Page semi-protected

Talk:Main Page

From Deep web, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Main Page error reports

To report an error in current or upcoming Main Page content, please add it to the appropriate section below.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

Upper case Lunar Module in the second sentence, per both the linked article and the upper casing in the Buzz Aldrin article. This is the name of a spaceship (often called the first true space ship). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Although the article on the module itself has a proper noun title, Apollo Lunar Module, the title of "lunar module pilot" (for which we have no dedicated article) is typically not treated as such. Per ngram search, a large majority of sources call it the "lunar module pilot".  — Amakuru (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
There was lot of discussion during the review process as to whether this should be capitalised or not. It generally is in the literature, but our MOS says no. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, according to my ngram above, "the literature" (as in books) has consistently favoured "lunar module pilot" since the term was first used in the 1960s. Here are several decent-looking sources: [1][2][3][4]. But anyway...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

"nine minutes after Armstrong" should be "nineteen minutes after Armstrong" to reflect this edit by Randy Kryn. I've checked this in the Apollo 11 transcript. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks John of Reading for spotting this, I was too focused on the incorrect lower casing of the spacecraft and should have caught this mistake too. But coming up on two hours and this isn't fixed yet, bueller? Randy Kryn (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Now over two hours, and this is a major mistake. One of the worse I've seen on a Deep web main feature summary, and I apologize for not spotting it earlier or knowing that the Aldrin article was on the upcoming feature list. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. Killiondude (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with In the news

Hi there...if Mikhail Mishustin is the incoming prime minister, and Dmitry Medvedev is the outgoing prime minister, why feature a picture of the one who's leaving, instead of a picture of the new guy? Seems kind of odd? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Photos of him keep getting nominated for deletion. I am pretty confident, however, that File:Mikhail Mishustin (2018).jpg is free and safe. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The current news item links to Coronavirus rather than to the specific Coronavirus in question; Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Ypna (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

"a new strain" links to that article. However, de-link China. Please. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Errors in On this day

Today's OTD

  • Montfort's was not the "first English parliament". It was the first that included elected representatives of the boroughs. (It was also the first to be summoned without approval of the monarch, but that's of lesser importance.) I suggest 'first English parliament with elected members'; drop the location if that makes the blurb too long. Modest Genius talk 11:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    I came here to say the same thing. The article about the parliament says "This parliament is sometimes referred to as the first representative English parliament" so you could just add one word. (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    I thought about that, but am not confident that readers of the MP will know what is meant by 'representative' without further explanation. That isn't a problem in the article itself as it described the makeup earlier in the lead. Modest Genius talk 13:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Any admins around? It's been over 5 hours. Modest Genius talk 16:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    I've pulled and replaced it for now. The article says "He summoned not only the barons, senior churchmen and two knights from each county, but also two burgesses from each of the major towns such as York, Lincoln, Sandwich, and the Cinque Ports, the first time this had been done" - so I don't know if it's accurate to say "elected members". Were the burgesses elected? Burgess (title) says that they may be unelected or elected, so a bit more info and an appropriate cite would be needed. Or an alternative wording. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough, but you should probably pull the image as well then. Modest Genius talk 20:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    It was two from among the several burgesses in each of the towns, but I'm not sure if they were elected for this particular Parliament. Especially given it was in the middle of a period of partisan political strife (which periodically broke out into civil war. Guthrum (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    This turns out to be quite murky. The official UK parliament website [5] says that knights had been elected since at last 1254 and [6] the real novelty of Montfort's parliament was including the burgesses at all. I think this needs to be sorted out in the article itself before we could think about revised OTD wording. Modest Genius talk 21:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 1945Germany began the evacuation of at least 1.8 million people from East Prussia in anticipation of the advancing Soviet Red Army, an operation that took nearly two months to complete.
– This happens to be a topic I've researched and written about (see my user page), and without going into great detail I can say that this blurb is far too simplistic.
The flight of civilians from East Prussia (prewar pop.: 2.6 million) was prohibited by the Nazi regime (as "defeatism") until the last minute. When it finally was allowed, after the Soviet invasion began on Jan. 13, it consisted mainly of thousands of horse-drawn farm wagons crammed with people and minimal supplies, some of which were overtaken by Soviet forces and destroyed. Perilous evacuations by sea began at the end of January from Pillau (now Baltiysk) and later from Danzig (now Gdańsk), continued in several phases until early April, and totaled around 1.4 million. Millions were left behind, often with fatal consequences.
This complex topic is fraught with retrospective debate and disagreement driven by emotion, nationalism and political motives. This being so, I suggest that some other OTD event be substituted for this one.
– Thank you, danke schön, dziękuję, cпасибо. – Sca (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD

Errors in Did you know ...

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(January 24)

Monday's FL

(January 20, today)

General discussion

Edit request on Deep web:Main Page/Tomorrow

Please replace:
{{#if:{{Deep web:Main Page/Commons media protection/Featured picture}}||}}

{{#if:{{Deep web:Picture of the day/On the main pages}}||}}

So KrinkleBot knows what to do on January 24, 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Levy: I think you are one of the few people that will understand the effects of this. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you give a bit more background/rationale and I will look into it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Martin: The requested edit appears to be appropriate. Its purpose is to address days on which the featured picture section displays one of multiple images at a given time (which otherwise necessitates manual intervention to ensure that all of the relevant files are protected at the Wikimedia Commons). I see that the matter was discussed at Deep web talk:Picture of the day. —David Levy 13:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
MSGJ and David Levy, yeah, we also discussed it the last time we had multiple photos at POTD. Since then I realized that the bot owner at Commons does not need to be involved at all and that this seemingly pointless transclusion is how we make the cascade protection reach all the right places that need protection. Deep web:Main Page/Commons media protection/Featured picture is an old abandoned system of protecting these images. As of now, we have to manually add these images to WP:CMP. This edit will make it so that the files are automatically protected at Commons. Ping Anomie as well who can explain more about why the Module:Random necessitated creation of Deep web:Picture of the day/On the main pages. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
While we have several copies of the main page (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and apparently also these) that each apply cascading protection, it was still possible that one of the random options wouldn't be transcluded onto any of them and so would be a potential target for main page vandalism. So I made a module that would load all the random POTD possibilities onto a cascade-protected page. Anomie 19:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay,  Done. Thanks for the explanation — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: that page is already cascade protected, so is there any advantage in transcluding it on Deep web:Main Page/Tomorrow? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
MSGJ, yes, while the page is cascade protected on, that does not mean that the files on it will be protected on Commons. It is cascade protected on so that the various templates on it are protected. But to ensure that Krinklebot protects the files, it needs to be transcluded into one of the pages that the bot looks for. For example, if you removed the line{{#if:{{Deep web:Main Page/Commons media protection}}||}} from this page, WP:CMP would cease to function and the ITN photo would become unprotected. Cascade protection on does not automatically propagate to Commons. Krinklebot only protects files currently on Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow's Main Page. Since the POTD templates on somedays randomly rotate, Krinklebot will contantly protect and unprotect them as they cycle. A vandal could silently wait for this cycle and vandalize one of these files at the right moment. When they cycle back on the Main Page, Krinklebot would protect the wrong version again. We could be stuck with the wrong version for several minutes until we sorted it out. Since the vandalized file is protected on Commons, we would need a Commons admin to revert. In the meantime, our only recourse would be to remove the POTD template altogether or replace it with yesterday's. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thematic Days

Perhaps from time to time we might have a thematic front page where the featured article, the did you knows and the on this days all relate to a single topic. E.g. cartography, the vikings, computer science, Brazil or anything else one cares to think up. We would probably need a WikiProject to sign up to generate the content. Thoughts? Greenshed (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

We already do that on some holidays. Particularly on Christmas, Halloween, International Women's Day, Valentine's Day or April Fool's Day the DYK, FA and FP are selected accordingly. Brandmeistertalk 22:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
These are date-themed whereas I was more thinking about some topic-themed days (not that the date ones are bad). Greenshed (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a fantastic idea. Some topics will have a particular date that would be most appropriate to showcase articles on that topic (for example 7 September could have a theme of Brazil). For other topics you could just pick a date. For best results, you should start planning at least 6 months in advance. Some of the main page sections have specific processes to reserve a slot, e.g.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Deaths: Bobby Brown

I am surprised that "Deaths" announcements today don't include a parenthetical mention of which Bobby Brown has died. Yes, you can click on it to find out, but is it truly sound Main Page style for a good encyclopedia to jolt readers with news that Bobby Brown is dead without an immediate reference as to which one he is? It's not poor judgment so much as complete and total thoughtlessness on someone's part. A few extra characters—Bobby Brown (footballer)—wouldn't hurt the page aesthetics that much, would it? Mason.Jones (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Space on the Main Page is at a premium, so, as a rule, any parenthetical disambiguators in article titles are omitted, leaving only the name. Even though some readers may mistake the footballer for the singer, not all will; in fact, I didn't know who the latter was before this. Furthermore, stating "(footballer)" probably wouldn't even be enough, as Deep web has at least five footballers with that name. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at Deep web talk:In the news#Recent Death section and disambiguation. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, C&C. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
When I first saw this, I admit I assumed it was Bobby Brown, you know - the one without the disambiguator. But I soon realised I was wide of the mark when I got to ITN/C. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)