alts. Honestly this one wasn't really my favorite. Apocheir (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that we can fairly summarise "first time she could recall" as her saying he was the first. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Moving back to the original hook, no, I don't think the remedy works. "First" claims get debunked all the time at DYK, I'm not comfortable with a "first" hook unless we're sure it's true, and we can't be sure in a four-month-old case. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) "Multiple high-quality sources" are not needed for the hook I suggested, because that hook does not claim he was the first Karen killed by police, it just notes that that is what the mayor said, and it is 100% verifiable that the mayor said that so the hook is 100% accurate. So people can decide for themselves how accurate the statement is likely to be. On the balance of probabilities however, it is probably accurate or close to it, and either way it gets the point across that this is an unusual and unfamiliar experience for the Karen community. Gatoclass (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, taking into account leeky's objection, on re-reading my original proposed remedy, the wording does kind of imply that the mayor is stating an incontrovertible fact. That can be remedied as follows:

"that according to the mayor of Utica, 13-year-old Nyah Mway was the first Karen person to be killed in America by police?" Gatoclass (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have substituted the proposed hook above because the set is on the main page and regardless of said hook's merits, it's still more accurate than the original hook for reasons already stated. Gatoclass (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hook tweaked again because it turns out the mayor's statement wasn't added to the article and there is no obvious straightforward way of inserting it in the narrative. Gatoclass (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Lead hook:
  • ... that after a career as an opera singer and Broadway musical star, Winfield Blake (pictured) became a comedian in vaudeville as one half of the comic duo Blake and Amber?

  For me, it's needlessly redundant, 1 of 2 is one half, no? Isn't Broadway known for musicals? Do we need both "Comedian" and "comic"? How about

  • ... that after a career as an opera singer and Broadway star, Winfield Blake (pictured) became a comedian in vaudeville in the duo Blake and Amber? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I gave it a tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Next DYK

Should we really have "initially been identified as female breasts" and "Booby Island" in the same set?--Launchballer 16:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Wouldn't have been a problem if we hadn't made the Booby Island hook into a Beavis & Butthead one. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Next-but-one DYK

• "... that the lyric video for an Olivia Rodrigo song included a teaser that she would tour in support of her album Guts before one was actually announced?" Duh, otherwise it wouldn't be a teaser, if she had already announced one. Please drop the 5 last words of the hook. Fram (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Even if the last five words of the hook weren't redundant (and I agree with Fram that they are) I'm not sure what "one" refers to here. Presumably the intended meaning is before a tour was announced, but "tour" in the hook is a verb. Grammatically we would expect that "one" should refer to "a teaser" but that doesn't make sense. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Heh, nice get on the grammar. Anyhow, as Fram stated, the latter phrase does appear to be tautological, so I have deleted it per request. Gatoclass (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Queue 2 is missing its {{DYKbotdo}} line and this should probably be added. This was previously flagged at WT:DYK#Queue 2 broken? - pinging @Cwmhiraeth:.--Launchballer 11:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today's OTD

Peshtigo fire has copyvio from [2]^report; spot-checked other sources and didn't see anything, but haven't looked deep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 08:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

8 hours later... ping @Bagumba and @Z1720 as the two most recent admins to edit this section. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tamzin, I think it's more likely that the Baltimore Sun copied us. Here's Earwig's take on the version prior to the Sun's publication date. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Firefangledfeathers: The page was archived in 2019, but the publication date is 2003. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Misread the 2003 as 2023! Working on it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Used an alt blurb that focuses more on the Chicago Fire. Cleaned up the article; just the bits Earwig spotted, haven't looked deep either. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Friday's FL

(October 11)

Monday's FL

(October 14)

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.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

Hi, could the list of Wikipedias at the very bottom of en.wikipedia.org be updated? Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia has passed 200k articles but it currently still sits in the "50k+" category. Thanks in advance. 78.1.139.197 (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I believe the standard answer is that a bot takes care of this. Give it time. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks like it's been done. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Since we are at it, the Armenian language Wikipedia hy.wikipedia.org has now over 130,000 articles, but doesn't even appear in the 50k+ category. werldwayd (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

On a separate point, if you think 50,000 is too low a threshold and just too many language Wikipedias will inundate the list on the front page, how about raising the threshold to 100k+ and list only those. Even in that case, Armenian Wikipedia would still qualify. werldwayd (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually the list doesn't show all wikipedias over a certain size. It only shows those which are over a certain size and seem to have a resonable proportion of non stub articles. See the FAQ Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#In what order are the other Wikipedias displayed? Where's my language?. So whether the Armenian wikipedia qualifies, I have no idea. (Because of the number of previous discussions relating to other things like the Armenian genocide, it's not easy to see if the Armenian wikipedia was ruled out before. It may be better to discuss this at Template talk:Wikipedia languages to avoid such confusion in the future.) BTW in case there's still any confusion, none of this (whether moving countries from one tier to another or adding them) is automatic/done by bots. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why does Robin Williams' death get a headline, whereas other people who "recently die" do not, and are reserved in the "recent deaths" area at the bottom? JDiala (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The relevant decisions are made at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

(ec) There was a consensus for a blurb at WP:ITN/C. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

JDiala - To translate, what you called a headline is what The Rambling Man described as a blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

JDiala generally those at ITNC decide that based on the level of news coverage, attention, and other factors. Recent deaths is generally for posting the deaths of notable people, while a blurb is given to notable deaths(where the death itself is an event as opposed to just a famous person dying of old age or illness). 331dot (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

In Williams case the manor of death received significant attention far beyond simply the fact that he was dead.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is English Wikipedia and it tends to prioritize topics from English speaking areas, including deaths of notable US actors. We posted the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman as a full blurb but we didn't post Paco de Lucia despite massive global coverage. You may call it systemic bias but it's quite logical and above all, it's a matter of consensus. Not a big deal. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Basically if you're an American and kill yourself, you'll get the full blurb. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not if you're black and a cop kills you. :p –HTD 17:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Touché! --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, but it was 11 days ago. I'm just a little confused as to why news from 11 days ago is on the main page. That day and the next day, sure. It's not news any longer. Enigma^msg 17:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you're confused, please engage with the community at WP:ITN where this sort of thing is discussed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

As a layout, the juxtaposition of the picture to the blurb at the immediate left looks disjointed. Over the past several days it looks like Williams is either a) part of the Bank of America Settlement, b) victim of a Japanese landslide, or c) really good at chess. Also - what was the math woman's picture taken down and Williams' put back up? Not "celebrity" enough? That'll teach her!

No, her picture was deleted as it was considered a copyright violation. But why let the truth get in the way of a good cynical reaction? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Trafalgar High School, established for non-whites in Cape Town, defiantly refused to move after its part of the city was declared "whites only"?

Using the word defiantly a little attention grabbing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.42.14.53 (talk)

Sources say it had large role fighting against the apartheid. Th4n3r (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I happened to see that particular item on the main page, and the adverb did indeed strike me as out of place. Then again, it's not a big deal... interesting fact and not a misleading blurb. So that's nice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I propose that we change the Gaza conflict link in the Ongoing Section to Israel–Gaza conflict instead. There's certainly nothing wrong with calling it "Gaza conflict", and it has the advantage of brevity, but using "Israel–Gaza conflict" would make it more consistent with the current events portal phrasing as well as matching the name of the linked article. I'd love to know what you guys think about this. WinterWall (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Adding seven characters would still keep the name within the realm of brevity, and would appease anyone alleging one-sidedness. Sound sensible to me. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

There was an extremely long and unsurprisingly temperamental debate about this recently. The general consensus was that wars and conflicts are usually named after the place where they're fought, rather than the participants (Iraq War, not US-Iraq War; Falklands War, not UK-Argentina War). The ongoing section is already (over)long, and at least the current naming gives a reasonable symmetry - "Gaza conflict" alongside "Libyan conflict" and "Ukrainian unrest". Smurrayinchester 08:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone else get the impression that this is a campaign to assign blame?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Of course it is a campaign in assigning blame, if the people making these suggestions really wanted to include all of the participants they wouldn't be arguing for a title that leaves out one (hint: "Gaza" is not a participant, it is a location not a polity).--Khajidha (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't know about that, I can see that it can be an issue on both sides.

It seems it's true some people feel the current title is unfair or POV I think because it doesn't reflect Israel's involvement in the conflict. At least I believe this was the suggestion in the previous discussion although it wasn't really explained (one of the most disappointing things about the previous discussion is how little discussion there actually was about the reasonings for name change, just the suggestion it was POV).

OTOH I'm sure there are others who feel the current title is unfair because it doesn't adequetly reflect the fact Israel is directly affected by the current conflict.

Personally, although generally more sympathetic to the Palestinian POV, I don't actually feel that there is any urgent need to add Israel to fairly reflect their involvement, or that adding it will somehow reflect any responsibility/blame on them. It's not like there's any confusion that Israel is involved. I'm actually much more sympthetic to the reverse, i.e. by excluding Israel we're not reflecting that they are affected.

But since most of the media accept that the conflict has affected Gaza much more than Israel, whoever is to blame, I don't feel it's a big deal.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

How inclusive the title is and which names to assign to the participants are two orthogonal issues. I, for one, would prefer the front page link to read "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and the linked article to be titled "2014 Israeli–Palestinian conflict" so you're categorically wrong in your assertion that "if the people making these suggestions really wanted to include all of the participants they wouldn't be arguing for a title that leaves out one". Not enough people share my POV to sway the consensus on the article talk page, and not enough people share my POV for me to suggest "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" here. That's why I'm compromising and settling for the lesser evil of "Israel–Gaza". WinterWall (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please reread that discussion and notice that the vast majority of the responses (including my own) were directed at the temperamental OP (that is, the poster) instead of the topic itself. Only three people, HiLo48, Formerip, and Khajidha, brought up the location-of-conflict argument, and HiLo48 only brought it up to teach OP a lesson about AGF. Two posters among a dozen is hardly consensus. WinterWall (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nasty old discussion aside, it boggles me why can't we use the article title, excluding the <year>, of course... –HTD 15:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why do not we see Ferguson riots on the main page? Cencorship?212.156.67.30 (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nobody cares? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's being discussed here. CaptRik (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of your decision on this, I think the Chess Olympiad has certainly overstayed its run as main item. The championship was held 1–14 August 2014 and today its 21 August, seven days past the event. How is it still staying as our main choice amazes me. Actually nothing significant happened from 14 to now to overtake this chess item in Wikipedia? werldwayd (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

News items are placed in chronological order. There is no 'main choice'. If you would like to nominate more recent stories, or comment on which ones should be listed, please go to WP:ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 15:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Heh. The German and French ITNs have this story. The English ITN, presumably the language in Ferguson, doesn't. How on earth. –HTD 15:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Well that's because we don't consider the level of coverage of a topic, or how good the article is or isn't, or how much it is in the news anywhere. The only thing that matters is "Is it happening in, or related to, the U.S. in any significant way" If the answer to that question is ever "yes", we're not allowed to post it. It's the unwritten rule of ITN. --Jayron32 03:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Where exactly was Robin Williams from, then? Or Lauren Bacall, for that matter. Neljack (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Let's just say it'll be much easier to post a 1993 Super Bowl championship from a Los Angeles NFL team to ITN than the 1992 Los Angeles riots. –HTD 13:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Being over 20 years old, I doubt either would meet ITN's 'newer than the current oldest item' criterion. Modest Genius ^talk 13:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Heh. I was going to make a St. Louis Rams example but they suck. A Los Angeles NFL team winning this season's Super Bowl, a sure ITN shoo-in, has a higher chance of happening than that from St. Louis. –HTD 14:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You wrote 1993 Super Bowl, not 2015 Super Bowl. --anon. 71.183.139.60 (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was going to reference the 2015 Super Bowl, but the St. Louis Rams suck. So I used another example of an NFL team in a city where people rioted. I was implying that the 1993 Super Bowl would be easier to post to the English Wikipedia ITN now than the events in Ferguson because that's how bad ITN is. People have been ranting elsewhere that there are no ITN events, and Robin Williams stuck too long. Well, they skipped this one and they're still ranting. –HTD 20:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, so you should have written Had Wikipedia existed in 1992 and a team from Los Angeles won the Super Bowl in 1993... But doesn't a blurb about the Super Bowl appear in ITN every year regardless of which teams played in it? --anon. 71.183.139.60 (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm too surprised, this was one of the most discussed topics (along with Ukraine, Ebola and Gaza) in the news media in my country in the past week. I was even more surprised when I noticed the disapproving reaction of editors at WP:ITNC and then I found the article What is Ferguson doing on Europe's front pages? by The Economist. The US-centric or Euro-centric attitude plays its role I would say. The Ferguson sad story seems to be stale for WP:ITN now. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Considering the whole event has been a storm in a teacup, there's little wonder it wasn't posted here, and more of a negative for the other Wikipedias who posted it that let the bright lights of American media "outrage" blur their vision. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

ಠ_ಠ --anon. 71.183.139.60 (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why was the picture of Mirzakhani taken down from ITN and replaced with Robin Williams? Where was the consensus or discussion for this?--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Mirzakhani image was deleted over at commons as a copyvio. See here for the small discussion at ERRORS. Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply