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 21:55 on 11 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.

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)

Errors with "In the news"

• Found this on the ITN/C page: looks like someone had a complaint about the Chemistry Nobel. Not sure if this is an important change we care about. Natg 19 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is awarded jointly to Demis Hassabis and John M. Jumper for their work on protein structure prediction and David Baker for his work on computational protein design." should be "The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is awarded to David Baker for his work on computational protein design and jointly to Demis Hassabis and John M. Jumper for their work on protein structure prediction." (David Baker should come first as per the official award announcement: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2024/press-release/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:54A0:6E01:766:542F:EF4C:9956 (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I know that David Baker is listed first in the official announcement but I decided to but Hassabis and Jumper first because that one has a smoother flow and it needs to be listed first that the award was awarded jointly and it is not that clear when it is mentioned in the middle of the sentence. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 16:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume there are no bad intensions but this grossly misrepresents the relative importance of the recipients of the prize. Even more so now that a photo of D.H. has been added. The most important recipient is D.B., please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:54A0:6E01:766:542F:EF4C:9956 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source indicating that the ordering of the Nobel Prize press release indicates relative importance and not, say, alphabetical order of surnames. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Do reliable sources read any intentional emphasis in Nobel's ordering of awardees? I'm in agreement with PoP that the current order reads clearer. Nobel is not consistent about order (see this article for example). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

While I am not a fan of the language used by the IP on the talk page, come on folks -- make an update to stay consistent with the citation and let’s move on. Ktin (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm also in agreement with PoP that the current order reads clearer. Schwede66 04:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The announcement says The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2024 with one half to [Baker] and the other half to jointly to [Hassabis and Jumper][1] No opinion of whether it's notable for distinction or an error, but the current blurb's "awarded jointly" wording could be misinterpretted to mean that there are 3 recipients, each "receiving" 33%, as opposed to half to Baker and other half to Hassabis and Jumper. Regarding order, announcements (Nobel or not) listing alphabetically avoids these exact discussions on the significance, if any, given to the listed order.—Bagumba (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

So why can't we say half to Baker and the other half to Hassabis and Jumper? Would that be too bleeding obvious? DuncanHill (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I have attempted to reword along these lines. The combination of a joint award and a divide into two makes this trickier than usual to summarise in one sentence.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Good work. I was then going to put Baker first (alphabetical), but figured Hassabis is currently pictured, so its OK to leave his part first. —Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Screw up

My nomination of 2021 Naperville–Woodridge tornado was changed last-second, and it works but helicity does not have a threshold, it has a gradient. Saying it has a hard threshold instead of at the very least a "reasonable" threshold is incorrect. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"Reasonable" is incomprehensible in the given context. Instead, I've changed "required" to "favorable", which is the word used by the source. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Cock up

... that a baby penguin from Australia is "an absolute unit"?

It sounds like a peacock to me. I contemplated clicking through to find out more but that would be rewarding this gushing puff. Who's claim is this and is it a definite fact? Googling "absolute unit", it seems to have multiple meanings. The respectable definition is "a unit of measurement which is defined in terms of the fundamental units of a system (mass, length, and time), and is not based on arbitrary definitions." And then there's recent slang which seems to mean that something is big – see wikt:absolute unit, this blog, &c. Per WP:TONE, "Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner." Andrew🐉(talk) 07:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:TONE applies to articles, not hooks. With regard to this particular hook, it's a lighthearted hook that suits the subject matter, and will probably be very effective in attracting interest, which serves our educational purpose. Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Slang should usually be avoided in blurbs, but in this case it's in a direct quote so we can't modify or rephrase it, and it's a bit late to select a different blurb. There should be a link to wiktionary, as there already is in the article, because many of our readers won't understand the phrase. Viz absolute unit. Modest Genius ^talk 10:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've added the link per this discussion. I understood it, even as a North American millennial, but I agree that a link improves comprehensibility. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  All well and good, but how is this a definite verifiable fact that is unlikely to change? The article attributes this label to "fans" and the cited source says that the penguin has been "affectionately dubbed" as an absolute unit. It's a fun term and all but This doesn't seem like something that qualifies for a hook under the DYK criteria.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I always took WP:DYKHOOK's "unlikely to change" to mean that it will still be true by the time that it's finally posted, not that it needed to be worded to be true for eternity. —Bagumba (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Shameless self-plug for an essay I wrote on DYK and attribution; historically, DYK accepts quirky hooks of this nature if the hook is verifiably true on its face. Since there's not really any contest to the assertion that the penguin is large, and this is a common descriptor for them, I'd say that this hook fits fairly within what we've run in the past. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

So, not a peacock, just a fat baby penguin. Shame we didn't mention Katy Perry wanting to kiss a paste made of crushed garlic, pine nuts, salt and basil leaves? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: It can't be that fat, otherwise you couldn't just p-p-p-pick one up  ;) SerialNumber54129 12:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as milk chocolate bars filled with biscuit and chocolate cream go, it's pretty large. Kissed by Katy or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Since there's not really any contest to the assertion that the penguin is large... this chap would like a word  :) SerialNumber54129 12:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• (ec) When reviewing the article for promotion to queue, I did have questions about the use of slang. At the same time, however, looking at the archive for October, we have "barbarously scored with red chalk" without attribution, and September has "learned the hard way to live without patient 'satisfaction'" (and this was initially another unattributed quote)?, "New York's wealthiest janitor", and "a fixture in West Virginia politics", all without attribution. The only major difference is that "an absolute unit" is slang – and, as noted above, quotes don't get rephrased.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it needs attribution, it's just a paraphrase of stating its a large penguin chick. Assuming it is actually unusual for a penguin chick to weigh more than its parents, that largeness also seems a definite fact. CMD (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Adopted parents I think. Secretlondon (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the penguin chick did attract media attention specifically for its unusual size, so I'd say it's definitely warranted here. (Although I might be biased as I was involved in the DYK) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  indeed pesto is remarkably large - if you look at photos of him with the rest of the penguins at the zoo, he is larger than all of the adult penguins! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  also, i think the original complaint is frivolous but all the points i've made have already been made above, so i won't waffle about it ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(October 11, today)

• The bolded link should be more than a single word: I suggest bold-linking "discography of the Linda Lindas" in full. Also, the caption is too long for Main Page use; "The Linda Lindas performing in 2022" should be enough. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 20:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• At "with the Los Angeles-based label", pls swap hyphen to a suffix dash. JennyOz (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• "was released on October 11, 2024" - is it okay/normal to use past tense here? ('is due to be', 'will be', 'is being'?) JennyOz (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  All  Fixed. Schwede66 04:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• In "A bomb exploded in the Myyrmanni shopping center in Helsinki, Finland, (aftermath pictured) resulting in 7 deaths and 159 injuries." please move the second comma to after the parenthetical remark. —DocWatson42 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

   Fixed, but it would be nice if you could post under the correct heading, DocWatson42. Schwede66 19:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Monday's FL

(October 14)

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.

Tomorrow's POTD

Europa Clipper: NASA now says "no earlier than Sunday, Oct. 13". Pinging User:Amakuru.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 01:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've trimmed to "in October 2024", which is correct as of this time stamp. October 13th has Art Tatum for what would have been his 115th birthday, and I do not think it appropriate to bump him.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

Speedy deletion?

A newish editor with no experience with WP:TFA (that I know of) decided to schedule all the November TFAs; see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2024. In the process, they signed another person's name to their own WP:TFAR request, and scheduled some articles that aren't Featured Articles. This is about the time when we usually do the November scheduling, so we need to get this fixed sooner rather than later. I think we've handled the occasional random drive-by scheduling with a speedy deletion per WP:G6 ("housekeeping") in the past. If we don't delete, then some incorrect info is displayed on at least one TFA-related page, and bots may get confused, and sometimes people who keep an eye on the blurbs get confused by the blurb history. But, for all I know, the rules on G6 have tightened up and we can't use G6 for this any more ... opinions would be appreciated. A few days from now, if there haven't been any objections, I'd appreciate it if an admin would delete every page from the November 2 TFA to the end of that month. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

No trouble with using G6 as far as I'm concerned. Schwede66 18:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Dank, from experience, G6 is regularly used at FAC for malformed or outright 'wrong' nominations (indeed, most other projects, too), so dust down your tool kit and get to it! SerialNumber54129 18:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I've done it in the past and there were no WP:INVOLVED objections, but I just felt like being careful this time. If no one else does it, I'll do it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers Dank, yes I guess better safe than sorry when it's more than just the occasional one. Btw, who was the editor in question? SerialNumber54129 20:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Dunkybrown. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll give it another couple of days (to see if there are objections or questions) before I delete these pages (but someone else may beat me to it). If there's any text that anyone would like to save from these blurbs, go ahead and save the text now somewhere in your own userspace. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Feature article

I have a suggestion can community feature Ratan Tata’s article? Or take this query to correct place. Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Shubhamgawali1: In the news/Candidates is where these discussions happen and it looks like Tata will be posted shortly. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)