Open main menu

Main Page error reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

According to the summary (and the article intro) the gallery at Bramshill House contains many portraits. The article body, however, says the Long Gallery "formerly" contained a collection of portraits (2 refs). I checked because I recalled seeing a photo of it when it served as the Police College library. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, are you asking for a simple removal of "containing many portraits." ? --valereee (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest substituting its length for the portraits detail, and I think the portraits should also come out of the lead. Pinging Giano, since I was only involved with the article in the early stages of its expansion; Eric Corbett was lead editor for the serious work. (Courtesy ping; he can't log in to receive it.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Recusing. - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I've removed "containing many portraits" from the blurb, the length was already in the blurb. --valereee (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I’ve looked and I don’t know the answer. I’ve asked Eric for clarification and said I’ll paste in any text he sends me. Isn’t it a nuisance when these incompetents ban one of the chief content editors; it does show a certain lack of respect for content. Giano (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with In the news

Please replace "a unanimous verdict" with "an unanimous verdict". Thank you. CRau080 (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but it is based off the pronunciation and not the spelling, so since it is pronounced 'you', a unanimous vote is correct. Kees08 (Talk) 22:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Errors in On this day

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Errors in Did you know ...

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

  • (WBLK). The American expression is "return to the air". Jmar67 (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
      Fixed Agreed, "back on air" might have been ok, and is the wording in the source, but "return to air" seems less common (unless headlinese?).—Bagumba (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    I've since changed it to "returned to the air" due to some sourcing discrepancies.—Bagumba (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

I just added a period in where it seemed to be missing. Wasn't sure whether there might have been something else missing -- is section the correct last word in that sentence? --valereee (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Your change looks good to me. Kees08 (Talk) 02:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Tomorrow's POTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Monday's FL

(November 18)

Friday's FL

(November 22)


General discussion

Today's featured picture is pornographic

This is not on the main page anymore. Discussions of the image in question should be directed to the talk page of the image. --Jayron32 16:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It doesn't matter how old it is, it was clearly made to be pornographic. Why is that on the main page where children will see it? Dream Focus 15:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The painting is a Renoir in an art museum open to the general public and only shows women's breasts, and the caption statesa purpose other than "the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal"(our definition of pornography). The intent of Renoir was "Renoir's intention was to reconcile the modern forms of painting with the painting traditions of the 17th and 18th centuries, particularly those of Ingres and Raphael", not sexual arousal. Museums around the world are full of paintings like this. The picture for that box is decided in advance. I'm not going to tell you whether it should or should not offend you, but it's not pornography. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Why should we give a damn about whether or not children see art on the main page?--WaltCip (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it's laudable to have art on the main page where everyone, including children, can see it. If this also helps enlighten people, including children, about the artistic genius of Pierre-Auguste Renoir, then so much the better. I hear that 19th-century paintings of female nudes may also offend other groups. But that's a risk we'll just have to take, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
See, I was pretty certain that such historical artworks are generally not considered pornography even if they should, because It's Not Porn It's Art When It's So Old. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure it's also useful if it sparks discussion. But I guess I'm going to be inherently biased. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC) p.s. they don't look much over 30 to me
  • If you think a normal depiction of human bodies is pornographic or somehow damaging to children, it is you how has the problem, not us. Fgf10 (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we can all now agree that the partially clothed image of Ermina Zaenah is not damaging to children. Even if she has got a fan? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

For convenience: here's the image. Geolodus (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 14, 2019

  • I looked at the summary again and one thing should be clarified. At the moment, it reads like Hinault battled with both Fignon and LeMond in 1985 and 1986, but this only applies to LeMond. I'd recommend changing it to "the latter of whom he battled". Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Lemond was a teammate, not an ex-teammate, in those years. That sentence needs reviewing at the moment, because the subject of the first verb (his rivals) is not that of the final clause (Hinault, in relation to his retirement), but no indicator of new subject except in a parenthetical clause. There is nothing sourced in the article describing these men explicitly as his rivals, except in their competing specific races with him. Given that Lemond supported him in '85, and the favour was, at least expressed as, returned in '86, I don't believe that "battled", or even "rivals", really describes the situation. Kevin McE (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I am open to finding a better term here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
In terms of sourcing, I think it would be better to drop that whole rivalries sentence, and maybe use the available characters for the 'patron' info from the end of the lead para. Kevin McE (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The "World Road Race title" should not be in a list of races that he won: the title is not a race, use "World Championship road race" instead (lower case rs). Kevin McE (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The two titles are interchangable, but I don't mind if it is changed here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Essential errors of fact appearing on the MP:

  • The world road race title should not be capitalised, and is not a race (in is among a list of races);
  • Fignon did not compete in the 1985 Tour de France, and was not competitive for overall victory when he pulled out of the 1986 race;
  • Lemond was a teammate, not a former teammate or a rival, of Hinault in those years;

and we have an unsignalled change of verb subject in that sentence (His principal rivals did not retire at the end of 1986)

  • Hinault retired at the World Championships on 6 September, not at the end of the year (or even of the season).

As to the first, I would suggest replacing "World Road Race title"(sic) with "World Championship road race" (as in the article lead).

If we are to retain the part about rivals, I would suggest "His principal rivals included Joop Zoetemelk and those who defeated him in the 1984 and 1986 Tours de France, Laurent Fignon and Greg LeMond. Hinault retired in 1986, and remains the most recent French winner of the Tour de France." However, this selection of rivals is a synthesis (WP:OR) of what is in the article: it is not sourced, it is not explicit in the article. And it could be challenged: Lemond was a teammate, a great help in Hinault's 85 Tour win, and in many other races over 5 years that they were on the same team, and Lemond's win in the 86 Tour was the team plan, not the vanquishing of a rival, although Hinault did not conform to the team directions on some stages. My suggestion: drop the rivalries sentence altogether, and import the final sentence of the article's lead para, about him being a 'patron'. Kevin McE (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Also no good reason to link common words like "badger". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm dealing with some stuff here and won't be able to help, do whatever you guys (non-sexist "guys") think is best. - Dank (push to talk) 10:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Um, we can't? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
"you guys" meaning everyone. I'm sorry, I really can't help right now. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

So that's it? If Dank is not available, no other Admin is willing to make corrections? Kevin McE (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I've unlinked badger, which was pretty straightforward, but I'm a little confused about what all is being replaced by what all with the rest, though. I kind of hate to futz with FA when I have zero idea how that works. --valereee (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I've just seen this, and obviously there's no point spending time messing with it now when it's going to be off the MP in less than half an hour. It is quite ridiculous though that this has remained untouched for, what, 17 hours (and that's not counting the stuff that was posted yesterday)? Kevin/TRM, can I suggest if this sort of thing happens again that you drop a quick note onto AN or ANI, which far more admins are watching? Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Should we really be posting every admin request that should be dealt with at Project X at AN/ANI? That just clutters up AN, and doesn't necessarily get the attention of someone who is familiar enough with FA to handle this. In this case I would need someone to say "Delete markup X and replace it with markup Y," as I don't know the article and don't know FA and the number of issues mentioned here plus all the suggested -- and sometimes conflicting? -- solutions looked like a complete rewrite. I doubt it's that there was no admin who saw this. I think it's more likely there was no admin who saw it and thought, "Here's a problem I know how to solve." I saw it, changed the badger thing, and then for the rest of it thought, "I have no clear idea what I'm being asked to do." valereee (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
That describes my situation too. I know nothing about cycling, and wasn't going to touch it without clear directions and consensus. Should also look at the prep and review process on how there was so much disputed content that made it.—Bagumba (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I did not have a chance to read this, busy today IRL, but I prefer request to be in the form of Is, Should Be, Because, example:
  • Is: Fourth hook copy/paset of hook
  • Should be: copy/paste of hook
  • Because: Obvious typo
It makes life a lot easier if the admin does not have to figure out the solution. I know I can fix some things quickly during a work break or something, but it is less likely when I have to find the hook and figure out what change actually needs made. Some of the suggestions above are clear and others require me to sit down for a few minutes and figure it out, when the proposer likely has something in mind. Kees08 (Talk) 05:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee:, @Bagumba:, @Kees08:: I made what I would consider very clear suggestions ("As to the first, I would suggest..."; "If we are to retain the part about rivals, I would suggest..."; "My suggestion: drop the rivalries sentence altogether, and import..."). I did see the blurb some time ago, but ironically because it is a subject I am particularly interested in, I was less focussed on the grammar, semantics and referencing than usual and went on a link-hopping read instead. Kevin McE (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kevin McE: I honestly read part of it on a break, got a few sentences in and it looked really involved, so I stopped and went back to work. If the clear suggestions were at the top I personally would have been more likely to act on them. To make it even easier, instead of As to the first, I would suggest replacing "World Road Race title"(sic) with "World Championship road race" (as in the article lead). you could say ...and the World Road Race title in 1980.... should be ...and the World Road Race title in 1980..., per the target article's lead. That makes it easier for me because I do not have to read the blurb several time (or ctrl+F it I guess) to make sure I did not miss another instance of 'title' in the blurb. For the rivals, I would suggest leading with the suggestion and then have the reasoning after it. Also, saying specifically what you recommend to delete (quoted exactly) and copy/paste what you wanted in from the article's lead here. I never want to go on a hunt for all the information that someone wants to fix in a time-sensitive WP:ERRORS fix, especially if it is something I could fix during a break in my work day. Honestly, I just read your suggestions several times and I am still not clear what all the suggested changes are. There are the two I just talked about, but there are four bullet points, I think three of them pertain to the rivals paragraph? Maybe other admins prefer a different format, but I am quicker to act when it is clear what change needs to be made. I saw it and did not act because of that, sorry. I cannot guarantee I will respond to every ERRORS request, but I will do the best I can with the time I have available. Kees08 (Talk) 08:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do remember looking at the request to change "World Road Race title" to "World Championship road race", saw that it was piped to 1980 UCI Road World Championships – Men's road race which had a link to 1980 UCI Road World Championships, and thinking the "right name" wasn't obvious to me, so I left it for an admin knowledgeable on cycling or for others to comment and affirm. This probably doesn't happen often, and may not have made a difference anyways, but separating each request to separate bullet points or line items can help see all the issues easier.—Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I made exactly the same attempt, because at first it looked like another straightforward fix, and had exactly the same confusion once I saw the pipe. --valereee (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Kevin McE, that complete paragraph was If we are to retain the part about rivals, I would suggest "His principal rivals included Joop Zoetemelk and those who defeated him in the 1984 and 1986 Tours de France, Laurent Fignon and Greg LeMond. Hinault retired in 1986, and remains the most recent French winner of the Tour de France." However, this selection of rivals is a synthesis (WP:OR) of what is in the article: it is not sourced, it is not explicit in the article. And it could be challenged: Lemond was a teammate, a great help in Hinault's 85 Tour win, and in many other races over 5 years that they were on the same team, and Lemond's win in the 86 Tour was the team plan, not the vanquishing of a rival, although Hinault did not conform to the team directions on some stages. My suggestion: drop the rivalries sentence altogether, and import the final sentence of the article's lead para, about him being a 'patron'. You're suggesting a change, questioning whether that change represents OR and would be challenged, and suggesting an alternate change all in the same paragraph. And that's just one paragraph of a change request that is five times as long as the blurb. This did not feel to me like "very clear suggestions". --valereee (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

How to work in other main page sections

I'm feeling like as someone who frequents errors but is primarily working in DYK, I should have some passing familiarity with the other sections so I can assess whether a requested change is likely to be considered helpful by others working in that area. What can I do in other areas that will help me figure out whether I should even be messing with those main page sections except to correct clear and obvious issues? For instance, is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 14, 2019 and its talk where I would check to see if there had been past discussion on yesterday's FA blurb? I see most of these don't have their talk page created; does that discussion happen elsewhere, or is the consensus usually reached by direct editing? In the opinion of those working in FA, should admins not familiar with FA be futzing with anything except very obvious errors? Ditto other areas of the main page -- how can I get myself up to speed so I can at least assess whether I know what I don't know? --valereee (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

If you need a guide through the safari, I may be able to help. I can teach you how to promote blurbs through TFA, ITN, OTD, and POTD. I have no idea how FL works and you don't need me to help you with DYK. The only way to learn is by doing. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, a that would be great! Tell me where to start. --valereee (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
One of the first edit summaries on any TFA blurb page will tell you where the blurb came from. In this case, it points you to User:Johnboddie/sandbox (where John and I originally worked on the blurb) and to the blurb review page, WT:Featured article candidates/Bernard Hinault/archive2. Note that no one said anything on the latter page, even though most of that FAC's participants probably had the page watchlisted; that's part of the problem here. Also note that the last time we had a blowup like this one, in mid-September, there was a long, vigorous discussion that led to a new subsection, WP:ERRORS#Day-after-tomorrow's FA, so that ERRORS people wouldn't be forced to do everything last-minute (I was sick yesterday and couldn't help), and so that we could ping the nominator(s) and the supporters from the FAC and give them a full 24 hours to respond, rather than cutting them off in mid-discussion as happened in September. It would be helpful if people would use the new subsection. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so around August 10, this blurb was started at Johnboddie/sandbox, received lengthy work, moved to hinault/archive2, where it received a few more tweaks, then was slotted for Nov 14 on Oct 27, which gave it over two weeks to get final tweaks. Both editors who made errors reports edited the blurb during that time -- actually they were the two that edited it LAST -- and neither had concerns great enough to create the talk page there. I'm not sure why this became an emergency on the day it appeared. I'm glad I know better how to assess what discussion has happened for TFA -- thanks, Dank, for the tutorial -- but now that I know all this, I think it was the right decision not to make the requested changes. --valereee (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I missed some of the things on my first look on 6 Nov, as I have admitted above, but to go from "Kevin only noticed an error the second time he looked at it" to "It is right that that error not be addressed" is thoroughly illogical. Either unverified claims, bad grammar, bad semantics and factual error should appear on the Main Page or it shouldn't. Of course it is preferable if it is noticed earlier, but it is not responsible to say that if it is noticed late (and it was flagged up several hours before it appeared on MP, not "an emergency on the day it appeared") then the errors should stand. Kevin McE (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Kevin McE, of course we all miss things the first time we look at something. I sometimes miss them the 18th time I look. I'm just saying that knowing how many eyes had seen the darn thing, there is zero chance I'd make a major change without a consensus of very clear input from multiple people who worked on the blurb/article/FAreview/TFA in general. Grammar issues, punctuation issues, spelling issues, usage issues are different; happy to use my own judgement to provide consensus in those cases. But whether two racers should be described as rivals or teammates during a particular season...no, not without clear consensus and, ideally, very clear instructions as per Kees above. Making changes that don't have consensus and which you don't yourself understand is how much worse error gets introduced onto the main page. --valereee (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I can appreciate that. However, that is why I made two proposals (hence the conditional "If we are to retain the part about rivals"): one for if an admin were brave enough to overthrow the contentious rivalry mentions, and one if he/she were not. But the poor semantics (His rivals...retired at the end of 1986), the apparent description of Fignon as a competitor in the 85 and 86 Tours, the factual error of time of retirement, and the listing of a title among races were not remotely contentious.
And the idea that we should have followed a format that, to the best of my knowledge, had never been previously proposed is preposterous. Kevin McE (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Kevin McE, of course, sorry, I didn't mean to suggest there was some required format. I'm just offering an explanation of why I didn't feel comfortable doing this for you and a possible way you could help me feel more comfortable with future requests. --valereee (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Main Page" page.