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 14:58 on 21 April 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]

Tomorrow's TFA[edit]

Errors with In the news[edit]

Per its article, Mueller Report should be italicised. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

    • Why? --LaserLegs (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Well let's put it another way, either linked article should de-italicise Mueller Report, or the main page blurb should italicise per the current format in the target article. Clearer? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
        • No, it's not clear why the target article italicizes "Mueller report", I don't understand the purpose or why it is critical to do so on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Per Manual of Style it’s a major work akin to a court report. Stephen 01:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
            • I can see how that would apply to the actual title (Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election), but "Mueller report" is just a description. You don't italicize "Shakespeare play" or "Hitchcock film", so why italicize "Mueller report"? --Khajidha (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
            • To avoid comments of "those aren't single things", you also don't italicize "Zapruder film". --Khajidha (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Or Starr Report. --Khajidha (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
              • I agree with Khajidha, it isn’t necessary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
                • Then remove italics from the article first, as we generally defer to there. Stephen 04:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
                • This one is quite straightforward, as Stephen says (and as I said right from the off), make it consistent. Who cares either way, really, but make it consistent. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a school project. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
In my experience, italicization of titles generally is reserved for works of art, e.g. novels, poems, films, paintings, etc., plus non-fiction books/films in the same genres. (They are sometimes rendered in quotes instead.) There's also a tradition of italicizing ships' names, which I rather like. But bureaucratic reports or government proclamations don't generally take italicization. – Sca (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to come weigh in here. --Khajidha (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The Peruvian president piece says that he "commits suicide". The word 'commits' is pejorative. A better phrasing would be "kills himself".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talkcontribs)
"Commits suicide" is the normal English phrasing. --Khajidha (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
So was "negro man". Language changes. "kills himself" is NPOV. "Commits suicide" is not. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, language changes. No, it has not changed on this point. --Khajidha (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it has.[1] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Witness the fact that "commit suicide" returns three times the results of "kills himself". Also, "kills himself" seems less formal and does not seem to be in an encyclopedic tone. --Khajidha (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no requirement that blurbs have to use COMMONNAME. That policy is for article titles. This is a question of WP:BLP. Commits suicide accuses the subject of a crime.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I see no accusation of criminal behavior in that phrase. --Khajidha (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
If I say you committed infanticide, or fratricide, or homicide, or regicide. Would I not be accusing you of a crime? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
All of which are crimes. As suicide is not a crime (at least where I'm from) saying that one commits it is not accusing someone of a crime. --Khajidha (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, we don't know if it is a crime in Peru. If it is a crime we have to say "allegedly". Since we don't know and we have an alternative why not use it. "Kills himself" is not slang. It is just something that we are not used to hearing. According to our article on suicide legislation, suicide is a crime in some countries. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
English phrasing is not bound by Peruvian law. --Khajidha (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
So we perfectly willing to adopt a Euro-centric view point and say that "commits suicide" cannot be interpreted to imply a crime because suicide is not a crime in most of the western world. Sure why not. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
This Wikipedia uses common English language terms. "commit suicide" is apt. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
We are not an advocacy group. The standard phrase is still “commit suicide.” Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yet we choose more neutral wording in a variety of situations where certain phrasing is contentious and has WP:BLP issues. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Assuming that suicide is illegal in Peru (I have no idea if it is or not), we would have the same issue with "killed himself". By your reasoning would still need to include "allegedly". --Khajidha (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
There are many situations where "killed someone" is not a crime (self-defense, war, execution, etc.) but I can't think of any situation where "commits homicide" is not interpreted as a crime. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
We can also simply say "The former President of Peru Alan García dies after he shoots himself when a warrant is issued for his arrest." Similar to the article in question. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"Simply?" Your phrasing seems like a more complex construction than the simple "commits suicide". It's a blurb, not an article. --Khajidha (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
See straw man. This blurb is 12 characters longer at 110 characters. Well within our usual length for blurbs. It simply states the actions taken without implying criminality.
You are assuming that "commits suicide" implies criminality. --Khajidha (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Commits certainly does.[2][3] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
How does "to carry into action deliberately" imply criminality?--Khajidha (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
What a dubiously selective quote. Webster: "1. to carry into action deliberately : PERPETRATE // commit a crime //commit a sin". Oxford: "1. Perpetrate or carry out (a mistake, crime, or immoral act) ‘he committed an uncharacteristic error’". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
So "commit a sin" implies that sins are criminal? "Commit an error" implies that errors are criminal? --Khajidha (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Also on Alan García: the term President of Peru should be in initial lowercase, as it denotes an office, rather than a title (see MOS:JOBTITLES). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 02:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Sca (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Sri Lanka: death toll now at least 207. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I've bumped the casualty figure in the main page to "at least 200" and will keep an eye out for significant changes in the media. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Errors in On this day[edit]

Today's OTD[edit]

  • I am hoping that my edit to Easter today makes it so that it can be added to the observances section of OTD. I pinged howcheng here but in case he isn't around at midnight UTC, could someone else verify/add it? Killiondude (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I was also looking at this and wondered why it wasn't there. Note: it should probably look something like this—Easter (Western Christianity, 2019)—since Eastern celebrates Easter a week later. BenevolentBeast (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Many paragraphs that end without a references, many paragraphs lacking a single reference. Not good enough I’m afraid. Stephen 03:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I've never seen a page with 100+ citations deemed inadequate. Most be a coincidence this and Good Friday didn't get posted. Calidum 03:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)\
You act like getting posted is to be expected. It seems to me that the default is that an article will not get posted. Each article needs to show itself to be up to the standards required. NOTHING should get a free pass. These problems have been tagged for quite some time, yet they have not been corrected. If you want something on the Main Page, you need to make sure it is Main Page worthy. Instead of complaining that it is not here, go fix the problems. You have one week to get it ready for the Eastern observance. Or nearly one whole calendar year to get it ready for 2020. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Stephen, last year it was not on the main page for the first half of the day due to the specific section in question, which no longer has a section maintenance tag. I must say that I agree with at least part of what Calidum said above, which is that the page has over 100 citations and from what I've seen linked from the MP there are similar quality articles posted. Killiondude (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Number of citations present is irrelevant as they could all be in support of one particular fact. --Khajidha (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Citation needed in the lead and orange tagged section. Calidum 03:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Empty section simply removed. A single cn is not a preclusion for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
14+ citations needed. Calidum 03:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but per your claim above re:Easter, it does have 60+ citations! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD[edit]

Errors in Did you know...[edit]

Current DYK[edit]

  • "... that the 1862 Easter hymn "Christ Is Risen! Christ Is Risen!" (Jesus after Resurrection pictured) by Gurney was virtually unknown until two revised versions were sent to the United States?" - I find it impossible to believe that a hymn in A&M was "virtually unknown". It might not have been known in the USA, but, and I know this will shock some Wikipedians, the USA is not the world. Also, the ref used for the sentence in the article "Gurney's original musical composition received little attention beyond his original self-publication" does not support that sentence or claim in any way. And while we're on it, why "Gurney" not Archer Thompson Gurney? DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    • It clearly says that the original composition of Christ Is Risen! Christ Is Risen! received little attention beyond those who read the self-published version. It was only when the Gilbert & Sullivan version came out that it regained popularity. Also the source clearly says "The original, which is seldom found outside the author's Collection". Happy Easter. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Next DYK[edit]

Next-but-one DYK[edit]

Errors in the featured picture[edit]

Today's POTD[edit]

Tomorrow's POTD[edit]

The credit line for tomorrow's POTD could also mention the photographer's first name ("Wolfgang"; see here). In addition, Resurrection in the "Recently featured" line should be italicised. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 08:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list[edit]

Monday's FL[edit]

Friday's FL[edit]

General discussion[edit]

Copyright discussion re File:Tottenham hotspur 1901 team.jpg[edit]

  • (Tottenham) The photo is PD in the US but not the UK. Why is it eligible for the Main Page? Just curious. 72.94.18.179 (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    Fixed. It's a good point. I've replaced the image with an older team photo that has been signed off as good for Commons.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    Amakuru: Can you clarify the issue?
    Fair-use media aren't permitted on the main page, but I'm not aware of any policy (or informal convention) extending this restriction to material in the public domain in the United States, where the Wikimedia Foundation is based. The image in question is ineligible for transfer to the Wikimedia Commons, but that doesn't affect its usage at Wikipedia (beyond necessitating that it be hosted here).
    Any concerns related to downstream reuse are of far greater relevance to the actual article (where the image appears on a public-domain basis, without any reliance on – or even mention of – a fair use claim), which is vastly more likely to be republished than a TFA blurb is. —David Levy 18:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    This must be a fairly rare occurrence, because the period of discrepancy between US and other copyright laws is small. The rules governing what can and can't go on the main page seem to be murky and not well codified, or if they are I haven't found where. But the fact that the image can't be uploaded to commons should be enough of a red flag that we use other options as we did here. Much as the servers are hosted in the US, the editing community are based all over the world and an image which is copyrighted in its own country poses a legal risk that is simply unnecessary in a case like this.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru: Wikipedia is subject to U.S. copyright law. If an image is in the public domain in the U.S., no such legal risk exists. Otherwise, its transclusion in the article would be equally problematic. (It's important to avoid confusing this with fair use, wherein legality is contingent upon suitable context. That's why fair-use images aren't permitted on the main page, where the absence of the article's full prose greatly weakens this justification.)
A great deal of media appearing on our main page may be non-free to many of the site's readers. Per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights:

While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries. For example works of the U.S. federal government are in the public domain in the United States and widely used on Wikipedia, but they may not be in the public domain outside the United States.

This includes Commons-hosted media, which need only be free in the U.S. and the country of origin – and might be non-free elsewhere. This is not a rare occurrence; it's merely one that doesn't specifically preclude Commons hosting (without impacting Wikipedia hosting) unless one particular country (the country of origin) is affected.
In other words, a file bearing the template advising against a Commons transfer is not necessarily free in fewer countries than a Commons-hosted image is. Such tagging merely indicates that the material is free in the United States (and therefore free for the purposes of Wikipedia) but not free in its single country of origin. It's possible for such a file to be free everywhere else on the planet. Likewise, it's possible for a Commons-hosted file to be free in only one or two countries and non-free throughout much or all of the rest of the world. Again quoting Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights:

"it is the responsibility of contributors to determine that content they wish to contribute is free of copyright constraints in the United States and to supply as much copyright information as possible so that users can judge for themselves whether they can reuse our material outside the United States. It is the responsibility of reusers to ensure that their use of Wikipedia material is legal in the country in which they use it.

The intent behind the TFA image's replacement was laudable (and I want to stress that point, lest I come across as someone who doesn't take the site's free-content mission seriously), but the premise that it solved a problem was rooted in a misunderstanding of copyright and conflation with the concept of fair use. —David Levy 06:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@David Levy: as a Commons admin, perhaps you can tell me the background for the rule banning works that are copyrighted in their country of origin, as well as those that are non-free in the US? I am not entirely sure why a rule that would apply there should not apply here, since both are hosted on the same servers and Wikimedia and individual editors are subject to the same risk of litigation in either case. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Files uploaded to English Wikipedia are "local files" which means that they can only be used on English Wikipedia pages, whereas files uploaded to Commons are "global files" which means they can be used on any Wikimedia Foundation project page. Since copyright law can vary quite a bit from country to country, some language Wikipedias have different policies and guidelines when it comes to image use and licensing; for example, Commons doesn't accept any fair use content, but some local Wikipedias like English Wikipedia do (per WP:NFC) and others like Norwegian Wikipedia don't at all. My guess is that local Wikipedias are primarily only concerned about whether the content is being used appropriately per their respective country's copyright laws when determining how the file should be licensed on its pages. Another example of this on English Wikipedia, {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is sometimes used for files which are WP:PD in the US, but not it their countries of origin; these files are still local files, but they licensed as PD based upon US copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This explanation is helpful. The relevant distinction is that Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia, not a free media repository.
(As a minor point, the relevant definition of "free" encompasses works free of copyright and copyrighted works released under free licenses.) —David Levy 09:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

(reset) Have there been any cases where this 'multiple copyright expiration dates' has proved an actual issue (rather than 'this is slightly early in the context' and an alternative is found)? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Online Wiki name search?[edit]

Why isn't my wiki profile and bio not appearing online when I do a name search? Byron J. Walker (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Because, by default, Wikipedia uses the "noindex" function on most pages outside of the article space, that is user pages and user talk pages get "noindexed" by default. This tells search engines like Google to not use those pages in search results. See WP:NOINDEX for more information. This is because, as an online encyclopedia, only the actual, encyclopedic content (i.e. the articles themselves) are the "front facing" part of Wikipedia. The rest of Wikipedia (policy pages, discussions, user pages, etc.) aren't meant for that purpose. --Jayron32 16:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Byron J. Walker: But see also WP:NOTWEBHOST. Isa (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Depending on what you mean by "name search" you may have confused user pages for part of the encyclopedia. User pages are not part of the encyclopedia, but just a courtesy to facilitate communication and understanding between Wikipedia's editors.
There is no legitimate way to get yourself "listed" in the main encyclopedia, except to live a remarkable and encyclopedic life. ApLundell (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)