User:Andrew Davidson/Main Page Errors

Did You Know

A bulk archive of DYK entries have been split off to a separate page. Recent entries will be compiled here.

Anna Haifisch – comic rule bender?

• ... that cartoonist Anna Haifisch (pictured) has been "bend[ing] the rules of comics"?

This sounded interesting but the article doesn't explain the rules of comics and how she bent them. It just has 'In her large-size book Drifter, she was said to "bend[...] the rules of comics."' That's a WP:WEASEL but there's a source. That has a similar headline, "Anna Haifisch bends the rules of comics in new floppy and oversized book, Drifter". But that article doesn't explain these rules or how they were broken either.

So, there's no substance or definite fact here – either in our article or in the source. See WP:HEADLINES, "headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers"

Note that a large, floppy newsprint format is normal for UK comics in my experience. US comics tend to be smaller but that's not a rule as bandes dessinées have had a variety of formats.

This hook was an ALT and there's still the original hook. That's not reliable either as it's a quote from the artist about herself.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

 Pulled, lower hook moved up to the image slot. Quoting a headline opinion as a statement of fact in wikivoice is a no-no on two policies. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Morning @Theleekycauldron: just a heads up that I've swapped out the image of Abdur Rahman Mahmudi, as it had been nominated for deletion on Commons and is of dubious copyright status. Also, for future reference, when you swap a new image on to the main page at short notice, the policy is that it must be protected on Commons before going live. Usually at DYK this isn't a problem, as it will be protected from the previous day by virtue of being in "Tomorrow's" queue. But when we do a swap, it needs a manual add. Following the process at WP:Main Page/Commons media protection and waiting for the bot to pick it up is the easiest way. Cheers and happy Friday.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I reviewed this nomination and whilst I had a lot to say, I didn't pick up on what's outlined above. Schwede66 00:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Antillean mollies

• that the small fish species Poecilia vandepolli existed, then it did not, and now it does again? What's in a name? That which we call a Poecilia vandepolli would still be as extant by any other name. "that the species classification Poecilia vandepolli existed, then it did not, and now it does again?" is awkward but works better. Sincerely, Dilettante 03:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Surtsicna ping. BorgQueen (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

   Done BorgQueen (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• I just read the new hook and it still isn't right. The species name and classification has existed ever since it was first coined in 1887. It has appeared in books such as The Fishes of North and Middle America ever since and they don't flash in and out of existence. All that has varied is the extent to which this classification and name is recognised by other people. It's quite normal for creatures to be known by many names and this doesn't affect their existence.

To fix this, please use the ALT2 hook. That was the hook recommended by the reviewer and I agree with them as it tells us something about the fish rather than its name. Notice that it ducks the issue of the Latin binomial name by using an English name instead.

• ALT2: ... that Antillean mollies solve food shortage problems by eating their own offspring?

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Done (with a slight variation of using the species name rather than the "Antillean mollies", as it was queried at the nom why that less common name was being suggested for AlT2).  — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

{{subst:dyk admins}} Apologies for the very short notice on this. I just expanded @Jeraxmoira:'s draft of Navin Chawla (judge) and published it. I think "a judge" in "... that a judge is threatening to shut down Wikipedia in India over a defamation lawsuit?" should link to it.--Launchballer 23:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: Fixing ping.--Launchballer 23:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think the link is necessary; people can get there from the bolded article. On another note, does WP:DYKBLP apply? I suppose it's whether you think shutting down Wikipedia is a negative or positve... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• When I remember that even our debates pass the GNG, sometimes I wonder...  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The comments of a judge in an article about a court case are surely covered by "unduly".--Launchballer 00:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm...we could change it to 'a court'? Valereee (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that we need the link. Schwede66 02:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

As this is an actively ongoing case in which the judge's position is interactive, it obviously violates WP:DYKHOOK requirement for "a definite fact that is unlikely to change". As the case involves defamation, it obviously violates WP:DYKBLP too. And as Wikipedia is itself a party, coverage of the matter and posting on the main page is not impartial but comes across as canvassing. And the big violation is WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, "Do not post legal threats on Wikipedia." Legal threats are supposed to be referred to the WMF, which is handling the matter. Has WMF's legal team been consulted about this? Andrew🐉(talk) 06:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The first one is solved by changed "is threatening" to "has threatened", if we have to. The second one is incorrect, there are no DYKBLP problems here as ANI is not a person and the judge's action here isn't implicitly negative. The third one is a pretty cut-and-dry use–mention distinction, unless you're arguing that DYK is making legal threats against the WMF somehow. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No objection to is>has. No objection to judge>court. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Wikipedia isn't actually a party. WMF is a party. The court doesn't really understand that, either. Valereee (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

And now Valeree is claiming to know the law better than a judge. See also WP:NOLEGAL, "Nothing on Wikipedia.org or of any project of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a legal opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of law." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not the law the court doesn't understand. It's the relationship between WMF and Wikipedia. Valereee (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I get the feeling that you've misunderstood who WP:NOLEGAL is aimed at. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should have articles on the front page about current legal cases which wikipedia/the WMF is involved in. Secretlondon (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Why not? Wikipedia should be impartial. 2A05:F6C7:9FF:0:8D1B:C6BF:B4C8:2419 (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hathumoda

• ... that an attempt to portray Abbess Hathumoda as a Christian saint after her death failed because everyone knew that she could be quite petulant?

The hook seems to place undue weight on the issue of petulance. The article doesn't put this so strongly and, in any case, the claim does not seem definite. For example, see The problem of female sanctity in Carolingian Europe which suggests that there was a double-standard in which women were discriminated against for sainthood. There therefore seem to be multiple factors, not just petulance. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Surtsicna, Silver seren, AirshipJungleman29, and Crisco 1492: who nominated or approved this and @Hydrangeans: who commented. This issue was raised at DYKT here and I don't think it was resolved. TSventon (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That discussion also says she wasn't actually proposed for sainthood either. Secretlondon (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Also a little concerned about the imprecise wording in everyone knew that she could be quite petulant. Who is everyone in this case? I'm guessing this means everyone in the community, or everyone in the church? But even then that's a hard statement to prove. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Why not just reflect the text of the article? ... that a hagiography of Abbess Hathumoda was tempered by its audience's knowledge of her flaws? Not nearly as "hooky", but it addresses all of my comments at WT:DYK. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  That would at least be a better hook, I think. "Everyone" is rather broad, when what Paxton apparently means is 'the community of people who knew her'. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That previous discussion showed that there were significant issues and that there was no consensus to run this hook. I came fresh to it and likewise spotted similar issues. It's remarkable that it's still on the main page after all this. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Does the hook say that she was actually proposed for sainthood, Secretlondon? Does the article? Surtsicna (talk)

The hook claims that this was an "an attempt to portray Abbess Hathumoda as a Christian saint" which failed. My impression is that author's exact goal is conjecture and not definite. It appears that they wrote a reasonably honest account and this can only be considered a failure if it was a formal attempt at canonisation. If it wasn't such a formal attempt then the hook's claim is a straw man. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Presumably not, from your non-question, however it's clearly misleading. Secretlondon (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

From reading other sources, I think that multiple scholars characterize Agius's biography of Hathumoda, while honest and well intentioned, as having been well within the genre of hagriography—in other words, of depicting the biographical subject as a Christian saint. Any issue with the hook or article isn't with the description of Vita Hathumodae as being, in terms of genre, a hagiography. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

suggests that there was a double-standard in which women were discriminated against for sainthood. There therefore seem to be multiple factors, not just petulance: Agreed that while Paxton concludes that the audience's familiarity with character flaws inhibited veneration of Hathumoda, it's not the only reason provided in the literature. Julia M. H. Smith (author of the article Andrew points out) also talks about the Carolingian practice of cloistering women religious (contrasted with Merovingian norms) preventing women from being as active, and the genre convention of Carolingian women biographies that focused on portraying women in terms of role models and domesticity rather than as miracle workers.

Additionally, while WP:Writing about women is about articles rather than hooks, I am a little concerned that this plays into perpetuat[ing] sexist stereotypes, howsoever unwittingly, since the hook sort of ends up being 'did you know that actually she was kind of a brat?' (especially since 'petulance' has a connotation of childishness, perpetuating an association of women with infantilism). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 to Hydrangeans' comment about the phrasing here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 Also plus one. When concerns about phrasing are brought up, and the author's response is ""Occasionally petulant" or "could be quite petulant" makes absolutely no difference. Put whatever you like.", it's not a good sign.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Also the nomination was approved with a single source for the article, AGF on the offline source that is the basis for the article (even though a large part of the source was accessible through Google books) making it more difficult for the reviewer to check whether the hook was justified. TSventon (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The hook was then changed by Crisco 1492 to

• ... that a hagiography of Abbess Hathumoda was tempered by its audience's knowledge of her flaws?

Ivan the Terrible (1945 film)

Ivan the Terrible (full film)

Part I, which is public domain

• This isn't necessarily an error, but I think it would be a good idea to replace Ivan the Terrible screenshot on DYK with the full film. We have used a full film on DYK before (Night of the Living Dead if I remember correctly). I think it's just more interesting and enticing. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Jaguarnik, thoughts on that idea? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Are we sure that the film is in the public domain in the United States? Schwede66 04:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If it's hosted on Commons, it's good enough for the Main Page, as far as I know... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

We've seen plenty of instances of things being tagged as properly licensed on commons that turned out not to be. And I agree that the goal of DYK is to get people to click through to the article and this would distract from that. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm against it. Our concern is to get our readers to click on the bolded link. Posting a 3-hour film next to it is rather distracting. Once they read the article, they would know where to watch the film. BorgQueen (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against it, but unfortunately we don't have full English subtitles yet for that film (there are partial subtitles but unfortunately there's no time to complete the subtitles before DYK is up). So assuming someone decided to watch the full film and did not know Russian (as most of the readers on ENwiki do not) they would only be able to watch about 16 minutes, so there wouldn't be much of a point for posting the full film. I'll leave it up to consensus though because it's an interesting idea. As for US public domain, the first part would be under public domain under URAA, but I'm not sure that the second part is in public domain, and the video has both parts. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

[...] I'm not sure that the second part is in public domain, and the video has both parts. Right, we can't post it on MP then. BorgQueen (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• We could just post part I (pictured), which we have as a separate file. Its thumbnail looks clearer and more interesting. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Good solution, but would we have to replace the current file in the article with the part 1 file? There's also still the issue that it has no subtitles. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

    Like user Jaguarnik above, I'm against this idea. Let's stick with the thumbnail.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Mary Jo West

• ... that Mary Jo West compared working in network TV news to learning that Santa Claus is human? we're really going to ruin Santa Claus for children in for the sake of a DYK? Obnoxious and disgusting. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

We did exactly that last month for Dead Pony and no-one whinged. Wikipedia is not censored.--Launchballer 15:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done as it’s not an Error. And I would suggest that children who believe in Santa Claus are too young to read anyway. Schwede66 16:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The more interesting question beckons, do children not think Santa Claus is human? He looks pretty human. CMD (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

So do you want the Santa Claus article to be censored as well? SL93 (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

CMD has a point and the hook does not report the subject's views accurately. She did not suggest that Santa Claus is not considered human as this would be incorrect -- he is based on Saint Nicholas and commonly "depicted as a portly, jolly, white-bearded man". Her point was that he was not actually "terrific" but was really "ordinary". Either her views should be quoted directly or the hook reworded, e.g.

• ALT ... that Mary Jo West compared working in network TV news to learning that Santa Claus is just an ordinary man?

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Masada myth

• ... that although Israel honored 27 ancient Masada skeletons with a state funeral in 1969, the story of "freedom fighters' patriotic last stand" is now known to be a myth?

Our core policy WP:V states that "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." The hook's quotation – "freedom fighters' patriotic last stand" – is not only not cited, it doesn't even appear in the article. Perhaps this is not meant to be a quotation but scare quotes instead? If so, then that is a violation of MOS:SCAREQUOTES.

This is a highly contentious topic and a recent discussion found that there was no consensus that the article should even exist. A high standard of care and caution is expected in such cases but I'm not seeing it here. In the DYK nomination, the hook was rejected by its first reviewer and it doesn't seem to have gotten a clear approval after that. My impression is that the topic was so disputed that the basic issue of checking the hook got lost in all the confusion.

Anyway, as this is a contentious topic, we should take a safety-first approach and pull the hook pending further investigation.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile pinging. I've removed the quotation marks. BorgQueen (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As such contentious topics are scary it may be that most editors are afraid to touch it and this may be a factor. An experienced admin who is familiar with the case seems needed and that would be Sandstein, ok? Andrew🐉(talk) 07:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Putting my oar in as an ancient historian, while the topic is contentious in the sense that people get very agitated about it, there's no serious scholarly disagreement on the facts: just about anyone in the field would consider the hook broadly correct. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear what the definite fact is in the hook. Is the bit about the skeletons? Is it "the story" being a myth? Exactly which story is this? Is it Josephus's account that's a myth? Is it a particular retelling such as Limdan's epic poem? Or what? The hook conflates all these things in a murky fashion so that it's hard to tell. And now, without the quotes, this is being said in Wikipedia's voice. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I was busy today. @Andrew Davidson: the answers to your question are clear in the article. In summary, Josephus is the only source for the event, but he described neither "freedom fighters", nor "patriotism", nor a "last stand". The modern myth invented all of these, and also expunged certain elements such as the massacres by the Masada Jews of other Jewish civilians.

As to the suggestion that the discussion history claims that the article is contentious, if you read all the discussion history you will see what actually happened - a few people reacted to it at first before studying it, then read the (very numerous) scholarly sources describing the phenomenon, and each time the objections then disappeared. Just like this conversation - I am certain that if you make the time to read the article and the discussions behind it, you will reach the same conclusion. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The hook was previously discussed at WT:DYK where the issue was whether this was a state funeral or military funeral, as the sources vary. This misses the key point which was that this was primarily a Jewish funeral. You see, it's a matter of Talmudic doctrine (Sanhedrin 46b) that there's a religious obligation to bury the dead and it is an especially great Mitzvah to do so when there is no family to take care of it.

So, a more accurate and attributed hook about the burial might be that:

• ALT ... that although bones found at Masada were given a Jewish funeral in 1969, Joe Zias contended that the presence of pig bones indicated that they were actually the remains of Roman soldiers? (source = Whose bones?)

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Pulled I think the points made above are valid - we shouldn't be describing them as "patriotic freedom fighters" in Wikipedia's voice, and in any case that terminology doesn't appear in the article, meaning it's not clear what's being described in the hook at all. If an alternative wording can be workshopped we can reinstate.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Would something like

... that although Israel honored 27 ancient Masada skeletons with a state funeral in 1969, the story is now known to be a myth?

work? It's the original hook without the unsourced text DimensionalFusion (talk ▪ she/her) 11:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No. For example, one point made by Zias is that the bones were quite jumbled and most estimates of the number of skeletons were a much smaller number than 27. So, that number is not definite.

And the bit about "the story" is not a definite fact. Yadin's account of the skeletons is a disputed conjecture. No-one knows for sure what the origin of those bones was just as no-one knows for sure whether Josephus' account was accurate or distorted. You have to be clear about which story you mean before you can say that it was a myth. And, as there was almost certainly a conflict at Masada, some elements seem to be correct.

The uncertainty about an event thousands of years ago makes it hard to be definite, either way. We should stick to undisputed facts rather than engaging in further myth-making. If we're talking about particular claims then we should specify them and attribute them to be clear what we mean.

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Launchballer, @SL93 as reviewer and promoters DimensionalFusion (talk ▪ she/her) 12:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with Andrew Davidson's proposed ALT above. I think DimensionalFusion's is better, perhaps without the 27 if that is a problem. The original hook without the quotes would be perfect too - it would not be saying something in Wikipedia's voice that it's true, because the "freedom fighters' patriotic last stand" is a famous modern story, and is exactly what the article describes. Perhaps the best revised hook would be the original one, without the quotes but adding the word "modern". Onceinawhile (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Pesto (penguin)

... 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)

Petitcrieu

• ... that a magical inanimate dog may have been a taxidermy dog, an automaton, or a metaphor?

This is obviously not a definite fact as required by WP:DYKHOOK – "may have been" is just a definite maybe. Other sources such as this and that describe it as a lapdog and so animate rather than inanimate. As it was fictional and magical, it could have been anything the reader imagines and so WP:DYKFICTION applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Pulled. BorgQueen (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Rabbinic period

• ... that the Rabbinic period was foundational in the ongoing development of Judaism and its traditions?

This is illogical nonsense because foundation and development are two separate phases. Judaism was obviously founded in the Biblical era when its Bible and the 10 commandments were written. What happened in the Rabbinic period was transformational, not foundational, as the rabbis replaced the priesthood that had ruled the temples which were destroyed by the Romans. What was founded in this period was obviously Rabbinic Judaism, which is a sect or schism.

Anyway, what does the source say? According to the nomination, this is the introduction to volume 4 of The Cambridge History of Judaism. I've looked at the full document and it doesn't seem to use the word "foundational". And notice that it's volume 4 not volume 1. Here's how it starts

The present volume of The Cambridge History of Judaism covers the period from the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 C E to the rise of Islam in the beginning of the seventh century. This era, after the biblical period, is the most consequential in Jewish history, for it is the era when Judaism took on its classical shape as a result of a variety of historical and religious factors, both internal and external.

So, as a quick fix, I suggest replacing "foundational" with "consequential" or "transformational".

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Venezuelan players of American football

• ... that the only two Venezuelans ever to make the NFL, Pat Ragusa and Alan Pringle, played a combined total of four games?

It's easy to find a third – see Category:Venezuelan players of American football to discover José Borregales who played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The articles are wrong because they trust Reference.com which is obviously not such a reliable source. It's based in part on Wikipedia but doesn't seem to keep up. Andrew🐉(talk) 05:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Wrong on two counts I'm afraid. That reference is not Reference.com but Pro Football Reference, who (so far as I can tell) claim that Borregales never played a game. Pinging @BeanieFan11, Chipmunkdavis, and Crisco 1492: for their input.--Launchballer 10:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked into Pro Football Reference, and it is used uncritically by the NY Times[1], and I found good independent reviews albeit in places that I wouldn't use as RS [2]. CMD (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the hook to say "played for", which avoids the ambiguity of what it means to "make" the NFL. If you've signed for a team but never played in a game, does that count as "making" the league? Yeah, I think so. But more interestingly, https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/_/id/4046356/jose-borregales and https://www.nfl.com/players/jose-borregales/ both say Borregales was born in Miami. RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The nfl.com source says "hometown", not "born". They're two different things. RachelTensions (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

See Dolphins defeat Bucs after Jose Borregales FG hits upright. That's an NFL video which seems indisputable. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Borregales only played in a preseason game, which is generally not regarded as playing in an official NFL game. Pro-Football-Reference has generally been considered a reliable source. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The NFL clearly regards such exhibition games as official. It requires players to play in them and fans to buy tickets for them, right? If you play in such an NFL game after signing with an NFL team, then you've clearly "made the NFL". Borregales is categorised in Tampa Bay Buccaneers players and so is in National Football League players. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The NFL does have fans buy tickets and players do play in them (though its generally the rookies and players trying to make the team for the regular season; experienced players often sit out) – however, in statistics, they're generally not counted (see e.g. Borregales' statistics page which lists him as playing in no games – also not included at Tampa Bay Buccaneers all-time roster). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

"The NFL clearly regards such exhibition games as official. It requires players to play in them and fans to buy tickets for them, right?" That is what we call original research caused by lack of verifiability in reliable sources. The definition of an "exhibition match/game" is "a sports game that is not part of any league or official competition". Players can play in them, and fans can buy tickets for them, but that is not the definition of an "official" game—otherwise testimonial matches in association football would be regarded as official when in reality you have elderly men or children running around a pitch. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

"The NFL Preseason ... games do not count on the teams' official records for the season"[3]. RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

They obviously don't count for a particular season because they are, by definition, pre-season. But the key point is that they are still NFL games, being billed and sold as such. And the hook is talking about the NFL in general, not a particular season. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The DYK hook doesn't mention anything about playing in regular season games, it says they're the only two to "make" the NFL. Borregales was on the roster of an NFL team, that's "making" the NFL. RachelTensions (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Although https://miamihurricanes.com/news/2023/10/12/fb-feature-andy-borregales-family-pride/ implies he was born in Venezuela (the article is mostly about José's younger brother Andy, but mentions José as well). RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

[4] also says he moved to the US from Venezuela at age 6. RachelTensions (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Featured Article

2003 Pacific hurricane season

The blurb states "The most notable cyclones during the year were Hurricanes Ignacio and Marty ... and were collectively responsible for about $1 billion (2003 USD) in damage." This figure of $1 billion is suspect. It sounds like it was produced by Dr. Evil and is not consistent with the damage values for those individual hurricanes which are elsewhere stated to be $21M (Ignacio) and $50/100M (Marty). This doesn't add up. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The figure in the Igancio article infobox ($21m) is unreferenced while the $1bn combined is referenced in both the Ignacio and the season article (to the International Research Institute for Climate and Society at Indiana University). Please work on fixes for the articles which don't have reliable sources, those ones are not on the main page and thus are available for you to edit. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• The $21M figure appears with a source in the Ignacio section of the FA. Marty seems to have been nastier than Ignacio and so the separate figures seem to make sense. It's the billion figure that is dubious. My impression is that it was a crude overall estimate rather than being the result of a detailed accounting. Anyway, as there seems to be a range of figures we should either make this uncertainty clearer or say nothing at all. Andrew D. (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• The overall figure has been reliably sourced, yes? Thus there is no uncertainty or error on the main page. If you'd like to add a footnote to the various sub-articles, please feel free to do so. Also, the source in the Ignacio section (a Powerpoint presentation from Foro Consultivo of Mexico) claims four people were killed, while the article says two. And the PPT says Marty killed 4 while the article reliably sources 12. I think we should stick with the IRI source, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• The IRI source says "Ignacio and Marty caused an estimated 1 billion USD in damage". It's not clear what the nature of that estimate was – how provisional and accurate it was. Here's another, later source from the OECD: Main Natural Catastrophes which have occurred in Mexico since 1980. The entry for "Hurricanes Ignacio y Marty" gives a figure of "43 million". That's a long way short of "about $1 billion" and is more consistent with the individual figures. Note also that the OECD report says "Even in the most advanced countries, it is very difficult to gather trustful and reliable information about the losses produced by disasters and even more difficult in developing countries like Mexico..." So, as the statistic is not reliable, I suggest that the phrase "together they were responsible for damage worth about $1 billion" be pulled. Andrew D. (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. But by all means go through every storm and hurricane article on Wikipedia excising such data, including those featured here today, to see how far you get. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• This is a criticism of the article, not the blurb. You don't like the source used in the article and you prefer a source that isn't in the article. That's not an issue for WP:ERRORS to resolve. That's something to be hashed out through edits of the article and discussions on the talk page of the article. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 11:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• What I don't like is the blurb on the main page. Note that when the article was promoted to FA, the equivalent phrase in the lead was "over $70 million (2003 USD) in damage". When the various sources and versions are considered, the billion figure seems to be an outlier – it's way outside the range agreed at FA review time. Andrew D. (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• You've been invited to edit the various pages that uses this particular reliable source to reflect reliable sources that you prefer. Now time to knock it off. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident

Today's FA is 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident. This is an interesting topic and so I read through it and looked at the background. What struck me initially is that, while this seemed to be a minor shipping snafu in the handling of these weapons, there were extensive consequences – lots of people were disciplined. It was only after I started browsing external sources that it became clear why this was such a big deal. It seems that the reason that there was such excitement is that this was "the first time that nuclear weapons had been flown over American territory in forty years." The significance of this was detailed at the Senate hearing on 12 Feb 2008

The issue this morning is very, very serious. Over a 2-day period last August, the Air Force lost control and knowledge of six nuclear warheads ... the nuclear warheads flew on the wings of a B-52 bomber from Minot to Barksdale inside of cruise missiles. No one knew where they were or even missed them for over 36 hours. ... While historically there have been nuclear weapons accidents with varying degrees of severity, no breach of nuclear procedures of this magnitude had ever occurred previously. Luckily, these weapons weren't stolen or permanently lost, or accidentally dropped from the wings of the B-52 bomber on which they flew, or jettisoned because of bad weather or mechanical problems, with the pilots not even aware that they were jettisoning nuclear weapons containing deadly plutonium. Each one of the warheads has the explosive power roughly equivalent to seven times the explosive power of the Nagasaki nuclear bomb and ten times the Hiroshima nuclear bomb. If jettisoned and they didn't explode, incredibly dangerous nuclear material could have been spread for miles. That's why the safety precautions are so strict, with multiple redundancies.

— Senator Carl Levin, Senate Hearing 110-625

So, the reason this was a big deal is that flying unaccounted nuclear weapons about over the US in this way might have resulted in a worse accident, because they could have been dropped in the event of bad weather or other mishap. The article and blurb don't explain this and, in my view, this is a significant error of omission. Note that this is quite an old FA. It was promoted to FA status in 2008, just a few days after that congressional hearing, and doesn't seem to have received much attention since then. Note also that the main editor, Cla68 was indefinitely blocked earlier this year and so won't be able to respond. I might try editing the article myself but I had other plans for today and, in any case, it seems best to start here. Andrew D. (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. I was aware that Cla had been blocked, and posted this at the Milhist talk page. People there are good about responding if a response is needed. Keep looking for sources that support your view of the broader context of the incident ... in my experience, Milhisters will be completely open to changing the thrust of the article if that change is warranted. If changes are made in the article today that need to be reflected at TFA, please post again here. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is not an error, feel free to make changes to the article and then provide a suitably reworded update for the TFA blurb accordingly. Please note this FA was selected eighteen (18) days ago, so this should have been brought up before it hit the main page. This is not even the third or fourth time the OP has been informed of this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

2012 Budweiser Shootout

The current FA is 2012 Budweiser Shootout. This turns out to have nothing to do with beer – that's commercial sponsorship, contrary to WP:SOAP. It doesn't have anything to do with shooting either – it's actually a car race. In reading the blurb and then the article, I was puzzled that almost nothing was said about the winning car. Was it a Ford, a Mercedes or what? The article says that it was a stock car race but after I go digging deep into other articles, I find that this is a complete misnomer; that the cars aren't stock at all – they are custom-built to an identical racing specification. The article doesn't tell us what the specification is and doesn't even have a picture of any car, let alone the winner. The article does give some details of the racing – talking about pack and tandem issues which it doesn't explain and which I don't really understand. So, this article seems to be written purely for fans who only care about the personalities involved – the drivers. And it's not even clear what the winner got out of it; a prize, a trophy, a medal, or what? This seems quite hopeless as an article for a general audience, being contrary to WP:JARGON. It does not represent Wikipedia's best work; it is not comprehensive and so should not be featured. Andrew D. (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS cannot help with complaints that an article should not be featured. The process to follow to de-feature an article is at WP:FAR, and it starts with a period of discussion on the article's talk page. And for the avoidance of doubt WP:ERRORS will not pull something from the Today's Featured Article slot simply because someone says that they've found problems of this sort with it. (The only two times that TFAs have been pulled have been for serious copyright issues.) Complaints about what the race organisers called it are clearly outside Wikipedia's scope. Bencherlite^Talk 07:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

related talk

I had to remove it, because it's not technically an error, but I'm sympathetic to the points you raise. You can help with checking "old" FAs to see if they're [still/ever] worthy of the status by checking the list at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• The term "stock car" still seems erroneous but such language is slippery stuff – see auto-antonym, which is also a nice pun. I also think that sponsorship names are an issue too, as they pay money to have their name splashed around in a way that we should not encourage. For example, the Oxford & Cambridge Boat Race currently pretends that it's called the "The Cancer Research UK Boat Races" but that's nonsense. The BBC used to take a strong line about commercial intrusion and their website doesn't give much recognition to such fake names – see Boat Races 2015, for example. If the FA establishment can't do anything, I'll try Jimbo. Anyway, for the record and context, here's what I posted at WP:ERROR:

  The current FA is 2012 Budweiser Shootout. This turns out to have nothing to do with beer – that's commercial sponsorship, contrary to WP:SOAP. It doesn't have anything to do with shooting either – it's actually a car race. In reading the blurb and then the article, I was puzzled that almost nothing was said about the winning car. Was it a Ford, a Mercedes or what? The article says that it was a stock car race but after I go digging deep into other articles, I find that this is a complete misnomer; that the cars aren't stock at all – they are custom-built to an identical racing specification. The article doesn't tell us what the specification is and doesn't even have a picture of any car, let alone the winner. The article does give some details of the racing – talking about pack and tandem issues which it doesn't explain and which I don't really understand. So, this article seems to be written purely for fans who only care about the personalities involved – the drivers. And it's not even clear what the winner got out of it; a prize, a trophy, a medal, or what? This seems quite hopeless as an article for a general audience, being contrary to WP:JARGON. It does not represent Wikipedia's best work; it is not comprehensive and so should not be featured.

Andrew D. (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"The Cancer Research UK Boat Races" but that's nonsense. Well that sums up your erroneous position perfectly, thank you for the final nail. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I was much more interested in your comments about the quality of the article than its name, which either follows policy or doesn't. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, when you conclude your erroneous error report with It does not represent Wikipedia's best work; it is not comprehensive and so should not be featured., all I can suggest is that you get more involved with the WP:TFA and WP:FAR and WP:FAC processes, which don't seem to feature in your interests here. You can actually do something practical about it but you choose not to, it would appear. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The page in my userspace is also a very easy way to be involved. --Dweller (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• I browsed through that page and selected four topics which have been added to my watchlist:

1. Amazing Stories
2. Brian Horrocks
3. Greater Manchester
4. Sinestro Corps War

I'll keep an eye on them ... Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Buruli ulcer

I made this account (and expect to be banned) but whoever thinks there should be graphic medical images on the front page of Wikipedia is a jackass. Thank you, good bye. Oneinabillionbadedits (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive reception. The people who take care of the front page do a good job. GamerPro64 04:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I came here to see if anyone was talking about this. I wasn't going to start something if no one had, but here we are. WP:CENSORMAIN is not as fringe of an idea as you are implying it is and actually makes a lot of sense for the thirteenth-most visited website on the internet (taken from the article Wikipedia). Obviously images like this should be in the encyclopedia, but to put them on the homepage of a website used by kindergarteners and grad students alike is a bit much, and serves no clear benefit for the encyclopedia's sake. (The essay makes all of these points much better than I could.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a bit outrageous. I understand the point of Wikipeida not being censored, but this isn't nudity, or something like that, it's a graphic image. It's even more outrageous because the second photo in the article is completely non-offensive but gets the point across. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 04:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I think GamerPro64 has it right, but must this discussion be split in two? See Talk:Main Page#Buruli ulcers at the bottom of this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I've now commented there. (I was viewing this through WP:ERRORS, and did not know of the existence of the other conversation.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I came here to make the same comment. Iokerapid (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree with Oneinabillionbadedits, while wikipedia shouldn't be censored, it is still a website that is used in many situtations where pictures like that are unacceptable to be shown. If someone were to go to the actual page about this infectious disease, it would be on them, but the main page? I mean, i used this website since i was like 8, if i saw that image then i would've been scared. I believe this line of reasoning to be extremely obvious and I cannot fathom how somebody would suggest such a graphic image for the front page in good faith (apart for some ideological tirade against censorship, which don't get me wrong censorship is not a good thing, but this is just plain stupid), I'm not sure how FAs are chosen, but I do think this needs to be looked into, according to a quick google search, wikipedia gets 255 million visits per day, thats a lot, this has potentially been shown to a lot of people that shouldn't have been exposed to such content. 2204happy (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The matter has been discussed at Talk:Main Page#Buruli ulcers. That discussion has not concluded but the image has been changed. The corresponding blurb text is now wrong and so an error has been introduced. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. As it was plain to see that this was actually going to happen, could we not have been better prepared? At the very least the blurb needs updating to replace "examples pictured" with "biopsy images pictured". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

General observation: Some of the choices for FA promotion have been really strange & obscure, today's being a prime example. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

General observation: The "choices" of what is nominated at WP:FAC are entirely at the whim of those who spend the time and effort researching and writing about topics that interest them. If you think there are better or more suitable subjects for us to cover, then the floor's yours to write about them and bring them to our attention... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday's FA was so odd that I checked the date in case it was April 1st already. The article states that "his first name, date of birth, date of death, and batting and pitching stances were unknown as of March 2021" and so the article obviously fails the FA criterion 1b, "it neglects no major facts or details". Elsewhere, we see lots of historic cricketers being deleted because not much is known about them but this one has been given lots of padding to make it pass. It seems that trifling topics get a free walk while serious ones feel the heat. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Interesting. I was expecting to find a decade-old FA that was out of touch by today's rigorous standards—but no, it was promoted last year. Bizarrely, of all the experienced FA-contributors who commented, no-one even mentioned criterion 1b (Sarastro came closest, but their only objection was prose-based). One for FAR, perhaps. ——Serial 14:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A riverine site in Ghana endemic for Buruli ulcer

Early signs of Buruli ulcer in Cameroon

Admins on board, please re-evaluate the image chosen. As the discussion below unfolded, the main author of Buruli ulcer (Ajpolino) suggested that this image was a good option. It shows the context in which the condition occurs. It is not clear why the current image was preferred over that one (see Wehwalt response in the discussion below), but the current image is jarring, intelligible only to an expert, provides no context or relevance for the condition, and does little to promote reader interest in the article. What an unfortunate incident, but could we now rectify this with the image suggested by one who knows the topic? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, I had to be brief because I am busy IRL, but I don't think that image or the map adds anything. If we can't show the ulcers, showing tissue from the ulcers is at least something. I don't think there's any particularly good image, frankly. It's much of a muchness. Is this actually an error in the summary of the featured article?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I am just hoping to salvage something from what has been an offputting experience, and not exactly a motivator to get medical editors to re-engage the FA process (WP:MED was once a serious producer of FAs). I agree that none of the other images do the job (which is how we ended up in this kerfuffle), but could we at least respect the knowledge of the main editor of the article? I put this here rather than below as its a separate issue (change again?), and that discussion is so offensive on so many levels ... agree we have no optimal image, but please at least have a discussion about reconsidering ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, I will talk about anything, but it might be best just to let the day expire rather than change the lead image twice. I read the article when I scheduled, and I'm not certain a thumbnail of a riverbank is any better than biopsy tissue.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I realize a second change, at this late stage, is less than optimal, but nothing about this has been optimal. Those of you who frequent ERRORS or schedule TFAs may be better accustomed to dealing with mainpage complaints, but what an off-putting and demotivating experience towards encouraging mainpage diversity to help minimize the frequent complaints in that department. I was at least hoping to hold a broader discussion as the main editor of the article felt the other image provided more information on the topic ... thanks for discussion even when busy IRL. I will go away now :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• We should have a recognisable picture of a Buruli ulcer illustrating this article. The biopsy images are useless to non-experts. —Kusma (t·c) 15:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that the image should be re-evaluated because the now-current biopsy image is misleading. The main issue with this condition, as explained by the blurb, is that you get open ulcers. But the biopsy images show "relatively intact epidermis and dermis" and so seem to show a pre-ulcerous condition. The original lead image is better because it more clearly shows open ulcers, which many readers may not be familiar with. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• For alternate consideration: File:Early_signs_of_BU.png SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • If I may suggest: . --PFHLai (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  I suspect that one will trigger the same complaints (some are objecting to bone, tendons, muscles, whatever showing). Meanwhile, hours pass and we have an unhelpful image up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I wonder if, for the future, we should consider a technical solution for similar cases. Could we restrict the resolution of the image until the cursor passes over it? The image suggested by PFHLai seems unlikely to shock at the resolution I am seeing it on my laptop, but might indeed trigger the same reaction as the original at higher resolutions. Jmchutchinson (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Ugh, I see what you mean. When viewing at higher resolution, that one looks alive, like with maggots or something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Wehwalt that the image shouldn't be changed again at this point, and honestly I'd have thought the proposed one above would elicit worse reactions than the original, as it looks like one large image of an ulcer rather than four smaller ones. As an idea for the future, something like this: [5] might be an idea... a drawing is much less likely to offend than a picture. (And if I'm not wrong, biology text books often skirt round "offensive" images by using drawings, at least when it comes to genitals). Obviously we'd have to find some way to generate the drawing ourselves, as that one is copyrighted, but it's a thought anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  If only it were easy to come by these drawings. Oh well, I see we’ve lost the day and it’s moot now anyway. As rarely as we have a medical FA to offer, what an experience this has been. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Characters of Carnivàle

• 8 dead links in the references, 7 are permanent. Repeated use of "show creator Daniel Knauf", as well as others. GeraldWL 01:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • For Talk:Characters of Carnivàle?
    • Also considered that, however if the article's claims can't be verified and has significant flaws, I don't think it should be FA. GeraldWL 05:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
      • @Gerald Waldo Luis: - only a concern if those dead references were added after the FAR. If they were there at the time and live, then they will have been reviewed. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Mjroots, it's still weird, though, that a page with dead links passes as TFA; those tags are normally stuff you don't wanna see in a TFA. Andrew helped elaborate on the sourcing problem below. GeraldWL 11:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• What I don't like about today's blurb is that it starts in the past tense, continues in the present tense and then moves back to the past. Also, why is there a semicolon after "carnival"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• The page is an odd choice as FA as it's inherently incomplete, being structured as a slice of the TV show rather than a full summary. And it doesn't seem to have been updated since the main work was done in 2007. For example, the substantial book – Carnivale and the American Grotesque : Critical Essays on the HBO Series – does not appear as a source because it was published in 2015.

The promotion of the page as an FA is puzzling. In the FAC discussion, editors raise objections to the sourcing. For example, SandyGeorgia says "Reliable sources concerns raised above have not been resolved" and Laser brain says "I am very uneasy about all this. It seems like almost the whole article is sourced to primary sources ...". These don't seem to have been addressed but the discussion was closed as "Promoted" by a bot. Is there some explanation for this elsewhere?

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, the one thing we can't do is pull it as there is nothing to replace it with. This is something I will raise elsewhere. It seems a similar situation to when the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress was FA of the day, although it was clearly not in a fit condition to be at the time. AFAIK, a FAR followed and it was demoted. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Didn't we used to have a set of 'emergency' TFAs ready to go for exactly that situation? Did those all get used up? Modest Genius ^talk 17:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Aha, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/emergency operated from 2011-17 but is now empty. Worth reviving? Modest Genius ^talk 17:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

YES!!! Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

We can ALWAYS pull it. If TFA runs empty, that's their problem. We shouldn't be promoting CRAP to the main page.--Khajidha (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to pull - just put yesterday's back again for 11 or so hours. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: - sort the image protection out and restore yesterday's FA then. I'll back you up if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

If we truly understood the purpose of TFA then that might help. Some say it's to demonstrate the best Wikipedia has to offer. Some say it's to allow articles to be updated and improved due to the massive increase in traffic being sent there from the main page. I'm not clear on which it's supposed to be but I guess one can pick and choose either/or depending on the state of TFA on any given day. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Issue raised at WT:TFA. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• I doubt this is going to get pulled in the next 7.5 hours, and the longer term discussion is happening at WT:TFA. Any objection to closing this thread? No comments have been added here in the last 4.5 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • How about starting tomorrow's TFA a few hours early. Today will be over soon. --PFHLai (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • For those concerned that older FAs do not meet the FA criteria anymore, please go to WP:URFA/2020. It's a working group that is reviewing older FAs, fixing them up, and listing articles at FAR that are far from meeting the criteria. We also try to review older FAs scheduled for TFA; more reviewers will help us flag articles like this one that might not be FA material anymore. Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @PFHLai: That's not crazy, but personally (and I appear to be in the minority) I don't really think the flaws are worth pulling it. Better to learn the lessons for next time. I won't close this, since discussion is restarting. But for the long term, I suspect it will be more productive to continue the discussion at WT:TFA. And for the short term, I don't think this is going to be (or should be) pulled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

For info, I've proposed an emergency demotion tomorrow at Talk:Characters of Carnivàle#This is not FA quality. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Covent Garden

The current FA is Covent Garden. This was challenged in quite scathing terms by Scott when it was scheduled and is currently undergoing a review. I know the area quite well but haven't had much time to work on this myself yet. I suggested that the appearance on the main page be postponed but it is up today, I see.

Focussing on the blurb, I immediately see some problems with the geographical description. It says

Covent Garden is a district in London on the eastern fringes of the West End, between St. Martin's Lane and Drury Lane. On the north side are shops centred on Neal's Yard and Seven Dials; the south side holds the Royal Opera House (also called Covent Garden), the Drury Lane theatre, the London Transport Museum, and other cultural and entertainment venues. Its central square (pictured) is a popular shopping and tourist site.

The trouble with having Drury Lane as the Eastern boundary is that the Theatre Royal is on the wrong side of it and so would be outside the district. I think that Kingsway is the Eastern boundary and you can see that stated here: "Kingsway is an accepted Eastern edge". That source also indicates that Charing Cross Road is the western boundary, not St Martin's Lane and I'd agree with that too.

That paragraph places the Royal Opera House and the London Transport Museum on the "south side" when they are both actually on the "central square". If the square marks the centre, then the Royal Opera House forms its northern corner and so it seems absurd to describe it as being in the south.

I think there are too many issues to resolve quickly and the review process should have been given more time before this was scheduled. Pinging SilkTork, who is the main editor. Andrew D. (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Not having a go, but what do you actually want done? I could be wrong, but I think only two TFAs have ever been pulled and both were because of significant copyvio concerns. Jenks24 (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, this could have been addressed way before it went to the main page. I think this last minute dive-bombing that Andrew seems to revel in is becoming completely disruptive. How many times has he been invited to do this prior to the TFAs being run? This article has been slated for today's TFA since 13 June [for the avoidance of doubt, that's 17 days ago], so to claim that "the review process should have been given more time before this was scheduled" is utterly absurd and quite insulting. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have participated in the review and made some suggestions which were implemented but have had limited time to give it my full attention, as I noted. Pulling seems to be appropriate in this case but I'm not sure exactly what's involved. Something should be done because I reckon there are factual errors currently. Andrew D. (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• You've had 17 days to do this, and yet you choose to wait until the day it is posted to raise any concerns. That's pure disruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Famous Hobo pinged several editors yesterday to discuss this in advance of the day. I was one of only two editors who responded and indicated that postponement was my preference. Andrew D. (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• You have been told several times where to look in advance of TFAs being posted, this one being identified some 17 days ago. Your continuing disruption is alarming. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what happened 17 days ago. I responded to the review 12 days ago and yesterday. I am quite interested in the topic and so naturally looked at again when I saw it was up today. My view is that this is a big topic which will take lots of time to do completely. Scott had some other concerns about the writing. It appears he was scared off by a similar shoot the messenger reaction. I'm still here but I'm quite busy today and so won't have time to do any fixing myself. Andrew D. (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• You've had 17 days to do the fixing. This is disruptive and not the first (or second or third) time you've waited until something is on the main page before attempting to get it pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Christ on a bike. Stop being so absurdly defensive and blustering about "disruption". Nobody is obliged to fix errors that they observe, let alone ones as systematic as those plaguing this article, which as I pointed out is so poorly constructed that it needs a complete overhaul. Andrew hasn't had the time to do that, and neither has anybody else. Stop treating this process like some kind of sacred cow. Bullying people who come to you with serious concerns only cements the reputation of the featured article process as a game for editors to earn themselves shiny badges rather than a method of producing quality reference material.  — Scott • talk 08:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• No, and nobody is obliged to listen to your childish outburst. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• You can "Goodbye" all you like, but I'm still here. Your knee-jerk characterization of my comment speaks volumes about what anyone can expect to result from this process.  — Scott • talk 08:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Try answering the question below Scott. That way you may get what you deserve from the process. Blathering on about Christ on a bike is the kind of outburst I'd expect from a six-year-old who can't control himself or his communication skills. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• So much for NPA in this neighborhood, clearly.  — Scott • talk 09:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry to call you out. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Focusing on the issue, Andrew's concerns seem to be about the borders being inaccurate. Are the borders properly referenced in the article? If yes, then it's his POV that they're inaccurate and not for here. If no, then we have a serious issue. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The mention of Drury Lane as the eastern boundary is clumsily lifted from the geography section, which gives that specification as historical (from the Bedford Estate). The current extent of the district is not cited properly. But as in my original review, there appears to be the danger of being caught up in trying to fix specific problems given as examples of a much wider overall quality issue.  — Scott • talk 09:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the specific issue at hand seems easily resolved, with the addition to the blurb of the word "historically". If there are overall quality issues, that's a different matter, not easily resolved here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Writing as someone who's written a reasonable number of London FAs, I agree that I've seen FAs in better shape than this, but I don't see anything rising to the level of it needing to be pulled. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and the intention of TFA has always been "this is the kind of thing we're looking for" rather than "this is an example of an article which is perfect in every way". For a topic an nebulous as "Covent Garden"—which isn't a formally-defined area so means something different to everyone—it's always going to be impossible to reach stability. (I also agree that there's a right way and a wrong way to go about raising concerns; Scott raising concerns two weeks in advance to give time for a discussion on whether the issues are serious enough to warrant action is the right way; Andrew waiting until it's actually on the main page then wading in all-guns-blazing at a time when you know most of the editors with local knowledge will be at work, not so much.) ‑ Iridescent 09:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

^^^^^^^ that. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

So, I've made a tweak. Objections/comments/criticisms please. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Sitting this one out until there's something I need to do. - Dank (push to talk) 09:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Covent Garden isn't exactly an administrative area of London - the administration is shared by two distinct boroughs, so there are no official boundaries. Though there are Covent Garden community and trade organisations, these focus on their own parts of the district. The boundaries of what is understood as Covent Garden has varied over time, and even today is not fixed, as mentioned in the Geography section: "Historically, the Bedford Estate defined the boundary of Covent Garden, with Drury Lane to the east, the Strand to the south, St. Martin's Lane to the west, and Long Acre to the north.[1] However, over time the area regarded as part of Covent Garden has expanded northwards past Long Acre to High Holborn,[27] and since 1971, with the creation of the Covent Garden Conservation Area which incorporated part of the area between St. Martin's Lane and Charing Cross Road,[28] Charing Cross Road has sometimes been taken as its western boundary." I suppose what is lacking in the article is sourced information in the lead saying that the boundaries are not fixed, though what we do have is an acknowledged reliable source giving the boundaries of what is understood to be the main parts of Covent Garden: [6], and then the further detail in the geography section. I'm not seeing the boundary information as an error, as it is based on sources, though I understand that people may have their own personal views on the boundaries of an ill-defined area of London (such as the West End, Fitrovia, the East End, etc), so a note in the lead might be helpful in allaying concerns that may lead to a boundary edit war. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Silk, are you happy with the tweak I've made to the blurb? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Guys, is this another case where Andrew suspected that something was wrong, and failed to bring it up until TFA day? If so, I'll put a polite 3rd warning on his talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XIII

• "It sold over 7 million copies" shouldn't that be "It sold over seven million copies"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know. MOS says "In general, write whole cardinal numbers from one to nine as words, write other numbers that, when spoken, take two or fewer words as either figures or words (with consistency within each article) ... 21 million", and it looks like MOSNUM says the same. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The TFA text we're talking about is "Selling 1.7 million copies in Japan in 2009, Final Fantasy XIII became the fastest-selling title in the history of the series. It sold over 7 million copies ...". - Dank (push to talk) 01:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • "... and led to two sequel games." Which is spelled out. Stephen 04:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dank; the 1.7 million is compared with the 7 million, and the later two is irrelevant. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the 1.7 million as binding on the 7 because 1.7 million can't be rendered in text in two or fewer words.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• The equivalent text in the article is "As of January 2013, the game has sold over 6.6 million copies worldwide." That's a dated figure now but surely the blurb shouldn't be putting forward a higher figure without a source? Andrew D. (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • We're talking about this edit. Pinging PresN. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• It's addition of two sourced statements- the sourced 6.6 million as of 2013, and the sourced "The Steam version has sold over 600,000 copies as of July 2016", which was released in 2014 after the earlier sales number. Thus, minimum of approximately 7.2 million, plus whatever the tablet versions have sold (unknown), and I dropped one significant figure to say 7 million to not imply that the known, sourced total is completely encompassing. --PresN 15:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, unless there's more discussion, I'm happy to leave it as it is. TFA isn't just written with a 1200 character max, it's also written in a style that aims to reduce character count. "7 million" does that, and and I'm not seeing that there's anything that prohibits it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Ok, that's fine, it's definitely a breach of MOS, but if we're just focused on saving (four?) characters, then fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Feel free to cite the text that it's in breach of. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  You've done it already, and I'm seeing "They aimed to sell five million copies", "sold over one million units on", "close to two million units for its launch" in the article for all other approximations. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  I personally think it's easier to compare 1.7 to 7 instead of 1.7 to seven. Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Then all the other "approximations" in the article should be numbers, not words. This isn't a personal preference thing, in any case, it's a MOS compliance issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  When two options are available, there's never been a requirement that TFA has to pick the same option as the article. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  I don't follow. In its own sentence it's failing MOS (it should be "seven"). In the context of the whole article, it's failing MOS (all other "approximations" are given in words). I think we're talking past each other here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Consensus here seems to be in favor of 7. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Sure, if we ignore MOS that's fine. It's too late to make any difference I suppose, I made the report a day ago to give you time to fix it, but no. Consensus of a couple of people who don't know how to apply MOS isn't really the way forward here, it should be project directors taking responsibility and understanding what's needed to meet FA requirements. But hey ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Fluorine

It says "Fluorine has no known metabolic role in mammals" but right above talks of water fluoridation which is done specifically for its effect on our teeth and we're mammals. This is a contradiction. Note also that the corresponding sentence in the article has been tagged {{citation needed}} for another reason and that's not a good look. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Water fluoridation isn't strictly speaking a metabolic thing - it's not mediated by enzymes of the body, it's merely a chemical reaction that happens to involve the body. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

See sources such as Fluoride metabolism and excretion in children which talk about it as metabolic. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"Metabolism" there means that it passes through the human body, not that it has a function while doing so. It's no more a metabolic role than a client of a bank is its employee. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

But it does have a function in the teeth. This is natural (I grew up in an area with natural fluoride in the water and so have good teeth). This may be quite a narrow function but that's also the case with the plants and sponges which use it as a poison. It's effectively a trace element. Here's another source: Although fluorine is not an essential in mammalian physiology, it plays several important roles... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The target article states "fluorine has no known metabolic role in mammals", so that is what the blurb should state if this property is being included. However, Biological aspects of fluorine § Biochemistry, linked from the main article, states "fluoride is considered a semi-essential element for humans" and provides some daily intake requirements. This apparent contradiction suggests that the blurb's phrase (not the whole sentence) in question might be simply removed. Bazza (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Our article on metabolism defines it as "the set of life-sustaining chemical reactions in organisms", not as "the set of all possible chemical reactions you might get in an organism if you introduce compounds that aren't usually present in its natural environment". (So the point above about fluoride being present naturally is relevant, but some may disagree whether its role rises to the level of "life-sustaining".) Anyone have other definitions? - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

(@TFA coordinators : personally, I think the issue hinges on what definition of metabolism the reader is likely to use, but others may disagree. Since I made a related edit to the article in November and to the blurb in December, I don't want to make a call on this one ... feel free to jump in here, or not.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I've read the discussion as it's come up but don't feel it's my field. I'm fine with you doing it, Dank. Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The blurb agrees with the article, and with - so far as I am aware - the consensus of HQ RSs; so while I understand why AD flagged this, the blurb would seem to be correct. One may like to nuance it, but in the constraint of a maximum of 1,025 characters including spaces one inevitably has to be broad brush. As with many queries or comments, the best answer available is "Read the article". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Horse fly

• Today's FA is horse-fly. The blurb states "some animals have lost up to 300 millilitres of blood in a single day to the insects". Initially, I was bothered that the amount was stated in millilitres without conversion into a customary unit. This was an issue because the amount is about half a pint and so the statistic probably started in that unit. In the article, the figure is not supported by a source and it has been like that since the article was first created without any sources in 2004. If one searches for earlier sources, a variety of estimates can be found:

1. "Such infestations may easily result in the loss of one or more pints of blood from an animal per day."
2. "Estimates have been made of the possible loss of blood by an animal exposed to the attacks of horseflies throughout a summer day in a badly infested area. Philip reaches a figure of 300 cc, or about half a pint per day, not including ..."
3. "Cattle under heavy attack may each lose more than half a pint of blood per day directly to the flies, with perhaps as much..."
4. "Webb and Wells, working in Nevada, have estimated that 20 to 30 horseflies would take an average of at least 100 c.c of blood daily, or a quart in 10 days. Dr. C. B. Philip, working in Minnesota, obtained a larger estimate of the loss of blood."
5. "It is estimated that the daily loss of blood may be one-third of a quart when forty to fifty flies attack an animal."

As it might take some time to work out an accurate and sourced range of statistics, I suggest that the phrase in question is pulled. Andrew D. (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Pinging the author, Cwmhiraeth. Also Dank who wrote most of the blurb. Jenks24 (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I checked the original author (ArcticFrog) who might have been able to explain where he got this but they don't seem to have been active after 2007. Andrew D. (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Just remove the claim from the blurb and the article. Simple. Unless we want this to drag on all day without resolution.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This does seem to be questionable and this isn't the best forum for clearing it up. Good spot, Andrew, and I agree with TRM. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with removing it, I was just pinging those two because I think they'd want to know. Jenks24 (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I am happy for it to be removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. I've also removed that sentence from the article. Jenks24 (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

House of Plantagenet

Today's FA is House of Plantagenet. The blurb has "In addition to the traditional judicial, feudal and military roles of the king, the Plantagenets had duties to the realm that were underpinned by a sophisticated justice system." It's not clear what this means. What were these "duties to the realm"? The lead of the article makes a similar statement about "defined duties" but doesn't actually define them as the word duty or duties does not appear in the body of the article. We could speculate about what this is referring to but shouldn't have to.

More generally, the blurb/article seems to wander too far off topic by rambling about events in England during this period, as if the topic is a historical era, rather than the dynasty or clan. Britannica's equivalent page seems better in this respect. It also does a better job of explaining the name Plantagenet. Our article just hints at this by talking of "popular theories" but, as with the mysterious duties, does not actually say what these theories are.

Andrew D. (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times you have to be told that if you have an issue with the article featured in TFA, here is not the place to bring it up. Try the article talkpage, or better still feel free to edit the article to highlight the best components of the Britannica version, it's Wikipedia after all. In the meantime, this is not an error. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• The issue here is the specific sentence which appears in the summary and that's what this section is for. As we trace this back, this doesn't seem to be supported by a source and so doesn't pass WP:BURDEN. DYK deals with this problem by requiring hook sentences to be explicitly supported by references. If the sentences are not so supported or don't correspond to what the sources say then they get pulled. The same should apply to sentences in the FA summary. WP:ERROR is the appropriate place to deal with this in order to get the issue addressed in a timely way, while the material is still on the main page. As we seem to have an active editor as the main contributor in this case, I have asked them to comment. Andrew D. (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, yes, and since the blurb reflects the article, there's no error per se on the main page. Please continue the discussion with the main contributor at the correct venue, namely the article talk page. I note they haven't edited for four days and were highly sporadic before that, so good luck. Thanks. In the meantime, this is not an error. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• If something doesn't seem right on the main page, then it's not adequate to try to pass the blame elsewhere. The main point of this process is that the main page is high-profile and so requires immediate attention. Posting on article talk pages or elsewhere is less likely to get results because they don't get watched so closely and it might be days before someone responds, as TRM says. When an issue with the main page is logged it should stay open at WP:ERROR until it is resolved. Andrew D. (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Please resolve the issue with the article and then we can reflect that back to the blurb at TFA if required. In the meantime, this is not an error. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Of course, it's an error. Anyway, I have removed the corresponding paragraph from the article's lead as it seemed completely unsupprted by sources or the body of the article. The talk page of the article is discussing the issue of the name and the unstated theories for this. They don't seem to be getting very far but I'm too busy with other things to fix that too. Andrew D. (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to work on the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Andrew, this is becoming a problem. See your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• So when does the main page get fixed? While we're waiting, note that we seem to have a systemic problem here. FA summaries on the main page are based on the lead of the FA. But those leads, by convention, do not have references as they are supposed to be summaries of corresponding detail in the body of the FA, which should be supported by references. But if no-one is checking that the lead actually and accurately summarises the body, you can get any amount of unreferenced content on to the main page. Other sections like DYK and ITN seem to have better fact-checking, looking for confirmation of key facts by references. Andrew D. (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• As you have been told countless times, if you would like to be involved to ensure that such "errors" don't occur in future, please feel free to get involved in WP:TFA. I'm sure they would really appreciate your help there. P.S. What is your suggestion? Please read the instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest that the sentence "In addition to the traditional judicial, feudal and military roles of the king, the Plantagenets had duties to the realm that were underpinned by a sophisticated justice system." be removed from the main page. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to stop engaging with Andrew. I'm not taking a position on what edits should be made. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• And I shall stop engaging here with such frivolous and time consuming pseudo error reports which, if they ever are real, could have been dealt with days or weeks ago. I learnt something today, at least. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Immune system

Today's FA is immune system and the first sentence is "The immune system is a network of biological processes that protects an organism against disease." I balked at the first word – the definite article seems wrong here because it suggests that there is a single type of immune system. But, as we are soon told, there are a plethora of systems and sub-systems and the immune systems of a tree are rather different from the immune systems of a horseshoe crab which are rather different from the immune systems of a human. So, I reckon we should be starting "An immune system" rather than "The immune system".

Then, at the end of the first sentence, we have the word "disease". Disease is a broad concept which includes dysfunctions and deficiencies such as Alzheimer's and rickets while the immune system is mostly concerned with infectious diseases. And then there's a grey area like trauma such as a sprain which will cause swelling and then repair. So, should the first sentence be "An immune system is a network of biological processes that protects an organism against infectious disease and damage."?

Another issue is the picture caption "Neutrophil with anthrax". These are quite technical terms but are not linked. The equivalent caption in the article is better: "A scanning electron microscope image of a single white blood cell (yellow/right), engulfing anthrax bacteria (orange/left) – scale bar is 5 µm (false color)". I suppose this has been abbreviated to fit.

Looking at the article's talk page, it seems that the article is a work-in-progress, having been revived to go with news about COVID vaccines. The trouble is that FAs are supposed to be stable and I don't think we're there yet. The main challenge is the issue of scope as the article seems uncertain whether it's about the human immune system (which redirects to this title) or the broad concept of immune systems in general. The human immune system is extremely complex while the immune systems of other organisms such as bacteria and plants are significantly different. Even if we're just talking about humans, there still issues of scope. There are lots of mechanisms which protect us from harm – reflexes such as the withdrawal reflex, emotions such as disgust, instincts such as hunger. Where do we draw the line?

I don't suppose we can resolve all this easily and quickly. But, as it's an important medical topic and others may have similar concerns, it seemed sensible to start a discussion. WP:ERRORS is part of Wikipedia's immune system, you see ... :)

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I've posted at Talk:Immune system, asking for a response.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll reply on the article's Talk Page, but I don't regard any of the above as errors. Graham Beards (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Although these are not in fact errors, I suppose someone could link the two terms in the image caption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Graham and Sandy that there are no errors in the blurb. Andrew's comments - which I kind of disagree with, but it isn't a slam dunk - are more appropriate for the article talk page (which is where they are now). If I could easily separate the issues, I would remove this part, I really don't think that's going to happen.

I've linked Neutrophil and anthrax in the caption, but I think it would be better in this case to expand the caption, a compromise between current TFA caption and article caption. It would be 2 lines, which we've done before. Proposal: "Neutrophil (yellow) engulfing anthrax bacteria (orange)". Otherwise, it's really just being used as a pretty picture and could be captionless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I like your suggestion, Floq. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Except ... The article uses color and left/right to comply with MOS:COLOR. I am unaware of typical usage for the mainpage; is a caption really needed? It is explained in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

My first thought was that color plus left/right would probably make the caption too long, certainly more than 2 lines. But I've done it both ways below, and at least at my browser's resolution my first option was already 3 lines. Perhaps just left and right? That only takes 2 lines and is COLOR-compliant. Typical usage of captions on the main page is that no caption is used if the subject of the image is obvious (a picture of a person in a TFA about a person; a picture of a castle in a TFA about a castle), but a caption is used if the subject of the image isn't obvious. Latest example of a rather long caption is here: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 12, 2020. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, in that case, I prefer your third option, which complies with COLOR by using only left/right and avoiding color at all. Thanks for your attention! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for feedback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutrophil (yellow/right) engulfing anthrax bacteria (orange/left)

Neutrophil (yellow) engulfing anthrax bacteria (orange)

Neutrophil (right) engulfing anthrax bacteria (left)

2014 Japanese Grand Prix

Today's FA about the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix says "the first death caused by a Formula One race since Ayrton Senna's in 1994". But see List of Formula One fatalities which contains several counter-examples. The scope of the claim needs limiting to drivers in F1 Grands Prix. Andrew D. (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Good catch, fixed. Stephen 08:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Should be changed to say "first death to a driver caused..."; there have been deaths to track marshals since then: (see 2000 Italy, 2001 Australia, 2013 Canada) OZOO (t) (c) 09:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. Stephen 09:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Jarrow March

The first sentence of the FA summary suggests that in 1936, Jarrow was in North East England. It was not. North East England was created in 1994 for government statistical purposes. However, Jarrow was (and still is) in the north-east of England, the north-east area of country. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• North-east England redirects to North East England and that page has history of the region going back thousands of years, including the history of ship-building in the region. So, it seems to be the best page covering the region. But the Jarrow march article doesn't seem to have any regional link and refers to the region in a variety of ways. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  Black Kite. The question of whether to link North East England was not an error but was discussed here, in response to dying's concern that Tyneside did not sufficiently identify the area of England or the length of the march to non-British users. It was decided to have the link in the full knowledge that the political subdivision did not exist in the 1930s. You may agree or disagree with that but it was discussed and the discussion should have been considered before action was taken. It would be useful if admins desiring to edit the TFA through full protection would at least check to see if there has been previous discussion on the subject. I would frankly like to see admins aspiring to edit the TFA through full protection on the main page day participate in such discussions, but is it too much to ask that the monthly discussion pages be looked at to see if the matter has been discussed and that TFA coordinators be pinged (and since two of the three of us are American and Gog the Mild does not watchlist WP:ERRORS, give the sun a reasonable amount of time to rise on the United States)? It's possible we might have something useful to say on the subject. Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

WT:Today's featured article#WP:ERRORS today. Just a pointer to a relevant ongoing discussion (also posted at WT:ERRORS). - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The assertion that "North East England" has only been a concept in common use since 1994 can be fairly easily refuted with an ngram.[7] Indeed, in 1936, it was the seemingly most second commonly used variant in contemporary book sources after North-East England. Although in general I'm supportive of not having too much red tape for admins to go through to fix errors on the main page, this one doesn't seem to have been an error so should probably be reverted.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there's agreement there's been a mistake made and the North East England article is not restricted to the last 30 years, so I agree. And, Amakuru, we're not asking for red tape, at least not yet. Just for people who are changing the main page to be aware of the discussions, and for notice for the coordinators who are responsible to the community for the TFA process.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair request, certainly. Perhaps an edit notice here, or a hidden comment, mentioning the TFA cooords' ping template would be useful so that those raising issues and admins who look at them can easily make those notifications.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I have kept Black Kite's phrasing after notifying them, and done the link as a pipe to "the north-east of England". I will consult with the other TFA coordinators as to the possibility of an edit notice and bring it back for discussion if called for, but I think we all know that won't slow someone who is hot to trot.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Fine ... but the link is totally unnecessary - not only is our readership perfectly capable of working out where a location is from an unlinked "in the north-east of England", but the FA link itself already links Tyneside. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess my thought is that this is the sort of thing that should be settled before TFA day. I personally could go either way on it, but the reason the original poster cited that North East England wasn't a "thing" until the 1990s.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I think the pipe is to distinguish between the administrative region North East England (which didn't exist at the time of the march), and the vague geographical location in the north-east of England; MOS:COMPASS deals with this. It doesn't help that the both region and location are dealt with in the same article. Bazza 7 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wehwalt, that link is an Easter egg (which is a bad thing, even though today is Easter Sunday). Readers should not be led to believe that the two terms are synonymous. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

LOL! The article's first sentence is about the statistical region but it covers the history of the area for a couple of millennia before the 1990s. The article seems to cover both the statistical region and the geographic region. Just like the category North East England that you removed from the Jarrow March article covers topics that were not strictly a part of the 1990s region, such as the kingdom of Northumbria (there also being a Northumbria (modern) in the category.) Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wehwalt The geographical area of north-east England (which isn't capitalised) has been there for as long as England has existed. North East England (a proper noun, so it is capitalised) is a statistical area created by civil servants in 1994.

Sure the area covered by the latter has a long history, and includes Jarrow, but that doesn't mean it's ok to imply or suggest that in 1936 Jarrow was in North East England. We could say that Jarrow is "in what is now North East England. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It would read something like "in the Tyneside town of Jarrow (now in North East England)". People may not get that the political subdivision is meant and think we're implying it wasn't in the North East at the time. Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wehwalt, if you don't think the capitalisation makes it clear that it's the proper name of a bounded region and not just the part of the country in that direction, then you'll need to include something like "in the Tyneside town of Jarrow (now in the region called North East England)". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

No such thing is necessary. There is no Easter egg (even though the day was appropriate for this 😏) and the notion that the capitalised version only refers to the modern region has been debunked above. The article linked covers all aspects of the north east, not just the thing created in the nineties, and I doubt many readers would be confused by that.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

John Littlejohn

The blurb has "Immigrating from Great Britain" which sounds wrong. The article's lead does it better as "Littlejohn immigrated to the Thirteen Colonies". If we continue to give both origin and destination then it might be better as "Migrating from Great Britain to the Thirteen Colonies" to avoid the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I agree. "Emigrate from", "immigrate to". Your solution is ideal. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Isn't "migrating" normally used in the case of animals? (In U.S. English anyway.) -- Sca (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there was an error there in the first place. Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

As a longtime writer & ed., I can assure you that in U.S. Eng. usage, 'migrate' does not apply to human beings. (Perhaps it does in Br. Eng.) -- Sca (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to the original concern. I agree re migrate, unless we're discussing tribes or large groups of early peoples. I'm talking about "immigrated from", a phrase common in American English and which a quick search finds is used in hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I vaguely remember this from another case, perhaps that BrE is more strict and would use "emigrate from" over "immigrate from"(???)—Bagumba (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It could be. The article is of course written in AmEng. Of the editors above, I see Andrew Davidson, according to their user page, lives in London, Bazza7's says they live in England and I don't know about Black Kite, but I note from their user page work on a number of British-themed articles. Possibly there is an EngVar difficulty here. Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

To this Brit, "emigrating from" sounds far more normal for a person than "migrating from". Immigration/emigration also implies moving and staying, rather than the temporary connotations of "migration". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we just tweak to "Emigrating from Great Britain..." Americans would be fine with immigrate but emigrate could work for MOS:COMMONALITY.—Bagumba (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Migrating works best, as it is at present, since the sentence mentions both the origin and the destination. In general it's emigrate from and immigrate to, so neither is quite right if you're mentioning both places equally.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The Left Hand of Darkness

In The Left Hand of Darkness summary, "science fiction" is linked only on its fourth occurrence. If it's going to be linked, I think it should be on its first occurrence. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:BTW "as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article". Brandmeister^talk 08:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Science fiction is fairly well-known and so doesn't need linking. It would be more to the point to link the specific sub-genre – feminist science fiction. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Good idea. Brandmeister^talk 09:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I've linked both sf at first mention & feminist science fiction. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• It's a shame the blurb uses "seminal", if anyone can think of an ungendered synonym? As another aside, is there a reason why the apparently free image of Le Guin isn't being used? It's making the main page rather unbalanced, as noted below by The Rambling Man. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll remove "seminal"; it's not needed. On the image question, pinging Chris and David Levy. - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Image added. —David Levy 19:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you know the adjective "seminal" comes from the Latin for a seed: you know, an embryonic plant - a small thing that can grow into something much larger, like a small book that has an enormous impact. Are seeds inherently gendered? But if you are concerned about the gendered nature of seeds, I suppose you could use " infuential" instead - if you are able to overlook that word being derived from astrology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.59 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Nowak

The blurb for Lisa Nowak starts with some uncontroversial details of her astronaut career but then presents this remarkable passage

In February 2007, Nowak was arrested in Orlando, Florida, after she drove about 900 miles (1,400 km) from Texas and accosted and pepper-sprayed Colleen Shipman, a U.S. Air Force captain. Shipman's boyfriend, astronaut William Oefelein, had been in a relationship with Nowak. Terminated by NASA, Nowak pled guilty to burglary and battery in 2009, after which the Navy demoted and discharged her under other than honorable conditions. It was later reported that Nowak was working in Texas.

There seem to be several problems with this

1. It appears that the notoriety of the case has caused the subject some difficulty in finding employment. The spirit of BLP indicates that we should not be making matters worse by featuring it on the front page of Wikipedia with a picture to remind everyone again.

2. A requirement for FA status is that the article should be complete – a full account of the subject. But this account seems quite incomplete. It seems to lose track of the subject after 2017 but presumably her life is not over and so there's much more to say. Also, the legal case was resolved as a plea bargain and so its exact nature remains murky. It appears that an insanity defense was going to be used but the plea bargain meant that this was not then tested in court and resolved. So, we're left with lots of speculation and no clear answers.

3. Overall, the matter has a trashy feel – the sort of thing you expect to read in a tabloid, not an encyclopedia. It's not a good look for Wikipedia. – Andrew🐉(talk) 08:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

There's an interesting comment on the FAC from Lawrencekhoo: [8] For BLP privacy reasons, I highly suggest that this article not be added to the today's featured article queue, even if promoted to FA. Since the subject of the article is no longer a public figure, it would not be appropriate to throw the spotlight on her again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@TFA coordinators what shall we do about this? Schwede66 09:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I agree that the article isn't complete (if she's been out of the spotlight since 2017, there's not much else we can verifiably add) but agree that the wording describing the airport incident is way too much for a FA blurb. I can see the BLP argument for pulling this from the front page, but if we don't do that I would at least replace that wording with the one used at the end of the first paragraph of the lead. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be pulled, we've covered questionable conduct by astronauts before, and doing so might have a Streisand effect. Possibly, as suggested, the sentence about pepper spraying could be replaced with a variation on the final sentence in the lede. I'll work on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I've done as suggestion. The blurb is a little short now. Wehwalt (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see a problem in including the fact she was demoted and discharged from the Navy after burglary and assault (or whatever you call it there), but the current description is way more detailed than the preceding aspects of her professional life. Better could be:

...and the International Space Station. In February 2007, Nowak pled guilty to charges of burglary and battery, resulting in her demotion and subsequent dismissal from NASA and the Navy. It was later reported that Nowak was working in Texas.

The last sentence might be omitted: do we usually include hearsay in FA blurbs? Bazza (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I've cut that and given greater emphasis to her career. I think you have to say what she did to some extent, but I think I've answered the earlier concerns.Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The current summary is now balanced I think — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Just my opinion, but I'd vote for pulling myself. It seems like the advice at the FAC should have been followed, and this is a WP:BLPPRIVACY violation for what is now in 2023 effectively a private citizen rather than a major public figure.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely. It should come off the front page immediately. How can it be acceptable to present over a third of the visible summary on this incident? DeCausa (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  The blurb has now been modified to reflect your concerns Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  But the concerns are that this FA should be pulled from the front page, no? How can the blurb have been modified to reflect their concerns if it hasn't been pulled yet? Shells-shells (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Their specific concern. I think we can spare time to let people look at the revised blurb and opine on what needs to be done. Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Just noting for those concerned that this is under discussion at WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

There are others expression of concern over this being a featured article - see WP:ANI#Lisa Nowak, featured article. Personally I consider this an egregious mistake that should be corrected by pulling the article. The comments reported by SandyGeorgia above summarise my objection succinctly and the OP makes a compelling case why this is a bad look for wikipedia. WCM_email 10:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's give this a bit more time to see if the changes to the blurb satisfy people or if it should be pulled. I have a replacement article ready if necessary and I'd ask other admins to leave this to me as there's several pages that have to be changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think this should be pulled unless an error of process can be demonstrated(i.e. posted against or without consensus, or otherwise against normal procedure). I think the concerns about the blurb have been addressed. It is unusual and noteworthy that a highly trained and (supposedly) vetted mentally astronaut committed crimes that she pled guilty to and her actions also resulted in changes at NASA, a large government agency(they created a Code of Conduct). 331dot (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, and with regard to that I hope it's alright if I copy my comment from ANI to here (given that the thread is archived): I can't for the life of me tell when this featured article was discussed at WP:TFAR. All I can see is that the blurb was created on August 4. Can someone help me out here? (I may just be missing something obvious; sorry in advance if that's the case! :p) Shells-shells (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  It wasn't a TFA/R nomination. Only about a quarter to a third are. It was selected by the scheduling coordinator for September, that is, me, from the available Featured Articles. Then the schedule was posted in late July as usual. No one said anything about any of the scheduled articles so I prepared the blurb in early August. The blurb has been edited by several editors since then. Basically, it's been up in the usual place for a month and a half. Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I am undecided on whether the TFA should be pulled at this now-late stage, but want to comment on 331dot's remark that it should only be pulled if "an error of process can be demonstrated". TFA is not DYK where hooky BLP smut is sometimes part of the process, and some wise admins are concerned to keep BLP smut off the mainpage even when process has been followed. I don't think we should concern ourselves with following process in deciding how to handle such cases. Even if process was followed, it's disturbing to see this highlighted on the main page of what is positioned as an encyclopedia, and I hope that the TFA Coords will be encouraged to return to the older process of having certain TFAs that they agree will never run on the main page, and keep that list somewhere visible to all, and resist the NOT CENSORED etc cries. Making tough calls in spite of "process" is why they get the big bucks. I'm not sure pulling the TFA at this stage will make a difference, but I rather regret that it was chosen to run. I would suggest a process adjustment be made to not run similar unless they have been through TFAR, but there aren't enough participants at TFAR to assure blurbs like this will be well enough viewed there for a broad consensus to form, and we can't gauge community reaction until they hit the main page anyway. So all I can do is encourage the Coords to put something in place to avoid recurrence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This should be pulled and pulled now, the person is no longer in the public eye, they made a horrible mistake sixteen years ago that ruined their lives. Publishing it now is the kind of muck raking reporting we associate with the tabloid press not wikipedia. Per Amakuru this is a WP:BLPPRIVACY violation and those prevaricating about pulling this are showing very poor judgement. WCM_email 11:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about you but the potential for me to be written about on Wikipedia and in the news is a strong motivation for me to not commit crimes. This wasn't an ordinary person making a mistake, but a highly trained individual in both military service and as an astronaut. BLPPRIVACY primarily deals with dates of birth and contact information, not criminal records(which are public). 331dot (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This is certainly not a WP:BLPPRIVACY violation (I will assume that you don't know what you linked to). It is also not a WP:NPF violation; former astronauts are still all fairly notable. We can't possibly avoid anything that might be embarrassing to living people, especially if it is an important part of what they are known for. By all means suggest how to improve the blurb, but I see no reason to pull the article (which could actually draw more unwanted attention to the issues). —Kusma (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It's undoubtedly a BLP issue. It's giving grossly undue prominence to a minor incident in this BLP by sticking on the front page (representing over a third of the visible summary of the article) the following: In February 2007, Nowak was involved in a highly publicized incident in Orlando, Florida, accused of assaulting a woman romantically involved with astronaut William Oefelein, who had been in a relationship with Nowak. In 2009, she pled guilty, resulting in her demotion from captain to commander, and termination by NASA and the Navy. DeCausa (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you suggest a rephrase that covers the necessary ground? Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow, the suggestion that public pillorying is appropriate 16 years after the event to deter crimes has to be just about one of the most inappropriate comments I've heard in a long time. It's clearly a WP:BLPPRIVACY issues to muck rake 16 years later and a lot of very poor judgement is being displayed here. WCM_email 12:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Please provide the specific passage of BLPPRIVACY which prohibits this. From what I see, it only deals with dates of birth and personal contact information. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is not an ordinary John Public off the street. This is a highly trained and checked individual that shouldn't have been prone to criminal behavior. My only point was that if people don't want their crimes written about in the news or in future publications, they shouldn't commit crimes. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

331dot I am spectacularly worried - no let's rephrase this, I'm actually speechless - about your take on this. "Don't commit a fairly middling level crime, because otherwise when it's been forgotten about in sixteen years we'll drag it up and plaster it over our the front page of a top 10 website - but don't blame us, it's your own fault!!" Is that really what we want from Wikipedia? Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not my intention to say that at all- I guess I'm sending messages that I don't intend to send- my only real point was that this is not a BLPPRIVACY issue. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

331dot, would you agree there is a "common decency" issue here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that I've dug a hole that I didn't intend to dig and I probably should just get on with other business and not say any more. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

331dot, happens to the best of us; I hope the rest of your day goes better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2, What "necessary ground"? It shouldn't be on the front page at all. If you don't think the summary would reflect the article - then pull the article. DeCausa (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"...the potential for me to be written about on Wikipedia and in the news is a strong motivation for me to not commit crimes"... Er, what the fuck, 331dot? When did Wikipedia become a moral guardian, trashing people in real life by airing 16-year-old transgressions to try to prevent future crime? That's a truly appalling take on this episode, and I'm disgusted by the Wikipedia front page being turned into tabloid jouirnalism garbage once again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, my intention was not to say that Wikipedia should be a moral guardian- only to say that criminal records are public and this isn't a privacy issue. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

If this was an ordinary person off the street, I wouldn't feel this way- but this is about a highly trained and vetted individual who shouldn't have been prone to this behavior. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I share Boing and Black Kite's astonishment at this attitude. I think ANI thread on this was prematurely closed - it needs to go back there for broader input in my view. DeCausa (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The other thing that I find horrible is the suggestion that all we should care about here is whether the letter of procedure is being followed. What about a bit of common decency concerning a living person who did something wrong a full 16 fucking years ago? It might have been bad, but do they really deserve to be harrassed about it on one of the world's most visited web sites so long after the event? Is there an emoticon for "shaking my head in shame"? We need one today. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) She was highly trained and vetted 20 years ago. The "crime" you mention (which isn't actually a crime at all, since she was never convicted, hence also making this a WP:BLP CRIME issue) happened 16 years ago, after which she receded to become very much an ordinary person off the street again. Whether she should have been "prone to such behaviour" or not is entirely irrelevant to our role as encyclopedia editors, we're not NASA officials or lawyers or even opinionated journalists.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely Boing! said Zebedee, you hit the nail squarely on the head. Fine, you got me 331dot you can smugly point out I picked the wrong link to the BLP Privacy policy. Congratulations very stylish, after suggesting public pillorying on wikipedia as a crime prevention tool. BLP policy is a presumption in favour of privacy and someone who hasn't been in the public eye for 16 years, who is acknowledged to have issues with mental health shouldn't by publicly pilloried in this way. You can also smugly say this person was highly screened and it shouldn't have happened but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is a vulnerable human being who has already suffered greatly for an act of sheer madness and I just pray she isn't aware that this is on the front page I really do. The fact that editors supposedly in good standing in a position of community trust can't see that, says to me that they should really reconsider their position and resign the tools as they lack the competence to exercise good judgement. Those responsible really should hang their heads in shame. WCM_email 12:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I am in no way being "smug"; I civilly and politely asked you to point out the relevant policy in case I missed it. No more, no less.

You can disagree with me but asking be to resign the tools is over the top about a simple disagreement as to how policies are applied. I think I've exercised reasonably good judgement over my many years here- do I get it right all the time, no, I'm a human being- but there wouldn't be too many admins here if every mistake warranted resigning the bit. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you've exercised very good judgment over the years, 331dot, and you are among the admins I have most respect for. That just makes my disappointment in your attitude to this issue today ever sadder. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, I think I'm sending messages that I don't intend to send- and for that I do apologize, thats on me, no one else. My presence on Wikipedia for the rest of the day may be erratic to RL committments- so I probably won't have much more to say. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"I don't think this should be pulled unless an error of process can be demonstrated(i.e. posted against or without consensus, or otherwise against normal procedure)" is not a message that you did not intend to send. And it's a message that clearly prioritises the letter of policy over concerns for a living person. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, posting in violation of a policy or even just normal unwritten convention would be an error of process. I don't have every policy committed to memory(not saying anyone else does, this is a team effort, that's just a comment about me) but I don't think this is a BLPPRIVACY issue. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Arguing over whether it's a BLPPRIVACY issue is spectacularly missing the point - and, in fact, illustrating my point. I'm sure everyone but you can see that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I am going to off to RL stuff now. Willing to discuss on my talk page later. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Couple of things, one from the other: can we just pull this immediately and stick (say) a re-run in its place for the next half-day. Then, since it won't be a matter for ERRORS after all, can we reopen the ANI thread (if deemed necessary) on account of the discussion here becoming broader than ERRORS was intended for.

BTW< I also think that asking for a resignation over this shows about as bad judgment as that which another is being accused of. SN54129 12:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur with this suggestion. FWIW I don't think large-scale sanctions or desysops are at all warranted against individuals, just a recognition that dredging up 16-year-old tabloid scandals on individuals not currently in the public eye and then plastering them at the top of the project's most visible page is not something that's at all in keeping with the "err on the side of caution" mantra of BLP.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Noting that she's not the only affected living person: the three-timer is now married to Shipman, living in Alaska, and they have two children. Perhaps we can consider them. Looking at the dates, their children would be about teenagers now, and I wonder what their school day is like today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I keep getting edit conflicts when trying to correct my post above. The husband had two children with first wife, and has a son with Shipman who would be about a teenager now. Thinking of the razzing he's probably getting today at school makes me go ... ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

My thought was to replace the text of this TFA with the text of tomorrow's. That way, Nowak remains officially the TFA for today and can't be run again for five years. Not that we would. I think that is what was done in the Grace Sherwood case. Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I was undecided on the best course (horse already out of the barn) until just now reading the bio of the philandering husband, and thinking of the teenaged son. I do think that might be a good decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Opinions, anyone else? And Sandy, given it's 5 am in Alaska, let's resolve this before the school bus goes. Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Wehwalt how can I help expedite? Ping me to any page where I might be able to help-- I know this creates a ton of work. I know I can change the maindate parameters on talk pages-- what else? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd support anything that gets this garbage that's potentially harmful to a number of people, including innocent youngsters, off the front page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

My worry about this (and I'm sorry I brought it up at the wrong venue; I didn't know this one existed) is that there is a hell of a difference between having your past discussed in a normal Wikipedia article, and having it on the front page of Wikipedia. I felt that there are some situations where display on the front page converts a balanced account into undue publicity. Also, it shows Wikipedia in a bad light when we have a very rapid fluctuation of the featured article over a few hours to address a problem that ideally should have been sorted out before it hit the front page. Elemimele (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. And it highlights wnat a lot of people have been saying is wrong about front page content for years. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to do something, we'd best do it soon. The day is almost halfway over. With as many admins weighing in on this as they have to express their apparent collective disgust, someone now needs to step forward and make that change. The risk is minimal and there is only reward to be had. It won't be long before all of the United States will be awake and reading this. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm going ahead to do it now. What I am going to do is replace the text with the text of tomorrow's TFA. Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Bless you! _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The image is good to go too, already protected from the cascading protection on tomorrow's TFA.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you from me too, Wehwalt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Big thanks, everyone! Elemimele (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, if the effect of a biography's presence on the main page is to somehow punish the living person who is the subject of that biography, then it should be removed from the main page as quickly as is physically possible, full stop. Everything else is a sideshow. The main page is, I think, emphatically not for dispensing internet humiliation to achieve some bizarre sort of vigilante retribution. Shells-shells (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The best analogy I could think of would be to post a similar blurb for Jack Swigert, the command module pilot for Apollo 13 whose actions very likely contributed to saving the lives of his crew, and then focusing ~50% of the blurb on his participation in the Apollo postal covers scandal. I'm not sure we'd ever dream of doing that, so I don't know about Lisa Nowak's case... _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Support pulling, per Andrew, Amakuru. Scant EV in this tabloid-style tale. This sentence from the article pretty much says it all: "In 2019, the film Lucy in the Sky (starring Natalie Portman) was produced, loosely based on Nowak's story." Ugh. -- Sca (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Waltcip, I'm not sure there is argument here that there was faulty weight in the article or the lead or the blurb-- just that even if all processes were followed, it shouldn't be TFA per common decency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Policy tells us what we can do, decency tells us what we should do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, everything done. Once the discussion is finished, rather than delete it as is usual for WP:ERRORS, I will move what has been said to the talk page for the September 14 TFA so we keep a convenient record of why the change occurred.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, of course, now it seems slightly unfair on Ippantekina that their TFA will get only half the exposure they could otherwise have expected. And has anyone realised that the article we're now running today was an anniversary article for tomorrow? The single was released tomorrow; it's obviously intended to be on tomorrow. FFS. SN54129 14:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Love Story is running for a day and a half but we will only count it as a day. It will be eligible to run again in five years, just like any other first-time appearing article. See my discussion with SandyGeorgia here. Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

And where would Taylor Swift be without the publicity she gets from Wikipedia? :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I think slightly unfair on a Wikipedia editor is a fuck of a lot better than grossly unfair on a living subject of a Wikipedia article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

And on that note, can we bring down the curtain on this? Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm angry today (can you tell I'm angry?) and I need to pretend Wikipedia doesn't exist for a bit. Bfn, and thanks again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes Boing, if they were mutually exclusive positions. But they're not; with slightly more forethought a) the situation would not have arise, b) we would not have fucked off a member of the public, and c) we would not have potentially fucked off a fellow Wikipedian. What a wonderful world that would be.

Now [to everyone else], Wehwalt's proposal to run the same one for 1.5 days is pretty radical, but it strikes me that if that list of 'Do Not TFA' was maintained, we'd avoid WPO swerving a quiet news day—and god knows who else has been watching while we don't achieve anything! SN54129 14:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, the lack of slightly more forethought was exactly the cause of all this. No argument there :-) But once it was too late for the forethought to be forethunk, I think we probably got the best solution we could. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Starting to run the next day's FA early is an ingenious way of quick-fixing this – thanks for the action. I'm not sure that the picture of Taylor Swift in her underwear is raising the tone of the main page much but that's more a matter of taste... Andrew🐉(talk) 14:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson: Well, I did offer a photo of me reenacting the pose, but they weren't having it... ;) SN54129 14:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  That doesn't look underwear-ish to me. I like the Spanish saying better than the Latin: el gusto lo tiene todo en la boca (they have all their taste in their mouth). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's described here as a "crystal-trim and garter set". I thought that they were black stockings but it turns out that they were boots. Still not as good as the pinup which DYK featured yesterday. That got lots of hits so I suppose this will do well too. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Upon careful reflection and consideration, I accept my errors in thinking, regret distress that I caused, and accept the views of the community on this. I will incorporate them into my thinking going forward and have learned from this. I apologize. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Very thoughtful; would someone like to archive top/archive bottom this now ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  +1 from me, nice response. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Lord Lucan

While we're here, why is tomorrow's TFA " ... (b. 18 December 1934)... " and not "(born 18 December 1934)", or are we really trying to save 2 characters? Given when he disappeared, it would also be better to say "has not been seen since" rather than "and was never seen again", just in case. Another thing, the sentence "Lady Lucan was also attacked and she identified Lucan as her assailant." reads really poorly, needs work. I know it's just a synopsis, but right now we have "was never seen again" repeated verbatim a few sentences after the intro sentence. "at the crime scene" does this mean the cellar? It's unclear, as I'm sure the blood-stained car was also a crime scene... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Most of this wording is Parrot's, and after the above, I'm not sure if I want to pull him in here. Could I get a second opinion on this? - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"after the above"? Isn't this just about getting the main page sorted out? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That would be my preference, yes. I've reverted my last edit to Lucan, if that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, your edit served to remove an element of POV which you've now reinserted, all I was hoping for was some editorial oversight which meant we didn't repeat the same phrase verbatim in one paragraph of text. It's not that difficult. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ping me if you can find someone who agrees with you. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure, once again, that I follow. I've made a number of clear points about tomorrow's TFA blurb; you said you'd reverted your own edit, the edit was in actual fact helpful, but its reversion not so. I suppose if you're not prepared to stand by your own project's blurbs then there's little hope in making an error report here. I'm not in the mind to "ping you" if someone "agrees with [me]", your job is to assess these issues as I've presented them and act on them accordingly. If you don't want to do that, fine, but don't put the onus back on me when I've given you clear indications as to what to fix. Twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is a matter of style rather than an error. But the first sentence is too cluttered because it mainly has to explain the subject's various names and titles. The introduction would flow more smoothly if the year of birth were moved into the second sentence which also covers his birth. The year is enough detail here, as with the other dates. So, this would be as follows. Andrew D. (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, known as Lord Lucan, disappeared without trace in 1974. Born in Marylebone in 1934, he attended Eton College...

That reads better for the first sentence but it seems obvious to me that the crime scene being referred to is the basement where the murder took place. Richerman (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I checked the article itself, and it says "presumed dead", so these words should be added.--Tracey Lowndes (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Man in the Moone

Today's FA is The Man in the Moone. The issue is the sentence "The work made a contribution to the branch of astronomy influenced by Nicolaus Copernicus, the only astronomer mentioned by name." This left me wondering what the branch of astronomy was and what the contribution was. It seems to suggest that the work was like a scientific paper, breaking some new ground, when it was really just a tall tale – an early work of science fiction. I suggest that the sentence would be clearer and more accurate as

'The work was based on the "new astronomy" of Copernicus and other Renaissance astronomers.'

Andrew D. (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Good points, but more fundamentally, I don't get it. It doesn't seem that it particularly made a contribution to astronomy, rather it speculated on issues contemporary astronomy was debating. The argument of the text of our article is very tricky to follow. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Drmies ... I saw a recent edit of his so I know he's around somewhere. Andrew, I'm glad you're a Wikipedian, I'm glad you see things that some others don't see, but I'm not playing around ... either start checking WP:TFAA and bringing these points up before TFA day, or you get a 3rd warning. There won't be a 4th warning. The way you're approaching TFA doesn't work well for other Wikipedians. - Dank (push to talk) 11:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you fricking kidding me? He points out an error on the main page, without prejudice or the least bit of incivility, and you warn him? What sort of collaborative environment is this?--WaltCip (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

There's some history here. I need more from you, Walt ... what do you want to know, what seems clear already? I'm listening. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

What I want to know is what is the point to a "Errors in today's/tomorrow's featured article" section, if discussion about errors should not be held here, but at WP:TFAA. I very well could have easily pointed out the same error myself. Saying that there's history with this particular editor implies that there is ad hominem at play.--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll drop this here and raise it at WP:AN#TFA WT:TFA#Andrew. I'm tied up at the moment, but I should be able to get to it within a day. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Walt, just to be balance this, Davidson has habitually waited for articles to hit the main page before stating they should be removed from the main page, even when he has been told that he could be looking at these items in advance of them being posted to the main page. The regularity is such that it seems quite reasonable for some to ask him to look ahead by a day (or even 17, in some cases) and give his concerns to an appropriate audience. Instead, we get these "pull" requests on the day itself (many of which, actually, are ill-founded and not respected). I think all we're asking here is that if Andy believes such fundamental issues exist in articles or blurbs, he makes the point sooner rather than later, especially since the schedule of TFAs is available, usually, a fortnight or so in advance of posting. I believe there has been a precedent for editors being banned from commenting at ERRORS for such an approach, hence the numerous generous warnings Col. Warden has received... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

On the point raised ... I have no reason to believe that the sources don't say what the article says they say, even if I don't understand why they say that. I agree that the writing could be clearer on this point. - Dank (push to talk) 11:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

"habitually waited for articles to hit the main page". Yes, and POINT comes in here as its obviously sabatoge, since we have such well established and staged processes. Circumventing them, lying in the grass with "gotchas" is an easy game to play given the lenghty vetting processes and advance notice. If Andrew actually gave a shite he'd be quitely heading these off before they arose, but no, sneering is more fun. The phrase we use is "hurler on the ditch". Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It's what Davidson does best. Saboteur extraordinaire. It won't continue much longer. See also: Last chance saloon, The Boy Who Cried Wolf and 99 Problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe

In today's feature article (Marilyn Monroe), please change the actors in the following sentence:
"She became one of the most bankable Hollywood actors with starring roles in comedies such as..."
to actresses or more gender neutral stars. Ahmer Jamil Khan 10:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Actor" seems to be a gender-neutral term these days (at least in the US; and Monroe was a US citizen, so WP:ENGVAR applies), so not an error. See Wikipedia:Writing_about_women#Gender-neutral_language. That said, the article describes her as both "actress" and "actor". Haploidavey (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't mean Wiki editors have to behave like PC idiots - she was an ACTRESS. C'mon! 68.19.7.113 (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that ... I see that "actors" has been changed to "stars" in the article, and I get the point that not everyone is up to speed on the 21st century meaning of "actors", so sure, I'll change it. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 10:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm here to report the actor/actress inconsistency too. We can't have a mix in the blurb as that suggests sloppiness or a sex-change. Actress has to be used because of the Golden Globe for Best Actress award. Another issue is the sentence, "She began her career as a pin-up model." She actually started working in the Radioplane plant making drones. This was important war work and so someone came to do a Rosie the Riveter piece. She was picked from the workers as a good subject and so this led to the pin-up work. But the regular work came first and as this was important war work, it should not be discounted or ignored. Andrew D. (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As I've said, I'm not engaging with Andrew. We'll deal with the larger problem eventually; for now, anyone who wants to evaluate this and act or not act is welcome to do so. - Dank (push to talk) 11:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've had time to look at the article now (I spotted the above problems while browsing the main page on my phone while commuting). The relevant sentence in the article's lead seems to be "While working in a factory as part of the war effort in 1944, she met a photographer and began a successful pin-up modeling career." That's ok but the blurb is distorting this. I suggest that the sentence in question be changed to "She began her career working in an aircraft factory." Andrew D. (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree with Dank. And what's the point of reporting errors that have already been fixed? That's another waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      • The actor/actress issue was disputed. Having multiple reports helps in establishing consensus in such cases. As for the "began her career" issue, we don't seem to have anyone but myself engaging with the content issue. I have tracked down the provenance of the current blurb text which seems to have started in TrueHeartSusie3's sandbox. Perhaps they can help, please? Andrew D. (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
        • If you continue to waste time here, I will suggest you are topic-banned from here. You have been asked multiple times by multiple admins to stop being a time sink. Yet you continue to do so, obstinately. Please learn and improve. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
          • Andrew, I would welcome your participation at FAC or TFA, any time before the day of (or day before) any article's TFA day. For me, the point where I realized I might have to do something came when you removed an entire paragraph from the lead of House of Plantagenet on its TFA day, and then later didn't get anywhere with your arguments for why it should be removed. ANI can be nasty and disproportionate, and I hate to take things there. Personally, I'd rather do something quieter, like a 24-hour block, per WP:DE, WP:OWN#Featured articles, and the previous ANI discussion I've already referred you to, about people who insist on waiting till TFA day to make whatever point it is they want to make, incessantly. I'm deliberately mentioning this here because this page isn't even archived, and not a lot of people watch it ... so mentioning this issue here minimizes the embarrassment and impact for you. If you're willing to stop waiting until the last day or two to speak up, and do it before anyone blocks you or reports you, then there's no reason this has to go any farther, and as I say, I'd welcome your insights and your participation. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
            • I've not finished with that House of Plantagenet matter. It took over a day for someone to respond to the need for further citation. I believe they have updated the article now but it seems likely that there is still more to do there. There was quite definitely an issue there and it is still not fully resolved. But that will have to wait because I have some reviews to do over at DYK, as I have several articles in various states of development and requiring QPQs. If I seem fussy, it's because the nitpicking at DYK can be quite severe. But even there I tend to lose track of the DYKs once they start working their way through the process. I don't follow the FA process at all and it seems quite unreasonable that one should have to in order to speak here. I have been testing the Wikipedia mobile apps since they were mentioned on Jimbo's talk page. They give considerable prominence to the FA of the day and so it's natural to read it as it appears and follow up then. Your proposed workflow is not so well supported. For example, there's a link above to tomorrow's featured article. I have occasionally clicked that to look ahead but invariably it seems to be wrong. Right now, for example, it takes one to The Bartered Bride which was the FA from two days ago. So, I suggest that you make it easier to look ahead and I will then be able to give you a heads-up of coming issues. 18:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
              • Andrew, as I suspect you know perfectly well, the link to the month's forthcoming TFAs is in bold on the main page, and AFAIK has been since at least 2005. ‑ Iridescent 18:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
                • He does already know this, I've already given him the link to WP:TFAA and told him we schedule at least two weeks in advance, usually more. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
                • I usually consider that link to be an archive and use it if I want to look back. I don't use it to look forward because a whole month's blurbs is too much to take in at once. And there isn't a workflow such as the QPQ which encourages one to do so. So, I'm just browsing and commenting on what I see, as it arrives. It seems quite remarkable that these comments should cause such consternation. Isn't the FA process just the same thing writ large -- a huge string of nitpicks? Andrew D. (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
            • Without commenting on the merits of Andrew D's edits to TFAs (I haven't checked), there is a clear precedent for banning an editor from touching whatever that day's TFA happens to be. Andrew, I'm not sure you appreciate how unpleasant being the author of a TFA can be—I've been an arb, admin, and CU/OS and I can testify that it's more stressful than any of those. If there's an editor who keeps popping up making nit-picking changes and accusations, that can lead (and has led) to the article writers either quitting the project altogether, or deliberately refusing to get anything they write to a high enough level to qualify for FA status, so even if your corrections are with the best of intentions they can have a significant net negative effect on Wikipedia as a whole. ‑ Iridescent 18:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
              • I don't like to touch the FA itself because they are typically quite long and complex. What I have mainly been doing is reporting main page issues here in the expectation that they would be followed up by those more familiar with the topics. But I then get demands that the article in question be updated before the main page is corrected. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Andrew D. (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Marvel Science Stories

• As discussed at TFA talk, it turns out that Marvel Science Stories was a significant antecedent of Marvel Comics and the mighty Marvel Entertainment empire. The article's lead has been updated with a mention of this. Please can the blurb be updated to match. Andrew D. (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No, for more reasons than I can count. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreed, there has been plenty of time to fix this up before it's been on the main page for 16 hours. It's not an error and this kind of behaviour should be discouraged and persistent offenders should be banned from participating in the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

In the first sentence of the lead, the magazine is called Marvel Science Stories, but the last sentence seems to refer to it as Marvel Tales without explanation. (According to the article, the name was changed, but the lead on the Main Page doesn't mention that.) 69.210.136.253 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent point; changed to "many of the writers were publishing their best work elsewhere". - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Norman conquest of England

Did the conquest "culminate" in the Battle of Hastings? I would have thought that the conquest culminated in a century of Norman rule, the replacement of the English aristocracy, rule of law and system of government, among other things. Surely the battle at Battle was just a military step toward the full conquest? – The Bounder (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The definition of "culminate" at dictionary.com says "to reach the highest point, summit, or highest development". I'd agree with you that the conquest did not end with the Battle of Hastings, but I think describing it as the highest point of the conquest is not wrong. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The aim of a conquest is not simply to take part in one battle: it is to take over all aspects of a country's government. So I think that yes, I'd say it is wrong in to context. – The Bounder (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

But the takeover was the downhill run after victory at the highest point (Hastings). That's when the king was killed and, according to the article, there was mainly submission and surrender after that.

Take the second example in the linked definition: The argument culminated in a fistfight. The fistfight probably wasn't the end of the story; there may have been a trip to the hospital, an apology, renewed friendship or lingering resentment afterwards. But the fight was the climactic point. The same came be said for Hastings. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

But the trip to hospital etc is the fluff of post-fight: it wasn't the aim of the original argument. The aim of the conquest was to take over the country, which they did. The battle was one step on the route to the highest achievement: a century of Norman rule and the removal of the Anglo-Saxon government and all it entailed. I'm happy to let others comment on this, as I'm not sure we are going to convince each other to change our views with these lines of argument. – The Bounder (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• The Bounder has a point. Hastings wasn't the culmination because another Saxon was immediately crowned King so William had to defeat him too. The culmination from William's point of view would be when he himself was crowned in Westminster Abbey. But note that "culmination" is not neutral because it is implicitly taking the side of William. The word "resulted" would be better, i.e. "The invasion resulted in the Battle of Hastings on ...". Andrew D. (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Three problems here: 1. We're never going to have satisfying style discussions at ERRORS because of the constant pushback here against style discussions. I'll be moving this to my talk page at some point, per past consensus. 2. Please check the edit history at the TFA; it will sometimes have the answer to questions people bring up later at ERRORS. As I noted, "culminated" wasn't my word; it was borrowed from another featured article, Battle of Hastings, where it seems to be a historical assessment. It's not our job to second-guess the historians, but I don't mind at all if you want to discuss the wording with with the main editors of that article; I have pinged them on my talk page. 3. One problem here is that in the current TFA, it's not the conquest that's said to have "culminated", it's the invasion. Look up the word "invasion", or just think about it in the context of the Normandy Invasion almost 900 years later (payback!) The taking of Berlin wasn't part of the Normandy Invasion just because it logically followed from it; "invasion" refers to the early stages of a conquest, especially when it's paired with other words that are broader in scope, such as "conquest". - Dank (push to talk) 10:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Operation Andrew

I am concerned about the phrasing of the lead sentence. "The Nazis" is both not very encyclopedic language, and historically inaccurate. Nazi organizations have existed in many places. This was an attempt by Nazi Germany and should be written as such. @Mike Christie and Dank:. Vanamonde (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

As usual, this blurb follows the wording of the featured article itself. So take your concerns to the talk page of the article, per the general instruction "Remember that the Main Page usually defers to supporting pages for accuracy or when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first." Bencherlite^Talk 06:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no way that consensus on a talk page can be built fast enough to address a main page blurb. Knowing that, if I see a problem, I am obligated to flagging it here; else I am willfully avoiding addressing it on the main page. Regardless of the outcome here, I will raise it on the talk, but that is likely to take a while. We frequently override the outcome of other review processes here, often ones for which the blurbs receive more scrutiny; why should we make an exception in this case? Are the talk page watchers here able to judge encyclopedic language or not? Vanamonde (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I see that someone else has boldly changed the article about 25 minutes ago to say "Nazi Germany" - assuming that this change isn't subject to dispute, then no doubt the blurb here can be updated accordingly in due course. This is not a time-critical change involving, for example, a BLP. Bencherlite^Talk 07:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

From my own experience (British English), an unqualified use of "Nazi" implies Nazi Germany and its use falls under WP:COMMONNAME. The rest of the blurb provides enough context to make that inference unchallengeable. Bazza (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Vanamonde, Bench ... yes, the change to the article hasn't been disputed, so I changed the blurb accordingly. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• The blurb leads with a picture of Alfred Naujocks, saying "but the operation was closed in early 1942 after its head, Alfred Naujocks (pictured), fell out of favour". If you click through to Naujocks, you find that it says nothing at all about this operation but says that, "In 1941, he was dismissed from the SD after disputing one of Reinhard Heydrich's orders." The FA itself says, "By late 1940 Naujocks had been removed from his position after he fell out of favour with Heydrich." So, we have three different years – 1940, 1941 and 1942 – which doesn't make much sense. My impression is that the blurb is giving undue weight to the role of Naujocks. It would be better to have a picture of a counterfeit note (which has a muddled licence) or of Bernhard Krüger – the person that the operation was actually named after. In Naujock's day, the plan was called Operation Andrew! Andrew D. (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, pinging David Levy. I removed the first date to give people time to discuss it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• • • It doesn't say that Naujocks fell out of favour in 1940: it was there temporarily because of vandalism, which was easily verifiable. The correct date, supported by all the reliable sources, is 1942. There are too few good sources used on the Naujocks article to base an arguement on it. Naujocks was the man who started the process so it's right to have a picture of him there. We can't have a picture of the note because it's on a non-free licence. And no, it wasn't called Operation Andrew, it was called Unternehmen Andreas (Operation Andreas). The Bounder (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Sounds good, I reverted my edit. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Naujocks testified at Nuremburg that he left the SD in January 1941. He was then in the Waffen SS, fighting on the Russian front. (see Evidence from Nuremberg). So there was about a year between Naujocks' departure and the end of Operation Andrew. As for the name, it was called Andrew after the cross of St Andrew in the UK flag. The English article fails to explain this but you'll find this detail in the German version and supported by sources. Andrew is the English translation, of course. If you prefer the original German, then the article should be called Aktion Bernhard. Andrew D. (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Try reading the article in full before jumping in. It says, quite clearly, and which is accurately summarised by the lead: "By late 1940 Naujocks had been removed from his position after he fell out of favour with Heydrich.[n 6] The counterfeiting unit continued under Langer before he left in early 1942 at which point it closed down". It could be called Aktion Bernhardt, but Unternehmen is also acceptable, as the German article makes abundantly clear. I'm stepping away now - there is nothing that needs further discussion. The Bounder (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
          • It's technically correct, Bounder, but I'll add "after a year" just so no one gets confused. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Push the Button

The current FA is Push the Button (Sugababes song). This is supposed to use British English but the blurb has "it features the Sugababes flirting with three men in an elevator." That should be "in a lift". Andrew D. (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm. Fixing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Also the caption of the image says "The Sugababes in 2005", but the photo was actually taken on 11th April 2006 (see the original Flickr source). That's not even the line-up that featured on Push the Button (Amelle hadn't joined by then). Could this image be used instead? 82.1.212.128 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging David Levy and Chris. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Roman withdrawal from Africa (255 BC)

Rower positions in a Greek trireme

• Personally, I don't think the image is very illustrative of the blurb. In the article it's only used further down the page in a relatively trivial manner. We could use one of the maps or just go without an image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• I'm here to report the same issue. The image (left) shows a hypothetical section of a Greek trireme. But the article is about the Romans and Carthaginians, not the Greeks. And they used quinquiremes, not triremes. If we just want a generic picture of a galley fleet then File:Greek Galleys.jpg would be better but such pictures are conjectural rather than factual. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

   Removed - there don't seem to be any images suitable in this instance. The map mentioned above might have been good but, lacking a key, it is not clear what the lines and numbers refer to. Also it uses the term "Cartago" rather than the more usual Carthage in English.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The Carthaginian and Roman territories

• @Amakuru: Thanks. For a replacement image, please consider the map of the general area (left), as many readers will not be familiar with this and the location of Carthage. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The general area map looks good - as you say, Carthage is not a commonly known contemporary place Turini2 (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson and Turini2:  Done, thanks. I've put a rather lengthy caption to explain what the map is, but if there's a better way to say it, do let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

When you select the image the subtext for it still reads as rower postitions in a Greek trireme rather than a description of the map. A rather minor problem to be sure but it may cause some confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Government Man (talk • contribs)

Amakuru, apologies for troubling you further on this topic, but i think that "at the time of the withdrawal" in the caption should probably be replaced by something along the lines of "before the First Punic War". the map shows the territory controlled at 264 bc, the year the war began, and about nine years before the withdrawal in 255 bc. the romans gained control of the city of messana on sicily at the start of the war and continued their advance on sicily during the next few years, as illustrated by this map. however, the map currently featured shows none of sicily under roman control. dying (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dying: great, thanks for the clarification. I've updated accordingly. I've also removed the defunct reference to The Boat Race in the pop-up caption, per Government Man above. Now the pop-up just says the same as the caption underneath. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

looks good. thanks, Amakuru! dying (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Satoru Iwata

As a frequent editor of video game-related articles myself, I try to think of what people not familiar with video games might find hard to understand. In today's featured article there is such a bit. "A self-declared gamer, he focused on expanding the appeal of video games across all demographics and increasing the market space". I'll break it down.

• "A self-declared gamer". It already says "Born in Sapporo, Japan, Iwata expressed interest in video games from an early age". I don't see a relationship between being a gamer and the rest of the sentence.
• "he focused on expanding the appeal of video games across all demographics and increasing the market space". What are "all demographics"? Wouldn't "he focused on expanding the appeal of video games for a larger audience" be more clear? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what either of those sentences has to do with helping people not familiar with video games. They both seem like editorial preference. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Cyclonebiskit; thoughts? Soetermans, re: "I try to think of what people not familiar with video games might find hard to understand." ... well, pull up a chair, I need your input! Preferably before an article's TFA day, though. On the particular question you're asking, I want to get CB's feedback before making any tweaks. The existing wording has content that your rewording doesn't, so the question is whether readers know what the current wording means, or whether it will simply be confusing. - Dank (push to talk) 11:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not an editorial preference. ""A self-declared gamer, he focused on expanding the appeal of video games across all demographics and increasing the market space". Currently it suggest that it was because Iwata was "a self-declared gamer", and that's why he focused on expanding the appeal of video games. Was it really a cause and effect situation? He didn't focus on expanding the appeal because he was a businessman in the industry of video games and wanted to sell as much products of the company? And what are "all demographics" then? On Satoru Iwata the word "demographic" is mentioned twice, and not explaining what the demographics were. A demographic is a quantifiable characteristic of a given population, so what are "all demographics"? Age groups? Social classes? Men and women? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with the first assertion and as to the second question: have you read the article? It's explained and expanded upon there. This is a 1200-or-so word blurb summarising a 94KB article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think these are errors. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As a self-described gamer, I edit video game related articles. Cause and effect. And I guess "non-gamers", "moms" and "casual gamers" encompass "all demographics". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that there's no factual error here but I'm not liking the buzzwords "market space" for which we don't have an article. Here's how the BBC seems to put it:

  He told the BBC in 2008 that he believed the key was to "increase the number of people gaming" and attract those outside the usual gaming demographic of young men. He often preached this inclusive approach, urging developers to create games for different audiences and of varying skills. ...

The BBC's account seems clearer than our marketing jargon about the blue ocean. Andrew D. (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

After Cyclonebiskit weighs your feedback, he may decide on different wording, and that would be fine with me. Which is why it's a good idea to do all of this before an article's TFA day. For people who don't know, WP:TFAA shows you all the TFAs at least two weeks in advance. - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well it's worth considering that there is no error here, just a couple of people wanting to see their own versions applied, despite what the article says. And yes, this was known to be coming onto the main page on 26 June, that's 15 days people have had to raise such editorial issues with the blurb and/or change the article themselves. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that it's not an error. I'd cut "A self-declared gamer" from the sentence in question because it adds nothing, but it's not harming anyone by staying there. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

SECR K and SR K1 classes

Its blurb says "The class was the earliest large-scale use of the 2-6-4 wheel arrangement in Britain." This seems to be incorrect because, as the article explains, the earlier GCR Class 1B class had already used this arrangement. Twenty of each class were constructed so the numbers were the same. Andrew D. (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on the article and its talk page to see if there's agreement there to change it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's sourced to Casserley (1966), which is apparently an article in Railway World, which I don't have. The GCR Class 1B were indeed 2-6-4T, and also pre-dated the K class; but they were designed for hauling coal trains, whereas the K class were passenger engines, so I suspect that a qualification has gone missing somewhere. Maybe Casserley didn't mention it, or maybe the person who used Casserley as a source didn't realise the significance of that qualifier. The offending passage might be made more accurate by the insertion of the phrase "for passenger locomotives", as in either "earliest large-scale use for passenger locomotives of the 2-6-4 wheel arrangement in Britain" or "earliest large-scale use of the 2-6-4 wheel arrangement for passenger locomotives in Britain". --Redrose64 (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose. This is now off the Main Page, so the discussion should continue at the article talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks to Redrose64 for confirming this. A quick and simple fix would have been to delete the sentence from the blurb. WP:ERRORS should not be waiting for an elaborate qualification such as Redrose64 suggests – this takes too long. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sesame Street research

• The current blurb states "The formative research on Sesame Street was the first time children's television viewing was studied scientifically." This claim of a first seemed unlikely and a quick browse indicates that there are numerous counter-examples prior to the show's start in 1969. Here's a selection. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Children's, parents' and teachers' reactions to television (1950)
2. Television and school achievement (1956)
3. Children's Vision and Television (1957)
4. The effect on parental buying habits of children exposed to children's television programs (1958)
5. The Effect of Children's Television on Behaviour (1958)
6. Television for children: Dimensions of communicator and audience perceptions (1965)
7. Derived values and children's attitudes toward a children's television program (1965)
8. The Potential Uses of Television in Preschool Education (1967)
9. The relative contribution of television as a learning source for children's occupational knowledge (1967)
10. Television and children: A selective bibliography of use and effects (1968)

The American Bible Challenge

Today it's The American Bible Challenge. I'd not heard of this and so found it quite interesting but there are a couple of issues:

1. The blurb and article use the present tense in many places, as if the show is still in production. It was confusing to get that impression and then realise that the show is not now active. I suppose this arose because the bulk of the article was written when the show was running but now a historical tone would be better.
2. The blurb and article talk about "the Bible" as if that's clear and unambiguous. But the Bible is like football — there are many versions and, for a game show, this would be quite important. I gather that the show used the New International Version but don't know if that was followed consistently and the article doesn't say. For some examples of how this matters, see list of Bible verses not included in modern translations.

Andrew D. (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've sorted the issues with tense. The rest is certainly beyond my ability. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks BK. I think this is a point worth bringing up, Andrew, but it's not addressed in the article, wasn't addressed at FAC, doesn't seem to have been addressed by the critics, and AFAICT it isn't addressed in the sources. It's very much worth discussing, but let's see changes in the article first. On the wording in the blurb: if I had said "he quotes the Bible", that would be ambiguous. But you don't need to know the exact wording for a show to be "Biblical-themed", or to answer questions about it, just like you don't have to quote Walt Disney for a theme park to be Disney-themed, or to answer questions about Disney. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• The tense was discussed in the talk page; present tense is correct and follows MOS:TENSE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_American_Bible_Challenge Umimmak (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Umimmak. I'm putting some diffs together on this question for the shows that most commonly show up at FAC. So far I've just got X-Files (in the middle of 2015, when it hadn't been in production for a long time): X-Files "is". Will keep looking. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Star Trek: The Next Generation "is", Dexter (TV series) "is" ... and from memory it's "is". Let's keep it present tense as long as it's present tense in the article. - Dank (push to talk) 15:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Which is what it was originally and what MOS says to do. People are too quick to change "errors" without first making sure they're actually errors and that their change actually is an improvement. Umimmak (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Great. I'll put it back then. After all, it's clear that a TV show which no longer airs, and hasn't done for three years, should be written in the present tense, isn't it? The MOS is complete nonsense sometimes. Actually, forget "sometimes". Black Kite (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Dank for doing that already. Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry guys, been busy all day (it is that time of year; fitting a biblical-themed article is the TFA for Christmas Eve!). Does anything else need to be addressed? Ping me if you need anything. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thunder (mascot)

This mixes up Arabic and Roman numerals in the same context "Thunder III appeared in XLVIII and Super Bowl 50". Such Roman numerals are considered baffling as most Americans don't understand Roman numerals. Perhaps we should number the superbowls consistently in Arabic numerals for clarity?

It also took me a while to understand the naming of the horses. When skimming the blurb initially, I got the impression that Thunder was a different horse from other horses listed like Winter Solstyce. The main article clarifies this from the outset by starting "Thunder is the stage name for the horse..." The blurb drops the mention of stage name which may then cause this confusion.

Andrew D. (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Super Bowls are always numbered with Roman numerals, and Super Bowl 50 is always an exception (see Super Bowl 50#Marketing). User:Dank wants to be pinged. Art LaPella (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should make the sentence confusing for the sake of the NFL's now-finished marketing campaign. I'd like to suggest further changes too, because it sounds like all horses have been somehow ongoing in the role, when in fact the first they have held the role in succession. We can't say that Judge has ridden and Magness-Blake has owned all three horses for two decades for the same reason:

Three gray purebred Arabians named JB Kobask, Winter Solstyce, and Me N Myshadow have held this role in succession since 1993; each horse's coat had turned white with age when they commenced the role. Ann Judge has been the rider and trainer for almost two decades, and Sharon Magness-Blake has owned each of the horses.'

I think this would make the paragraph clearer. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

On a final point: is it necessary to say "for almost two decades"? The article says "since 1998" which gives more certainty to the sentence. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Several points were raised while I was asleep. They're all style points, so per previous discussions, I'm moving all this stuff to my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 12:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"Thunder shares mascot duties with Miles (Mascot), a human who wears a horse head mask atop a Broncos uniform." The wikilink to horse head mask should be removed, as the mask article refers to a specific type of mask "manufactured by novelty purveyor Archie McPhee", and not any generic mask that resembles a horse head. 9³ 14:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What that article is supposed to say is an argument to make at Talk:horse head mask. I'll be happy to ping the FAC nominator, Montanabw, but I don't think that article is so awful that I need to remove the link to preserve the purity of TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Horse head mask clearly states that it is a specific mask, and I have already removed the link from Thunder (mascot). 9³ 18:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, done. Your edit at the article hasn't been reverted, and I can't find any evidence online that Miles's mask is made by that company. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a ridiculous proposition that the article only refers to masks made by that specific manufacturer. Even the original article version states that the masks were originally made by them. There are multiple versions available [9], many made in China. Stephen 23:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Zapata rail

Today's FA is the Zapata rail and it seemed odd that a bird would be featured without a picture. From the captions, it seems that the article used to have a picture of a museum specimen but that has been removed. I have replaced this with another picture and that should be added to the main page too, please. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Added. thanks Andrew. Stephen 11:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm the last guy to figure out what's going on with image issues, so I'll ping Jimfbleak and David Levy. Any problems with the image that was added to the article and to TFA today? - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The previous image was deleted from commons and then delinked here in May. Andrew D. (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Zapata_rail#Image Problem. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Andrew D., Dank Sorry, I've been out all day. To be honest. as far as I can see, the deleted image was added way back in 2007, added again by another (very experienced) editor, and presumably at some stage removed again without me noticing. I think that the FA requirement is actually just to have an image, not necessarily of the species concerned. That's clearly desirable, but in this case very difficult Jimfbleak (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Featured Picture

Adonis Blue

The other day, TRM said, "We don't tend to bold link stubs from the main page". I was just looking at today's FP, the Adonis Blue and noticed that the article for this topic is a stub which doesn't have any sources. The article contains the statement "It also lives in the rainforests and deserts" which seems dubious. The blurb says "This specimen, a male, was photographed in Foissac, Aveyron, France." How do we know that any of these facts are true? This seems to be WP:OR. That's a general problem with photos but I'd expect featured content to address the issue better. Andrew D. (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I did say that, and I stand by it too. I have queried the "quality" of bold-linked items in the TFP section, to no avail. The good news is that the proposed pictures of the day are listed usually well in advance which gives concerned editors plenty of time to address any issues or bring the problems to the attention of the TFP folks/relevant experts before they hit the main page. Here's a handy link for this month's contenders: Wikipedia:Picture of the day/March 2016. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If I'd come across that in a queue then I'd have said that it simply should not be featured because there doesn't seem to be any expert confirmation that the species is what's claimed. Note that there are lots of blue butterfly species and Polyommatinae contains lots of question marks. The photographer doesn't seem to be a subject matter expert so taking such pictures in the wild is OR. The photographer doesn't seem to be active currently so we can't ask more about this in a timely way. Myself, I'm still picking up the pieces from Saturday's FP and have another article which I really ought to be working on. Perhaps Cwmhiraeth or Casliber can help? Andrew D. (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, as noted before, if you are genuinely concerned by these things, the queue is there, way into the future, for you to help out before things hit the main page and cause embarrassment. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added some extra information and some citations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• I just skimmed the queue and the picture of a platoon sergeant (right) catches my eye. That's the sort of take-no-nonsense discipline we're wanting here, right?  :) Some issues though:

1. The person is named in the photo desc and so there may be BLP issues.
2. The article platoon sergeant has a clean-up banner tag. Drill instructor might be better but that has a clean-up banner tag too.

Andrew D. (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look at some butterflies first up...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember when I did bring this up before but I was told by various individuals, I think including Howcheng, that the TFP section of the main page is not designed to highlight a quality article, just a quality picture. I used to skim through the queue myself and try to improve the bold-linked article but it became somewhat wearing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

When I wrote TFP blurbs, the article had to have enough context to write a decent blurb. However, I ignored maintenance tags exactly for the reason TRM states: that the blurb is focused on the picture, not the article. Since I moved over to OTD, I haven't been following what goes on at TFP anymore. —howcheng {chat} 09:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Casliber and Cwmhiraeth have been doing some good work on the Adonis Blue page – thanks. But I'm still not seeing how we know whether the photograph is actually of that species rather than some other blue butterfly and so this seems to fail WP:V. We still don't have a reliable source for the identification of this specimen, do we?

There's a couple of other issues too. I notice that the photographer gets a byline, unlike all our other content on the main page. For example, today's FA is about Bristol and that's a page that I contributed to myself by editing, uploading and linking the image of Robert Ricart's map of Bristol. Neither myself nor any of the other contributors get a byline so why the exception here? There seems to be a policy issue here because it appears that some photographers are using Wikipedia to showcase their work, which they hope to profit by. For example, the photographer in this case has said, "I do want to earn money where my image is used commercially" and I recall a recent licensing discussion where a photographer was displaying a photo with commercial licensing terms in another site while using CC here.

Another issue is that this section tries to link to tomorrow's image in the section title but that "tomorrow" link doesn't seem to work – it goes to today. If we're going to look ahead to catch these issues before they go up, it would be good to have a forward-looking discussion page where we can hash out these issues without being shut down so quickly. I don't really see what wrong with talking about them here though as it seems to get attention and be quite productive. Strike while the iron is hot! Andrew D. (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, a question for you about the example image you selected of the drill/platoon sergeant. How do we verify that's really a platoon sergeant and a recruit, and that it's not completely staged, perhaps a movie image for instance? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The drill instructor image comes from the USMC. I don't think there's much doubt that it is what it says but there are issues as that image comes with "Limitations for Public Use". I suspect that means that we can't or shouldn't use it but I'm not an expert on the finer points of such PD images. Has anyone consulted Gunnery Sgt Angell about this? Andrew D. (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It was an example. There are countless examples of photos taken by Wikipedians whose content is not explicitly verifiable by reliable sources within the detail of the image. Where do you draw the line? Incidentally, none of this relates to the matter in hand, i.e. a perceived "error" on the main page. For this discussion to be useful, please continue it somewhere relevant, such as WP:FP. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A failure of core policies such as WP:V and WP:OR seems like an error which should be considered here. Items like DYK routinely get pulled when their hooks don't stand up to close scrutiny. It doesn't seem good enough for the FP to duck this issue by not providing sources which can be checked. There are images whose attribution and provenance is well-attested and I reckon that, to be featured, the picture should tick all such boxes. Andrew D. (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Then take the issue to the people that promote pictures and advocate their inclusion on the main page. This report will be soon archived and no good will have come of it unless you are prepared to talk to the people that actually do the work around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

.

(ec) As a fresh example of the need for fact-checking, please consider an image (right) which I came across while working on Saturday's FP. This purports to be Geese descending on the koto bridges but it turned out that it has been mislabelled. The correct "geese descending" picture can be seen at Art Institute Chicago – it's similar but different. That error is now to be found all over the internet. I'll get that sorted out here in due course, if someone else doesn't do it first, but it takes time and painstaking attention to detail. But that's all I have time for right now. Andrew D. (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again, that has nothing to do with the main page, so please take the concerns elsewhere where they will be read and possibly actioned. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Evening Snow on the Heater

Today's featured picture, Evening Snow on the Heater, is so mysterious that it would be a good DYK hook. The blurb and image description say something of the technique but don't explain what we're looking at. What is going on here and what does snow have to do with it? Do the Japanese really put snow on their heaters!? Also, I initially supposed that the person on the left was a man and that they were holding chopsticks. As I looked into this, I found that I was wrong and that there is a fascinating backstory which alludes to famous landscapes.

Having got to the bottom of this, I have recorded my findings in an article about the image – Evening Snow on the Heater. Please can you link to this in the blurb which might be expanded from this material to explain the scene.

Andrew D. (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Linked, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. Perhaps it should be the bold link in the blurb rather than ukiyo-e? Andrew D. (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't tend to bold link stubs from the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Jupiter

The image as it appears now

"liquidier" is a rather marginal word, as indeed are "liquidy" and "liquider". I am confident that the vast majority of native speakers would use "more liquid"; if some subtle distinction is intended then I suggest it is too subtle. jnestorius^(talk) 08:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Where in the blurb are any of those words featured please? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to the left of the planet in the picture, although I presume that would be hard to change. "Liquidier hydrogen" Art LaPella (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

In which case it's an issue with the image itself, not the TFP blurb. GRAPPLE ^X 10:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that liquidier is not an English word. But there are more important issues with this picture. It claims to be "to scale" and so is asserting lots of supposed facts about the interior of Jupiter. For example, metallic hydrogen is not something that we know much about and the pressure required to produce it is uncertain. The supposed depth of the hypothetical layer in Jupiter's interior is therefore uncertain. The picture is also shown in false colours. The hypothetical metallic hydrogen is shown in garish red, which seems unlikely, while amusingly the Great Red Spot, which people have actually seen, is not shown in red. The picture is essentially OR not supported by reliable sources and so seems a violation of WP:V. I'm not even sure that its technical quality is as good as it might be – white on white doesn't work for several of the lines pointing to layers of the interior. Andrew D. (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've restored this discussion. There are definitely issues with the picture, which are errors of content and appear on the Main Page. We may not be able to modify the image at this stage, but we can take action: pull the TFP. Replace it with something that doesn't have content issues. Modest Genius ^talk 14:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

  Please take the error report to somewhere where the problem can also be resolved, such as WP:FPC, if you really care. In the meantime, I suppose someone like Howcheng will need to work out the best way of pulling a TFP half-way through and replacing it with another for less than a half a day, all for a rather trivial issue, in my mind. Seems like those who really are interested in helping out here should be helping out at the process areas, not just complaining about minor issues once they get to the main page. That it received unanimous acclaim at WP:FPC is a concern given the sudden outpouring of horror here by those who are so offended.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• It was not unanimous as someone opposed, "diagram not supportd by article text". This objection was not answered. Andrew D. (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Good one. I think you get the point. Time people started helping fix problems before they're problems. Please contribute at the appropriate candidate pages to ensure such errors don't creep through the net. Please ensure that the FP folks know this should be demoted immediately, that is if you truly care about the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Whilst that would be great, the whole purpose in WP:ERRORS is to deal with errors which weren't picked up before the content reached the Main Page, like this one. We can't go back and change history, but we* can implement a temporary fix that prevents more readers being misled. *by which I mean admins watching this page, which doesn't include me. Modest Genius ^talk 14:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is a very different case. Errors in all other sections of the main page can be fixed by admins in moments, errors in pictures cannot be. And please, clarify precisely what is misleading here, just the word "liquidier" which 99% of English speakers will go "eh? Oh, "more liquid"..."? Or are you suggesting all those who supported it for FP were all also misled? As I've already said, perhaps there's a way of doing this without shortchanging another featured picture which would get fewer than ten hours main page exposure. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• While the interior is mostly a matter of conjecture, the moons of Jupiter have been observed for some time. The picture says "all features drawn to scale" but the discs of the moons seem too large in proportion to the disc of Jupiter. Compare with an actual photo (right). Such pictures with technical content should be scrutinised by experts in the field. I'm pinging Mike Peel, who is an astronomer. Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• As I've already suggested, please notify the FPC process and initiate a delisting discussion based on your numerous concerns. All the discussion here is going to achieve is a late pull, and won't improve this image. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• That's still a good thing. Get it off the MP first, dealing with the issues can be done at a sober pace later. Modest Genius ^talk 14:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see the big deal myself, as I noted above, we'll have to wait. If you actually believe there to be issues, you'd have tried to do something more practical, all of you, yet it's just so easy to make a fuss then let someone else deal with it I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• I now realise that Modest Genius has good professional experience in this field too and so we already have an expert opinion. What are we waiting for now? Is that no-one knows how to pull an FP? Isn't it just a matter of commenting out that section in the mainpage layout? The FP section spans the full width of the page and so knocking out that section wouldn't upset the page balance, right? Andrew D. (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• It would be unprecedented to actually remove the TFP section from the Main Page due to image content concerns. In fact, it's even extremely rare to replace it midway through (I have a feeling this may have been done before, but I'm not sure). Regardless, I haven't been involved with TFP for a few years now. —howcheng {chat} 17:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why replace the image? FP had their shot for today and blew it. Make that have consequences. --Khajidha (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There seem to be:

• some minor issues with the image ("liquidier", for example, or too-white lines) that in a perfect world would have been caught earlier. If we could correct this on the fly, we would, but I don't see them as that big a deal.
• The issue of dimensions inside the planet being claimed as "to scale". But the caption clearly says this is a model, and the actual interior is uncertain, so I think that's OK too.
• The sizes of the moons, which Andrew says are not to scale with Jupiter. From poking around on NASA and Bad Astronomy pages, it appears they're probably the right size; they're all roughly similar in size to the Great Red Spot, which matches this image. I suspect the problem is they look too big to be this close; I'm reasonably sure the orbits have been significantly foreshortened for perspective, but the sizes of the moons haven't been foreshortened for perspective too, resulting in it looking wrong.

At this point, we can:

1. Do nothing
2. Replace the image with yesterday's image for the remaining 6 hours
3. Add text to the caption clarifying that planet features are to scale but moon orbits are not.
4. Up and remove the FP completely. But this seems unwise and unnecessary, especially as some kind of punishment for the FP crowd because they should have known better.

I propose either #1 or #3. Issues don't seem severe enough to remove/replace image. If I had to choose, I'd pick #1, but if other people pick #3, they should propose something to add to the caption. I'm fairly sure you aren't going to find an admin who decides to remove/replace the image over this imperfection, so you can continue to lobby for that, but it might not be a productive use of time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• I just took another look. Here are some more issues:

1. The image description says "everything is drawn to scale (except the aurorae)". So the aurorae are not to scale either.
2. The sources listed there are "1, 2, 3, and the wikipedia articles Jupiter & Rings of Jupiter." Of course, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
3. The cloud layers are captioned as "30 miles thick". The sources provide this distance in kilometers too and that's supposed to be our usual style.
4. Under the main heading, there's some stats about field of view and x/y shifts. It's not clear what these are so I suppose they are an artifact of the "3D renderer". I went looking for similar usage out there and found a pdf which claims copyright. I suspect they got it from us as that's dated 2015. Anyway, I didn't find anything which explained the image settings and so reckon they are spurious and should be removed from the image.
5. The moons Metis and Adrastea are omitted for no clear reason. Compare with the image (right).

Andrew D. (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note these comments at a place they can be actioned, I.e., not here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Andrew's issues:

1. So can you suggest what you'd like the caption be modified to? Would it ruin the caption to add "Features are drawn to scale except for the aurorae and the orbits of the Galilean moons"?

2. I believe you can use info in a WP article to create an image for that article; I'm fairly sure I've run across that somewhere, but can't find it now.

3. The use of miles instead of km is not an error

4. I don't know what they mean either, but I can't imagine pulling an FP because of it.

5. I assume that was an editorial decision; there are lots of moons which aren't shown (Jupiter has 67)

Regarding TRM's comment, and the existence of this thread: If this was a matter of one spelling error, I don't think anyone would suggest a request to fix the typo in the figure belongs here. If, say, the arrows all pointed to the wrong things, I think everyone would agree to pulling it, and the request to pull would belong here. We're in between, where different people are going to have different criteria for pulling or not pulling. So it's not crazy, or wrong, to request pulling it here, but so far admins have declined to do so - I certainly don't think it's justified - and no one has proposed a modification to the caption. I'd say, per TRM, it's not reasonable to use ERRORS to point out things that need fixing in an image, in order to get them fixed, because we can't do that here. It is reasonable to point out things that can be addressed in the caption, or point out things that would justify removal.

Anyone object to my proposed addition to the caption? Too hackey? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Naturally I think your proposed course of action is just dandy; at the very least you're trying to solve the problem rather than just spending your time "heaping praise upon praise". Those who continue to "review" featured pictures here are best advised to do it elsewhere. And yes Floq, please add your addendum to the picture blurb, specifically so we can close down this shambolic display of jobsworth editorialising. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Wordsmithing by admins more linguistically skilled than I am would be welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Here's some more issues. The picture labels the atmospheric zones and belts. One such is what it calls the "Far north temperate zone". This name is an invention of the artist as no-one else seems to call it that. The conventional name for this zone is the "North North Temperate Zone" and there's a conventional abbreviation of NNTZ, which the picture ought to be using. The picture's nomenclature is erroneous OR, the artist doesn't seem active currently, no-one else seems able to fix this and the pdf above indicates that third-parties are picking this diagram up and using it to educate people. I reckon this image should not just be pulled; it should be deleted until it can be corrected. If this is not done, we will be spreading misinformation. Andrew D. (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Seriously, this is becoming a joke now. (Do you actually read anything in these threads?) Are you actually going to do something about this or are you just going to spend more and more of your own time finding things to complain about? The picture is up for delisting, it's not going to be removed from the main page for another three and a half hours, time for you to go and do something more useful somewhere else, or else run for admin so you can make all the changes you like about all the things you don't like, while summarily avoiding doing any of the work required. Feel free to nominate the picture for deletion, feel free to award yourself a barnstar for "endless nitpicking", but seriously, this is too much, did we see a single complaint from anyone other than two people? I reckon you need to start working and stop commentating. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• I would fix these problems myself but everything is locked down so that only admins can do this. I have paged Fram who, as an admin, is usually quite vigorous in dealing with such issues. I'm usually pulling in the other direction but I start to empathize when nothing is done about such inaccuracy. Andrew D. (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, the "little" issues are starting to pile up. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have put this up on the main page, but at this stage in the game I still don't think taking it down makes sense. 2-3 minor errors, likely in translation. Only 40 minutes left anyway - although I realize this thread was first started much earlier. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Pressurized water reactor

"Heat is transferred through the walls of these tubes to the lower pressure secondary coolant located on the sheet side of the exchanger where the secondary coolant evaporates to pressurized steam. This transfer of heat is accomplished without mixing the two fluids to prevent the secondary coolant from becoming radioactive" I don't think this is supported by the source cited. Eg. doesn't mention that the secondary coolant is lower pressure, doesn't mention a "sheet side", doesn't mention that the secondary coolant does not become radioactive - Dumelow (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I've trimmed out the bits that I couldn't verify from the source cited - Dumelow (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this POTD which has now vanished because Dumelow has just overwritten it. Here's what I wrote in response to the first discussion. The lack of continuity at WP:ERRORS is appalling and so it's no place to hold a proper discussion. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Citation issues are quite irrelevant because, by convention, we don't put citations for anything on the main page and so the reader isn't seeing or expecting them. If you're supposing that the reader will click through to the article and then wade through that to find the relevant citation and then click through that to the source and then fight with paywalls to wade through that to confirm the details then you're wasting your time because that's just not going to happen – readers rarely click through to cited references even when they are in line.

The real question of that sort about the blurb is whether it is accurate or not. Citations are only required if a fact is controversial and the basic operation of a PWR is not. In this case, the main point of the video is to explain the basics of a PWR and so it's self-documenting. If it wasn't accurate we shouldn't be showing it.

There are several more important issues in this case. First, let's be clear what we're talking about which is File:PWR_nuclear_power_plant_animation.webm (right). And, rather than shouting into the wind, let's address the FP co-ordinator who is specifically in charge of this section. As I understand it, that's Adam Cuerden. I've met Adam at Wikimania and so can testify that he's full of enthusiasm and good faith so will be interested to hear our feedback.

1. The main point of this section is that this is an especially good picture and in this case it's a video. So, as well as a brief description of the subject, I would expect some details of the picture itself. Who produced it and what techniques and equipment did they use? What makes it a good picture and whose opinion is that? Did it win any awards or prizes? Why was it produced and when and how was it distributed?

2. As this is a video, there are technical issues. What bothers me most is that, when I look at the page on my phone, like the majority of our readership, then the video won't play. This doesn't seem to be a problem with the mobile view as that works on the Chromebook that I'm currently using. I find that it's because the webm format is not supported on iPhones and my phone is an iPhone. As they are common, the reader should be warned about this issue.

3. I also looked at the page on the iPhone Wikipedia app. It is interesting to note that the video does not appear there at all because the app shows the Commons picture-of-the-day instead. I suspect that's because the app designers like to have lots of pictures and Commons is more certain to have a picture every day.

4. The thumbnail for the picture has a couple of overlays: CC and 1:04. I guess that the number is the run time in minutes and seconds but others might assume that it's a version number or hours and minutes so perhaps that should be explained. I also guessed that CC meant Creative Commons but, when I investigated, found that this assumtpion was incorrect and that it really means Closed captioning. I don't really understand that in this case or how I would turn on the captions so that could use some explanation too.

So, when considering such a picture, please approach it as a reader would and consider what really matters for someone who knows nothing about it.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: the previous section was about general issues around POTD, which doesn't belong on ERRORS. If you have issues with the citation guidelines, then it would be better to start a discussion or RFC at Talk:Main page to propose a concrete alternative. Personally I think the current system works OK, although it does depend on people creating POTDs to ensure that the material is cited. There isn't a dedicated POTD coordinator any more, since Crisco left the role a few years ago... It's more ad hoc, I've been working on it quite a bit lately, Adam did some last year, Cwmhiraeth has worked on it too. Dumelow is doing a great job reviewing what's there. But ultimately it's for the community to decide what and how it should be improved. Oh, and regarding the issue of the video not playing, if there are issues with the formats accepted by WP and Commons, or a suggestion to limit what videos can be FPs those discussions would be best placed at their respective project pages. As it stands, all FPs are entitled to a POTD run. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

For reference the relevant guidelines I've been trying to apply are listed at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines, specifically: "All facts mentioned in the blurb must be found in the target article, or in the description linked to the image itself, if it's a specific detail not relevant to the article topic. All facts in the blurb must have a citation to a reliable source". Frequent readers of this page may note that they are not being applied to many of the blurbs that come through. As we don't seem to be able to comply with these guidelines (see tomorrows where almost nothing is cited), I would favour shorter blurbs with nothing but basic information and leave the rest to the article (however poor that may be: POTD is the only main page section that doesn't require any real minimum standard for the article itself) - Dumelow (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Starvation

Are we seriously using a picture of a man who was "forcible starved" as an illustration for starvation without any sort of comment whatsoever? This was a POW who was apparently deliberately starved for a month as punishment but the text uses him merely as some sort of object to illustrate the condition. There no links to any of the moral issues around this, no mention of whether he survived, no context whatsoever in fact other than a couple of links out to North Vietnam and Viet Cong.

Yes, that's right, it's an incredibly vivid and moving example of what someone looks like following a period of starvation. It's a featured picture. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• I looked at this picture before. It's a propaganda picture produced by the PR agency representing one of the parties in a war. They are not a reliable source and the information provided is sketchy. As this is not "a source noted for its accuracy" it fails WP:FP?#6. Andrew D. (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

  I assume you have taken this complaint to the Featured Pictured candidates page? Or is it safe to assume you can't be bothered to do any of this properly any longer? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

In the News

2021 Northern Ireland riots

The current blurb is "Riots erupt in loyalist areas of Northern Ireland as a result of escalating tensions from Brexit and loyalist groups withdrawing from the Good Friday Agreement." This seems tendentious in attributing the cause to Brexit. The lead of the corresponding article does not specify a cause but the most proximate incident seems to have been the Bobby Storey funeral and the lack of enforcement of COVID regulations, which is not a Brexit-related issue. The article also lists the seizure of illicit drugs as an issue so there appear to be multiple factors. As this is an ongoing disturbance, it seems to be too soon to be jumping to conclusions. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what needs to be done. Would changing "as a result of" to "amid" help? --PFHLai (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• The one definite fact is that there have been riots and so the item should just say that. Leave it to the article to explain the background, possible causes and ramifications. So, trim it to "Riots erupt in loyalist areas of Northern Ireland."

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Trimmed as suggested. Thanks. -- PFHLai (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This BBC background article suggests the reasons are (a) loyalist tensions over the Irish Sea border imposed as a result of the UK-EU Brexit deal; (b) the decision not to prosecute leaders of the republican Sinn Féin party for breaching Covid regulations at the funeral of a former IRA intelligence chief last June. The Good Friday Agreement is mentioned, but not as a cause of the rioting. Perhaps, to keep it simple, Riots erupt in loyalist areas of Northern Ireland, partly as a result of escalating tensions from the UK–EU Brexit deal. and let the target article do the hard work. If there's space and someone can suggest a neutral wording, then the second reason might also be added. Having said all that, I see that a really good, simple solution has been used; good move. Bazza (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Seems resolved, I agree with the fix, but will leave here a little while longer in case someone disagrees. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Are we high? "Loyalist groupings withdrew their support for the Good Friday Agreement until the sea border is removed and graffiti appeared across Northern Ireland regarding the sea border.". Fix the blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

LaserLegs, the blurb has been trimmed. That kind of rhetoric is not helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's missing the why, which is needed. When we posted the George Floyd protests there was a why for reasons so obvious I shouldn't have to explain them. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably a reflection that the lead of 2021 Northern Ireland riots doesn't have a "why" either.—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I does though, I'll quote it again for you "Loyalist groupings withdrew their support for the Good Friday Agreement until the sea border is removed." --LaserLegs (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but I was referring to the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Riots erupt in loyalist areas of Northern Ireland.

– Over what? Or is it just something they do there to pass the time? (If we can't devise any succinct hint of the cause, it doesn't deserve a blurb. "Loyalist" doesn't do it for me.) – Sca (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

How about:

• Riots erupt in loyalist areas of Northern Ireland in response to the post-Brexit imposition of a sea border with the rest of the U.K."

There are, of course, many other causes and we can't list all of them, but many of the news reports I have been hearing have noted that the new customs border with the rest of the U.K. is the primary source of tensions here. --Jayron32 15:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• The latest news report I listened to suggested that the riots were recreational – youngsters blowing off steam after a long lockdown winter. And it seems unlikely that 13-year-olds are going to be so bothered by the finer points of customs regulations. As there are a variety of such explanations, it would be tendentious to highlight a particular one. Note that the topic is covered by WP:TROUBLES DS and so we should be correspondingly careful. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I know I said "Seems resolved, I agree with the fix" yesterday, but people above make a good point. We should say what reliable sources say, not what we think is actually happening. Do I understand correctly that most reliable sources are characterizing it, first and foremost, as a reaction to the customs regulations? If so, we should modify the hook to say that. Even if there are multiple secondary reasons. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I repeat what I said above: This BBC background article suggests the reasons are (a) loyalist tensions over the Irish Sea border imposed as a result of the UK-EU Brexit deal; (b) the decision not to prosecute leaders of the republican Sinn Féin party for breaching Covid regulations at the funeral of a former IRA intelligence chief last June. The Good Friday Agreement is mentioned, but not as a cause of the rioting. I suggested only giving (a) as the reason unless a longer blurb is required: Riots erupt in loyalist areas of Northern Ireland, partly as a result of escalating tensions from the UK–EU Brexit deal.. Bazza (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• But mainstream sources are not focussing on Brexit as the cause in the way that some are suggesting. For example, see CNN Why is this happening?. This starts "The initial days of disorder came in the same week as authorities said they would not prosecute the leaders of nationalist party Sinn Fein for allegedly breaking coronavirus restrictions last summer when they attended a funeral for Bobby Storey, a former senior figure in the IRA, a paramilitary group who led a decades-long campaign for an independent and reunified Ireland." It then concludes with "But many analysts also point to the recent and successful police crackdown on drug gangs and criminal activity supported and run by loyalist paramilitary forces." And it doesn't mention Brexit at all in that section. Brexit is part of the general background of discontent and division, not the proximate cause of the riots. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• The loyalists are only triggered over the funeral thing because of the Irish sea border. They're pissed, and any little thing will set them off. Publicly withdrawing support for the GFA due to the Brexit imposed Irish Sea border is about as obvious as it gets whatever funeral nonsense might be going on and I don't understand the opposition to including that clarification in the blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Andrew: verifiable evidence, reasoned. LaserLegs: OR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Well then add the verifiable fact to the blurb. The way it is seems utterly useless. No different than saying that 'Vjosa Osmani was elected' without giving further detail on what and where. Or why not just say that 'Philip Mountbatten died', instead of the explanation who he actually was? Why leave out clarifying detail only on that one blurb? 91.96.26.250 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• So it sounds like two reliable sources (wouldn't necessarily trust CNN to get complicated NI issues 100% right, but they're saying the same basic thing the BBC is saying) are not describing it solely as a Brexit thing, but are saying it has multiple triggers (indeed, the BBC seems to be saying the primary issue might be the drug and gang crackdown). So unless there are multiple other reliable sources who are saying the primary issue is Brexit-related, it should stay as is. 91.96.26.250, while it's suboptimal, a hook isn't really the place to go into complicated details. From the BBC, I'd say the Storey funeral isn't the cause either. So, LL and Sca and Jayron, what are those other sources? Or what reliable sources are saying there is any primary trigger? Can someone think of a blurb that concisely says there are multiple triggers? Is there any benefit to saying that, without taking up column inches by trying to list them? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not asking for complicated detail, just anything explaining a tiny bit why this is even notable in the blurb itself. If it is about a crackdown on drug dealing by UVF remnants (or whatever oher groups), then say it. If it is about brexit, say that. I do not care what the cause is in the end. I just find it a huge double standard to leave out ANY detail in that specific hook. Not sure i recall any other ITN hook that was handled that way. Devoid of any sort of explanation and clarification at all.91.96.26.250 (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

    But if there is no single reason, we can't just pick one of them in order to match previous formatting. I suppose it's unusual that there was no clearly identifiable trigger, so I'm not surprised there is no similar ITN hook you remember. I didn't participate in the ITNC discussion, but I don't think people thought it was notable because of any particular trigger, I think they thought it was notable because it was serious and ongoing and in the news. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

    But Andrew did provide why it is happening. Add that to the blurb then. Not sure why it is internationally notable but consensus rules. Riots because of loyalist drug dealing and a funeral in June 2020. Obviously not quite like that though. Does it makes sense? No, obviously not. Is it incredibly stupid? Yes, most certainly. But that is the Troubles for you. And if there is consensus to post, do try to make clear what it is about, no matter how incredibly stupid the reason is in the end. There should at least be an effort made to try to convey it in the blurb. Which is not aimed at you personally at all, just to make that clear. Anyway, enough whinging about that. It will stay utterly useless and devoid of the slighest attempt at explanation and that is that. I will just have to accept that if it could step on nationalist toes and is considered contentious, in other words 'complicated', nothing will happen (again, not aimed at you personally at all). Have a good one anyway.91.96.26.250 (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

    "utterly useless" is somewhat hyperbolic. After all, more than 25,000 views would indicate that people probably are clicking on it since it went to the main page, and that is the whole point, right? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

    To a degree, sure it is. But why then add where and into what office people got elected in those blurbs when i could just read the article? Why go into Philip Mountbatten being the royal consort and not just read the article? We will just have to disagree. I would just prefer a basic outline of what it could be about. Covid measures like in the Netherlands not long ago, against racism like in many places on earth last year, just plain nothing like 'kill the bill' in Bristol not long ago, about a sports team winning/losing as happens regularly? It could be about someone having a hangnail or wanting a haircut, if i wanted to go into marginally more stupid reasons than what it actually is about according to RS... 'There are riots in XYZ' just seems... a bit light and unhelpful to readers. Especially given how common riots are on this planet. And i can certainly see how it is a bit hyperbolic to say 'utterly useless', but the blurb certainly isn't a helpful and good way to do blurbs in my opinion, from a reader point of view anyway. And that you of all people use page views as an argument (we have interacted quite regularly in the past, just as an fyi; usually very much agree with you actually)... Page views are never a great measure or all the main page would be about anal sex or whatever lol. Again, no offense intended and that always is up there in most viewed articles, no? Anyway, I made my point, way more than i wanted to. Sorry about that. I will really let it go now. Not easy to sort out well, i get that. Happens, sub-optimal and that is that. 91.96.26.250 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• (ec) It seems quite normal for blurbs to leave out detailed explanations. For example, the blurb about Prince Philip doesn't say what the cause of death was – it hasn't been announced. The blurb about Vjosa Osmani just says that they were elected. It doesn't say why they won and, until I clicked through just now, it wasn't even clear that she is a woman or that her party is Guxo. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• One last comment. But it explains marginaly who Philip was, or rather what he was internationally most known for, being the royal consort. I would never expect detailed explanation like cause of death. Just briefly mentioned, for anyone not familiar with the royal household, why his death was made into a blurb. The one about the election does state where it actually happened, i am not expecting her party manifesto in the blurb and by what margin she won. But it being an election in Kosovo instantly told me it is of no great relevance to me, so i need not bother reading the article. Just to have even the slightest idea what an article is about or why something is notable if one is not familiar with the topic would be nice, especially with something as common as a riot. But seriously, i will let it go now... promise lol. You lot do not agree with me, such is life. Consensus is consensus, and it seems to be very clear in this case. Though luck for me. Have a good one anyway. 91.96.26.250 (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Since this is quite long, I think this should, when done, be moved to an archive of WT:ITN instead of just being CTRL+A+DEL'd.  Nixinova   T   C   21:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear why WP:ERRORS doesn't have an archive like other noticeboards. For my own convenience, I started my own personal archive of discussions and will add this one to it when it is completed. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reuters - Northern Irish loyalists demand Brexit changes, call for end to street violence
• The Guardian - consequences of Boris Johnson’s careless Brexit are playing out in Belfast
• WaPo - Days of violence in Northern Ireland blamed in part on Brexit
• WSJ - Riots in Northern Ireland Spurred by Brexit, Crime and Covid-19 Restrictions
• Foreign Policy - Northern Ireland’s elected leaders have blamed organized criminal gangs for stoking the violence, which comes against a backdrop of months-long COVID-19 restrictions and increasing tensions related to Northern Ireland’s post-Brexit status.
• Financial Times - Tension has been rising in recent months between the region’s mainly Protestant unionist and the mainly Catholic nationalist communities, fuelled in part by disagreements over the implementation of the Brexit deal, which came into force on January 1
• CBC.ca - Queen's University Belfast politics lecturer Peter McLoughlin discusses the Brexit factor

So I guess it's possible that I've coopted the editorial boards of major English language publications across the globe and across the political spectrum in order to push my opinion -- or it could be that claims of WP:OR on my part are utter bollocks, that numerous WP:RS are referring to the Irish Sea "border" as either the cause or a major contributing factor to these riots, a point clearly made in the target article, and that including it in the blurb is obvious. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Even your cited sources say in their headlines there are multiple reasons and that Brexit is only a contributing factor. Your view is far too simplistic. Stating that's the only factor in the blurb is so reductionist it's ridiculous. I suggest you do some reading up on the situation in the last 50 years in Northern Ireland. Fgf10 (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The one factor that every source points to as contributing is Brexit. I was looking at the last 50 years in NI actually I couldn't find much rioting, arson, shootings, kidnappings or bombings between the GFA and the Brexit disaster. Maybe I missed them? Y'all won't blurb the St Vincent evacuations without the reason, but it's all "Riots in Ireland" (click to know why). Ridiculous. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You haven't looked very well then. I don't know what agenda you're pushing, but it makes no sense. Brexit was idiotic, but you can't reduce a century of issues on both sides to one soundbite. Far better to have a concise blurb, rather than mislead people with such gross oversimplification. Fgf10 (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• The GFA was in 1998 while the formal Brexit happened in 2020. Between the two, we have recorded numerous NI riots including July 2001 Belfast riots; November 2001 Belfast riots; May 2002 Belfast riots; 2005 Belfast riots; 2010 Northern Ireland riots; 2011 Northern Ireland riots; 2012 North Belfast riots; 2013 Belfast riots; 2018 Derry riots. So, yes, LaserLegs missed them. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Far better to not have a blurb at all than one like that. Just follow the sources and if enough make the connection to Brexit, so be it. Are all the RS linked above misleading as well? I thought this place was about verifiability and not 'truth', guess i was wrong.91.96.163.161 (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• "On Saturday May 2002, up to 800 people were involved in sectarian clashes beginning shortly after the Scottish Cup Final in which Rangers F.C. beat Celtic F.C." I mean, you folded in a soccer riot but ok, fine, there have been loyalist riots since the GFA it doesn't change the fact that these riots have been attributed to the Irish Sea border by numerous WP:RS and that "Loyalist groupings withdrew their support for the Good Friday Agreement (which brought to an end The Troubles) until the sea border is removed.". The blurb looks absurd without the cause included. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• "a soccer riot"? Do you actually understand what that match represents??! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• If you had actually looked into the situation, you'd see that Glasgow sectarian violence is intimately related to the conflict in Northern Ireland, as is well known in the UK. However, even without those, it is obvious that your statement that there haven't been any riots since the Good Friday Agreements was so inaccurate as to be ridiculous. I don't know why you keep insisting there should be change when you have clearly demonstrated you don't have the background knowledge to understand why your suggestion doesn't make any sense. Your own cited sources make it clear Brexit is but a small part of the situation. I can only come to the conclusion that you haven't actually read them. Now can we close this ridiculous debate where a German and an American claim to know the NI situation better than the locals? 12:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Fgf10 (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Seriously? You are dutch yourself, by your own argument of no value discussing this as well. Pathetic argument. Never mind that, my whole premise just was that it is not very helpful to the reader the way it is. No more, no less.91.96.163.161 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Today AP offered this explanation, which outlines history but doesn't really explain much. It concludes that "despite calls for peace from political leaders ... the knot of problems may prove difficult to resolve." No kidding. Suggest we pull this one, as it only raises questions. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Even more reason to keep it then. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Curieux. – Sca (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a news story people will be looking for and the article can help them gather more information on it. The blurb is just a means of accessing that info. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I spoze people will be curieux. – Sca (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Let's leave things as they are. The blurb will roll off ITN in a few days. Peace to all. --PFHLai (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis

• "Amidst a diplomatic crisis with Guyana, a Venezuelan referendum supports their government's claim to the disputed Guayana Esequiba region."

This blurb has several issues and the poster already stated that "further tweaks may be needed."

The problems include

1. The reported results and turnout are widely disbelieved by international analysts and media.[10], [11] On one hand, the government is claiming a massive turnout and success. And, on the other hand, they are now arresting members of the opposition for treason, claiming that they sabotaged the referendum.[12] As the result is not credible and verified, we should not be presenting Venezuela's propaganda uncritically in Wikipedia's voice.
2. As a comparatively minor point, when the blurb says "their government", it's not clear which country it's talking about.

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

- Not to mention that the implication that a referendum in one country in any way legitimately supports the forced annexation of a territory of another nation seems like it is backing an agenda pushed by Venezuela. A more neutral phrasing would be something along the lines of…

• “Amidst a diplomatic crisis with Guyana, Venezuela holds a referendum to advance their claim to the disputed Guayana Esequiba region." RPH (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Done I agree that wording is more neutral than what we have on the main page. I've thus implemented it. Schwede66 03:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  "Venezuela" and "holds" are singular, so "their" should be "its". Bazza (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

   Fixed – Schwede66 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

---

• Amidst a diplomatic crisis with Guyana, Venezuela holds a referendum to advance their claim to the disputed Guayana Esequiba region.

  And? What was the result? This hook doesn't seem to be saying anything, just that a referendum occurred.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  It was neutered down due to NPOV concerns before.[13] Is there a suggested alternative? —Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have restored the earlier discussion for clarity and context. The main results of this event seem to be that the Venezualan dictatorship is now arresting its opposition while Brazil, Guyana and the US are mobilising their militaries. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's very concerning and it sounds like a bad situation developing all around, but the question for us is how we convey all of that in a hook that makes sense while still maintaining NPOV of course. The current hook doesn't really say anything at all, just that a referendum took place. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Take a look at this fresh DW report – the referendum isn't even mentioned. The issue is essentially a territorial struggle over oil and mineral resources and what matters is the diplomatic and military line-up. The crisis article is therefore the main topic which we should focus on and there's the even bigger crisis too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, print DW story. -- Sca (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  The latest news seems to be this Guardian report from Guyana which indicates that the inhabitants of the region are not interested in joining Venezuela. There's also talk of a US flyover as a show of strength but I can't find exact details confirming that this has actually happened yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson: it sounds like you're angling for a major change of blurb, or perhaps a listing in Ongoing instead... if that's the case, you'll want to propose it at WP:ITN/C. Such major changes would be beyond the scope of WP:ERRORS. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've been following the news and updating the leads of the linked articles to summarise the state of the crisis. The latest news is now that the presidents of Guyana and Venezuela are going to meet to talk it through. Watch this space... Andrew🐉(talk) 20:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 Tver plane crash

With Putin now confirming Prigozhin's death, we can remove "reportedly" from the blurb. I might suggest rewording it to be cleaner (and in accordance with most headlines, which focus on the well-known Prigozhin): "A business jet (pictured) crashes in Tver Oblast, Russia, killing Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin and nine others." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• The translated transcipt of Putin speech per the BBC stop short of confirming Prigozhin's death, so I'm not sure anyone who objected on the basis of confirmation of death will yet be satisifed. -- KTC (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed; reliable sources are, as of this comment, quite clear that there is no confirmation yet; anything else would be WP:OR. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• The blurb should focus on the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin specifically, rather than this nebulous "leadership of the Wagner Group", which isn't what sources are describing and may not even be entirely true (were all leaders in board?). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Even if we keep "reportedly", which doesn't agree with what our article currently says per theleekycauldron below but *shrug*, we should mention Prigozhin. To an admin, I'd suggest this blurb: "A business jet (pictured) crashes in Tver Oblast, Russia, reportedly killing Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin and nine others." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose change. The current blurb respects the uncertainty about this incident and is not erroneous. As Prigozhin's presence has not been confirmed, we should continue to be careful about this. The suggestion that Putin is a reliable source is ludicrous. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • The blurb should agree with the article, which currently says that Prigozhin was "confirmed" by the Russian state to be on the plane. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
    • No, neither the Russian state nor Wikipedia are reliable sources either. The article in question is flagged as a contentious topic and protection has already had to be ramped up to ECP level. This indicates that there's a significant level of disruption and dispute about its content and therefore it is not appropriate to be highlighting it on the main page. Per WP:RSBREAKING and WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and so we should wait for the dust to settle and the verdict of history rather than rushing to headline speculation and best-guesses. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

      @Andrew Davidson: I don't really have a horse either way for lack of investigation, if someone wants to edit the article to match that's fine with me. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

      Looking at the article, the sentence that stands out is "In 2019, Prigozhin was erroneously reported as having been killed in the crash of an An-72 transport plane in the Democratic Republic of the Congo before reappearing three days later."

      There's also an orange cleanup tag which is usually a no-no for ITN topics.

      Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Picture caption: Not exactly an error but the pic caption saying "Embraer Legacy 600 RA-02795" doesn't feel very helpful to anyone, even for an aviation geek like me, in providing what link it has to the ITN. Perhaps it can be changed to "The aircraft involved in the accident" similar to what we did in Yeti Airlines Flight 691? S5A-0043^Talk 05:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

2023 World Rally Championship

Rovanperä driving in Rally Finland

Not an error either, but change the image to File:Kalle Rovanperä Rally Finland 2023 Rannankylä.jpg per Andrew at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) 2023 World Rally Championship Aaron Liu (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The image seems fine to me. People say it's not flattering but I can't see anything bad or odd about it looking at other images of him. It's a picture of the winner rather than the car he used. JM2023 (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s ok, but it could be a lot better. That image has extremely poor quality (0MP and awful color) and his mouth is open. Pretty much every other photo you can find online is better. There’s also no need to prioritize picturing the winner especially if they don’t have much other pictures. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The portrait is a clip from a YouTube interview. If editors find it unsuitable, they can take a different clip. Schwede66 17:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The entire interview is shot in poor quality on Rovanperä’s side, while the car photo is quality. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not support showing a race car when we've got a photo of the winning driver. Schwede66 00:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The winning driver's photo is of very poor quality, and the same source can only produce poor-quality photos. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Schwede66. I would prefer a poor image of the driver, or none at all if people have such a concern with the image quality. Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Why are we so opposed to using an image of the car? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

To me, it is the driver who wins the competition, not the car the driver uses. Schwede66 16:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn’t preclude using the car when good photos of the driver are not available either. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

To me, the car is meaningless. If we did not have a suitable photo of the driver, I would not regard the photo of the car as a viable alternative. Schwede66 16:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The design, construction, tuning and maintenance of the car is usually quite important and vital in such motor sports. It's a team effort and that's why there's a manufacturers' championship. Only highlighting the driver's face is celebrity culture, contrary to NPOV and UNDUE. And it's Day 4 now. It's remarkable that ITN keeps running the same bad picture again and again like a stuck record when every other main page section is refreshed at least once a day. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

What is a problem with the photo is that the selected shot is unflattering when shown as a thumbnail, not that it is low quality. The entire interview is under CC terms so a better shot from the interview should be attempted first. Masem (t) 02:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, the entire video’s shots of the driver is shot in bad quality from a bad webcam. After cropping you can only get 0 MP. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

i agree 192.68.163.170 (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

See the reply right above you Aaron Liu (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support The action picture shows the sport which is more informative for the reader. Also the existing picture has been there for two days now and it's not a good look to keep running the same picture for several days. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current pic is fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  But the proposed pic is better. Perhaps we could even crop it. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support for the same reasons I stated on the ITN page. In the current photo, the subject's mouth is open, the background is too bright, and the overall photo quality is low. Edge3 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - The current pic is not fine. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the new pic. Prefer a picture of the winner(s) if possible. Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• The winners are Rovanperä and Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT, who won the manufacturers' championship. The latter are typically illustrated by a picture of one of their cars, such as that suggested. Natg 19 seems to prefer some hypothetical picture that doesn't exist: perfect is the enemy of good. Note that we're now on day 3 of the bad picture. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  At this point, our best option might be to just remove the photo entirely and not replace it. The fact that we've had this up for 3 days does not reflect well on us. Edge3 (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. -- Sca (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support - The photo currently in use is abysmal. Anything is an improvement. Nosferattus (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per my comment above. Also I really don't see how this OK photo is such a huge problem as to be "abysmal". JM2023 (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like a blurry screenshot from a video. It shouldn't even be included in the article, much less on the main page. Nosferattus (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - for reasons given on WP:ITNC. There's literally years worth of precedent for screenshot images similar to the one on the MP; I'm not sure why people are upset about this one.

And by the way, can we please stop trying to brute force MP-changes by pretending that everything we have there is the worst thing ever? I've noticed that whenever people have some complaint about the MP, they try to LARP as defenders of the wiki, saving Wikipedia a tarnished reputation by pulling some item. Listen, the MP may pull 5 million viewers daily, but the vast majority of people people in the real world and even on this site don't care about if TFA featured Lisa Nowak, or ITN having an image of a guy with a Nike hat, or whatever spicy DYK hook runs, and keeping those items on certainly wouldn't be an affront to Wikipedia's mission. Stop calling everything abysmal; they can just be better. — Knightoftheswords 15:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m new to such things, but so far I haven’t seen other screenshotted images that were screenshots from a poor webcam with such quality. My beef with the image is with the image itself and all possible images you can get from that video.

Also, the only reason I saw you give on ITNC was “no opinion” and that no other free image of the driver exists. I fail to see why we need an image of the driver. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Because we always post pictures of the winning individual for cases such as this. If we didn't have a picture of Novak Djokovic when he won the US Open, would you suggest picturing his tennis racket instead? Not likely. Ultimately, the image we have is not actually that bad, it just shows Rovanperä as he appeared during the interview in question. If anything it's borderline offensive on the part of those questioning it, like your main beef is you don't like his appearance or something...  — Amakuru (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I’d say an image that would be comparable is him playing tennis, like File:Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer at USO 2011 (cropped).jpg or a cropped version of File:Flickr - Carine06 - Novak Djokovic ^ Bernard Tomic.jpg, with I would use in such a scenario. I also don’t see how you can connect criticizing the picture quality and lighting to his appearance. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support I agree entirely with Andrew. This is a freeze-frame from a webcam interview, and the gentleman is a rally driver not a YouTuber, so the picture quality is understandably inadequate. The picture of his car in action this very year is a good alternative. Saying it's like a picture of Djokovic's racquet is a non-sequitur, it's more like a picture of Djokovic playing but with his face obscured. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• what if we just bypass the entire debate over whether rovanperä looks better inside or outside of his car by simply bumping up the coal mine fire hook instead? the fire's death toll has been updated thrice since the blurb was first posted, so bumping up the fire hook wouldn't be unwarranted. also, we have a decent picture of what appears to be an entrance to the mine complex. besides, as Andrew and Edge3 both mention, this is the third day the current photo has been featured. dying (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Also sounds good to me. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Well firstly, the ITN rules say to feature the topmost blurb as image, and secondly I'm not sure the value of that image anyway. It just looks like a brick column and a fence to me, which doesn't render too well at small resolution.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree -- definitely a worse image than the one we have now. It's just a fence and a brick column with a sign on it. Doesn't look like much of a coal mine to me. JM2023 (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Now that I've checked the thumbnail at a smaller scale instead of mobile, I also oppose. It just looks like a giant column with a sign in the middle. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Frankly, at this point I think any image would be an improvement over what we have on the Main Page right now. Edge3 (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  That’s way too absolute. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  We've been talking about this for 4 days with no resolution in sight. Maybe I'm sounding too absolute, but the fact that we can't even take down the photo and replace it with a more "neutral" photo about some other news event is disappointing. I don't know why people have a problem with the word "abysmal" (as used above), but I do think the current image is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. We should be willing to explore all options. Edge3 (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  No admin has so far agreed with your assessment that the winner of the rallying championship has a bad appearance, that's why this hasn't been changed. He's a racing driver, not a model, after all. Anyway, I imagine the world series post will be going up in the not-too-distant future, so the pic will be gone soon regardless.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  You know, I've actually asked people in my personal life, and they don't care. They think its weird that people are raising this much of a stink over this image of all things. Perhaps when it comes to stuff like this, let's actually base it on real readers, not imagined hypersensitive editors. — Knightoftheswords 14:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Knightoftheswords, though I still disagree with Amakuru that this concerns his handsomeness. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

2024 Barsalogho attack

• More than two hundred people are killed in an Islamic militant attack in Barsalogho Department, Burkina Faso should probably be changed to More than two hundred people are killed in an Islamist militant attack in Barsalogho Department, Burkina Faso, without the emphasis of course. wound theology◈ 07:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Islamist" and "Islamic" have the same meaning so what's the difference? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, they do not have the same meaning. wound theology◈ 13:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson: Indeed they do not: Islamism § Relationship between Islam and Islamism. Or, from elsewhere: [14] vs [15]. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  We're talking here about the words "islamic" and "islamist" used as adjectives. Per the OED, which is a reliable source:

• Islamic adjective – Of, relating to, or characteristic of Islam; Muslim; conforming with Muslim practice or tradition. Of a political party, etc.: advocating a society ordered according to Muslim principles.

• Islamist adjective – 1. Of or relating to Islam or Muslims; Islamic, Muslim. 2. Of or relating to Islamic fundamentalism or Islamic fundamentalists; that advocates or supports increasing the influence of Islamic law in politics and society.

There's no significant difference between these. As for that Wikipedia page, that's not a reliable source and is no doubt full of disputation as Islam has numerous sects and schisms. The attacking force seems to have been from the Jama'at Nasr al-Islam wal-Muslimin (Support Group for Islam and Muslims) so we should specify them if we want to be exact. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The "Islamic fundamentalism" part of definition 2 for "Islamist", and which is not part of the definition for "Islamic", is a compelling reason to amend the blurb, in my opinion. The words do have different connotations. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 19:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No, the word "islamic" has the equivalent connotation, "Of a political party, etc.: advocating a society ordered according to Muslim principles." So far as I can tell the -ist form is an attempt to stigmatise people as bad Muslims rather than good Muslims. It's not a NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: The BBC style guide makes a distinction suggesting your assertion that the two are the same is not correct and that, as @Ravenpuff states, there are connotations to be borne in mind. The religion of the militants (=Islamic) is likely to be irrelevant unless it was a motivation for their attack (=Islamist). Bazza 7 (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, supported by the BBC style guide, I’ve changed the blurb to use "Islamist". Schwede66 02:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

We're supposed to use our own style guide not the BBC's and that eschews contentious, value-laden labels such as -ist words which suggest "that a belief's adherents are particularly dogmatic or ideological".

FYI, here's the BBC's latest report on the matter, indicating that Russia's Africa Corps is pulling out of the country. What -ist word are we using for the other side in this conflict? Colonialist? Militarist? Opportunist?

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It isn't a contentious, nor value-laden label given that it is a self-descriptor; if anything, Islamic is far more contentious because it implies that Islam, as a whole, sanctions or mandates such actions. Also, your OED reference is outdated -- a quick search of "Islamist" shows that Islamic fundamentalism is the primary definition. wound theology◈ 07:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The descriptions of the terrorist group (and Al'Qaeda which they are part of) overwhelmingly use "Islamist". Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Akinobu Okada

• ITN is currently displaying a picture of Akinobu Okada and naturally linking to his article. This is a BLP with just one reference and it doesn't seem very independent or detailed as it's just a chatty PR interview with him, published by the team that he manages. This seems far below the standard expected of main page content and BLPs. I'm not going to tagbomb the article but it wouldn't be difficult.

As a quick fix, I suggest replacing his picture with the NASA picture of 152830 Dinkinesh (right) as its moon is a new scientific discovery which has yet to be displayed on the mainpage and that ITN blurb may scroll off soon.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

We generally only apply quality standards to bolded links. However, perhaps you are suggesting that pictured links should have higher standards. —Bagumba (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

RDs don't have bold links and they are not living but a much higher standard of sourcing is routinely expected. If there's a picture then my experience is that this usually doubles the amount of traffic. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

RD quality is explicitly specified at Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths to be the same as bolded links in blurbs. As for links related to pictures, there's nothing currently specified. —Bagumba (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:BLP, "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability ...Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. ... material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. ... BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." Andrew🐉(talk) 16:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence Act

• The European Union passes the Artificial Intelligence Act, aiming to establish a regulatory and legal framework for AI.

The discussion for this item was very strange IMO. Almost everyone who supported did so on the basis that it had been "previously agreed" (here) to post this whenever it passed. But that's not how I read that discussion at all? Only one person active in that discussion said we should definitely post it if it passes, two said some version of we should discuss again if it does, and everyone else just vaguely said "wait." Meanwhile, our article gives absolutely no indication of why this was an ITN-worthy event. The fact that the "Reactions" section looks like this tells me that either this is simply not notable on a Main Page level or that our article is severely lacking in explaining why it in fact is. Either way, it should not be in ITN at this stage.

I originally mistakenly posted this as a comment on the ITN/C page, and I'll note that User:QueensanditsCrazy also mistakenly posted an IMO very well-reasoned objection to this there (essentially, that there has been very little media attention). -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be worthwhile to get wider input on this matter. Tone, you posted this. Other admins who hand out at ITN get a ping, too (KTC—Ad Orientem—Masem—Stephen—Bagumba). Schwede66 04:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

!Votes to "pull" do usually take place at the nom at WP:ITNC, so I don't see it as a mistake to have posted it there. Still, we're already here, so I think we can wait for the posting admin's perspective.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This page is intended for fixes to the blurbs, not the discussion about the posting itself. ITC/C is the place to discuss it. Tone 06:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Postings to ITN are based on consensus. The score in the ITN/C discussion was 13:2 at the time of posting and it's 14:5 now. That's a fairly solid consensus, as these things go. As there's no error, WP:ERRORS has no say in this. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Asteriornis

• Paleontologists announce the identification of the fossilized skull of Asteriornis maastrichtensis, the oldest evidence of modern birds, dating to the Mesozoic era.

Again, this story is journalistic hype about a "superchicken" supported by just a single paper and a single specimen. The issue here is "the oldest evidence of modern birds" but the Nature paper doesn't seem to be making this claim. It says

Here we report a new Mesozoic fossil that occupies a position close to the last common ancestor of Galloanserae and fills a key phylogenetic gap in the early evolutionary history of crown birds ... The fossil represents one of the only well-supported crown birds from the Mesozoic era12, and is the first Mesozoic crown bird with well-represented cranial remains.

This seems to be saying that they have found similar specimens already but that this is a good one which "fills a gap". The claimed dating is "66.8–66.7 million years ago".

As counter-examples for the claim, see

• Aves:Fossil Record – a general survey which provides good context
• Confuciusornis – "the oldest known bird to have a beak", which was about 120 million years old
• Vegavis – "the first definitive physical proof that representatives of some of the groups of modern birds lived in the Mesozoic". The dating for that specimen is "66–68 million years ago".

The general mistake here is to suppose that papers in Nature and the corresponding journalist coverage are reliable sources but really aren't. Many of the papers turn out to be wrong or overblown while journalistic coverage of anything is notoriously unreliable because it will tend to exaggerate and sensationalise.

As a quick fix, pending further discussion, I suggest trimming the claim of "the oldest" to give

• Paleontologists announce the identification of the fossilized skull of Asteriornis maastrichtensis, evidence of modern birds dating to the Mesozoic era.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I would remove the second comma in this case (so "evidence of modern birds dating to the Mesozoic era"), otherwise it's a bit odd to parse. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 12:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• I was trying to keep the proposal simple but agree that it reads better without the comma and so have amended the proposed revision as Nizolan suggests. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The technical details have been simplified for the blurb, but there is no sensationalism going on here. Following the discussion in Field et al. (2020), the significance of Asteriornis is that it is the oldest crown bird - that is, a bird descended from the common ancestor of all birds living today, which fall in the taxonomic grouping known as Neornithes. Confuciusornis is not a member of Neornithes, and you will notice in the article that nowhere is it called a "modern" bird.

Meanwhile, Vegavis may appear to weaken the paper's claim, but that is because the article for Vegavis itself is lacking. While initially proposed to be a member of the Neornithes, in recent years there is increasing evidence from phylogenetic analysis that this may not be the case (including this paper). Either way, Asteriornis is older than Vegavis, if only marginally - Asteriornis is firmly dated to 66.8-66.7 Ma (million years old), while Vegavis is firmly dated to 66.5 Ma.

Article author Fanboyphilosopher may have more to add. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The most important line in the blurb is "the oldest evidence of modern birds". This phrase is simplified but not incorrect, as Asteriornis is indeed the oldest definitive fossil of a modern bird. To elaborate, by "modern bird" we mean Neornithes, the crown group of birds which contains living groups of birds but not "primitive" types which possessed teeth, wing claws, or long bony tails. Vegavis was also publicized as the oldest modern bird when it was discovered, but this was based on various fragmented bones and its classification is considered more controversial nowadays. This is the case with many purported early Neornithes, which are characterized by fragmentary material and uncertain dating. Asteriornis does not have that problem, as it is known from complete skull material which clearly shows its relations with the bird subgroup containing chickens and ducks. In addition, its antiquity is well constrained to 66.7-66.8 Ma compared to Vegavis which was recently calibrated as 66.5 Ma. These factors combine to justify the importance of its discovery. Confuciusornis is not a modern bird and is irrelevant to this discussion, since it retained large wing claws and convergently evolved a beak. The UCMP Berkeley link is a bit antiquated, note that it does not cite anything newer than 1995. I should also clarify that the discovery of Asteriornis was not entirely unexpected, genetic evidence has estimated that modern birds were well-established during the Mesozoic and the aforementioned fragmentary material had primed us for fossil discoveries. Perhaps a good replacement blurb would be:

• Paleontologists announce the discovery of Asteriornis maastrichtensis, the oldest definitive species of modern bird, which lived at the end of the Mesozoic era. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• The phrase "oldest definitive species of modern bird" seems too technical and the concept of a "modern bird" seems to be a fairly obscure matter of cladistics – a science which is quite tentative and subject to change. Much older species such as Confuciusornis had wings and a beak and that would be enough for most people. Wing claws can still be found in present species such as the hoatzin and so don't seem a major issue.

But, if we accept that we're just talking about the crown group, the datings are still quite tentative and the margin of error seems too great to be claiming that the new species is 66.7 Mya while Vegavis is 66.5 and so that tiny difference of .2 Mya is enough to claim a new record. Here's a detailed paper about such dating: Phylogenetically vetted and stratigraphically constrained fossil calibrations within Aves. This explains the difficulty of accurate aging as this is matter of dating and lining up strata and then allowing for the offset of the fossil specimen, which might be tens of metres deeper than the dated stratum. That paper gives the 66.5 Mya age for Vegavis as a minimum because there's more than one way to date it and another dating gives a significantly greater age of 67.5 Mya. When datings can vary by millions of years, the ages in question seem too close to call. This doesn't seem to be settled science and so we shouldn't be publishing splash headlines every time someone finds another bone and makes a bold claim for it.

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I've reworded based on Fanboyphilosopher's wording (plus added link at mondern bird). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew, Some of your comments make it sound like you think Asteriornis's importance is artificially inflated by sensationalism, and I just want to elaborate on why I consider that opinion incongruent with reality. Asteriornis is an animal which ornithologists and paleontologists have been eagerly anticipating for decades. It's a neornithean known from well-preserved fossils that lived prior to the K-Pg extinction. That is a huge deal. We knew pre-Cenozoic neornitheans existed, but we simply did not have enough helpful fossil material to say anything about the origin of birds as we know them today. Vegavis and various other birds may or may not have been neornitheans, but they are too controversial and/or too fragmentary to help resolve major paleontological debates. We still don't know exactly why neornitheans were the only dinosaurs to survive the extinction when every other group (including all other birds) went extinct. Asteriornis is definitive, well-preserved fossil evidence that can be used to solve that huge paleontological puzzle, along with other puzzles about the origin and early diversification of birds in their modern form. I am fully aware of the fact that it's not the oldest bird-like animal ("bird" is more-or-less a spectrum once dinosaurs are considered), yet it is still a fossil important for understanding the evolutionary advantages of modern birds compared to pre-modern birds and other dinosaurs. The age is relatively unimportant, we know via genetics that Neornithes originated at least 15 million years prior to Asteriornis. But that doesn't change the fact that the fossil itself is among the biggest paleontological discoveries of the year thus far. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This still doesn't seem to be more than an incremental extension of existing knowledge – the main new aspects seem to be that this was found in Europe rather than the southern hemisphere and it's more clearly at the fork between chickens and ducks. It's easy to find similar gushing about Vegavis. For example, when a paper about that appeared in Nature in 2016, we got similar news coverage such this

"The bones themselves are a really important fossil – they are one of the oldest good skeletons of a modern-style bird, and confirm that some of the bird groups that around today, like ducks and geese, were also living with the dinosaurs" ... But the discovery also offers a new perspective on soundscape that would have existed more than 66 million years ago. "It tells us that these early birds living alongside the dinosaurs may have sounded like some of the birds around today," Brusatte said. "If [we] were standing back in the late Cretaceous, during that calm before the asteroid hit and wiped out the dinosaurs, the air may have been filled with the songs, chirps, and honks of birds!"

Anyway, my beef remains that the age of Vegavis is much the same as Asteriornis – both are about 66+ Mya and so we shouldn't be focussing on this issue of age as if some big jump had been made. For comparison, see a recent discovery of some fossilised green seaweed, which pushed back the age for that group by about 200 million years. The pattern of coverage in that case is much the same – a fossil is found and a paper is written. The PR department of the university then writes a press release which puffs it up and the media then repeat this uncritically. It's good that we cover this but we should watch out for another bird too – the peacock! Andrew🐉(talk) 22:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

To step back to make sure to understand that this was not just media hype, consider that the NYTimes in their coverage spoke to several other experts in the field but not tied to their research who considered this a very significant find [16], and that alongside the publication of the article in Nature a wholly separate piece by an unaffiliated author explained why this was a very significant find. [17]. This was not "Oh, look 'wonderchicken' that looks great in headlines particularly at a time like this!". There's scientific reason, that we as WP authors should not be questioning why the science community is excited about this. When the media only is excited, yes, we should be careful because media hype, but science rarely engages in hype. --Masem (t) 22:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I should clarify that people were gushing about Vegavis in 2016 because it had the oldest voicebox preserved in the fossil record. And I'll repeat what I said: Asteriornis is not important because of its age. It's important because it helps us understand what neornitheans were doing prior to the extinction. Vegavis is not universally considered a neornithean and therefore it is much less useful for studying extinction, diversification, and ecological patterns at the origin of modern birds. I am honestly frustrated by the whole age debate, it's a trivial matter not worth being fixated on. What is important is that Asteriornis is the first definitive fossil of a Mesozoic neornithean. Our blurb does not care about whether it is 66.7 or 66.5 million years old, just that it "lived at the Mesozoic era", i.e. prior to the K-Pg extinction. Also, Andrew, I am quite annoyed and honestly a bit offended by your assertions that paleontological studies published in Nature should never be considered reliable sources. I can agree that some Nature papers are heavily flawed (just look at the recent Oculudentavis debacle), but it's honestly very rude and needlessly argumentative to assert that all of them are without proper arguments to support your perspective. You started this discussion under the pretense that Asteriornis is some run-of-the-mill skull exaggerated by the media ("Again, this story is journalistic hype"), and evidently I haven't done a good job convincing you otherwise. Maybe you would like to hear from one of the paper's authors, who is an editor here. Pinging Albertonykus. Just try to stay civil in this discussion and not throw around wild accusations. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll add that Brusatte himself also commented on the significance of Asteriornis with a superlative which clearly identifies it as being much more important: [18] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Greetings. As Fanboyphilosopher mentioned, I am one of the authors on the Asteriornis paper (specifically the third author listed). I would summarize the scientific significance of Asteriornis as follows:

1. It is one of the oldest convincing fossils of modern birds (neornitheans). It is true that it is (at best) only slightly older than Vegavis. However, as noted in our study, the precise relationship of Vegavis to modern birds is controversial. Due to its more completely known skull, Asteriornis exhibits clear hallmarks of the chicken+duck lineage, and its neornithean status is likely to be more secure. Furthermore, the paucity of Cretaceous neornithean fossils is such that any well-corroborated discovery of one is going to be a big deal in our field—prior to the discovery of Asteriornis, Vegavis was essentially the only widely accepted example.
2. Speaking of the skull, Asteriornis unambiguously preserves the oldest nearly complete neornithean skull known. (Only fragments from the skull of Vegavis have been reported in scientific literature so far.) It is also one of the best-preserved avian skulls in the fossil record—most complete fossil bird skulls are preserved crushed flat, whereas this one has most of the three-dimensional anatomy still discernible.
3. It provides an unprecedented look at the probable morphology of the last common ancestor of the duck and chicken lineages, making it highly informative for understanding the origins of this culturally significant group of birds. Prior to the discovery of Asteriornis, there were no known fossils that were well-supported candidates for representing the ancestral state of these birds, and modern representatives of the group are so divergent in their anatomy that it would have been difficult for us to get a clear picture of their ancestral features based on extant species alone.
4. As has been correctly noted in this conversation, the fact that it is one of the oldest neornitheans and yet found in the Northern Hemisphere challenges a longstanding and somewhat popular hypothesis that modern birds originated in the south.
5. It exhibits evidence of features (small body size, terrestrial habits) that were predicted by previous studies to have been present in Late Cretaceous neornitheans and potentially contributed to their survival of the end-Cretaceous mass extinction. (Said studies were primarily based on extrapolation from living birds, not relevant fossils—which, again, were nearly nonexistent other than Vegavis.)

I hope this helps with the assessment of whether our discovery is suitable as a Wikipedia news item and the formulation of an appropriate blurb. I'll refrain from commenting on whether or not it "should" be featured, given that I'm naturally not a neutral party in this discussion. However, regarding whether or not we "overblew" its significance, I personally think that we were suitably cautious in the writing of our paper. For relevant outside opinions, the publication is still too recent for any other peer-reviewed sources to have commented on it, but several news articles have included quotes from leading bird paleontologists who weren't involved in our study, including Jingmai O'Connor, Gerald Mayr [19], and Julia Clarke (who was the lead author in describing Vegavis) [20]. Let me know if there is anything else you'd like me to clarify. Albertonykus (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Arcane and not in the news. Zero tangible impact on anyone anywhere. – Sca (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• It absolutely was in the news across numerous top level news sources [21]. --Masem (t) 15:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh? I don't recall seeing it on major RS sites or hearing it on newscasts – was that selective perception on my part?
It's absolutely not in the news now. IMO it would be more appropriate for DYK, being a sort of oh-wow story – Sca (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have this to say about all science stories that don't involve the word "coronavirus"? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Would hazard a guess that it's more impactful than the usual diet of sports tournaments. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 17:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention impossibly distant planets that "might" harbor "life." – Sca (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Chang'e 6

Chang'e 6 has completed a further stage, as the ascender docked and passed the samples to the lunar orbiter yesterday (6 Jun). The orbiter will return the samples in about 2 weeks while the ascender will now be crashed into the moon. We should update the blurb accordingly. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not an error, Andrew Davidson, and you would know that ITN blurb change discussions are to be held at ITN. Schwede66 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank

Why was the blurb on Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank changed? I think it’s of much greater encyclopaedic value and more informative for our readers to mention that it failed as a result of a bank run (banks also fail due to accumulation of bad loans) than that it’s the second largest bank failure in US history, which is a very dubious claim given the complexity of the US banking system (note that commercial banks are different from investment banks in the US, but that’s not the case in other parts of the world with universal banking institutions). Lehman Brothers failed with more than $600 billion in assets, which is significantly more than the largest failure on the list linked in the blurb (not to mention that the list is tagged for referencing).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of the blurb is to briefly describe the subject and link to the article concerned. It's not supposed to convey every detail of the story, we leave that to the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Blurbs should mention more relevant and correct information because this is an encyclopaedia, not a news ticker publishing sensational titles aimed at click-baiting. Firstly, it’s dubious how this is the second largest bank failure in the US when Lehman Brothers had thrice the assets when it went bankrupt. Is it the second largest failure of a commercial bank? This is mentioned nowhere in the linked list, which is tagged for referencing by the way. Secondly, even if there’s a clear distinction between commercial, retail and investment banks in the US, this is not common in other parts of the world where banks are universal. So, saying that a bank failed may refer to any kind of bank, which is not correct in this case. If you don’t know if it’s the second largest failure of a commercial bank, you should at least mention that it failed due to a bank run to rule out the possibility of being an investment bank (note that investment banks in the US aren’t depository institutions).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Blurbs must be concise too, and given the complexity of the SVB closure, and as you say, explaining the depth of a bank closure, is rather complicated, best left to the article. Masem (t) 20:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t deny it. The problem here is not about conciseness but the fact that “second largest bank failure in US history” is confusing for readers with economic background given the complexity of the US banking system. And the list of bank failures linked in the blurb seems to be a very unfortunate choice because it doesn’t give any additional information, so a question that remains unanswered for me as an economist is “Why is this considered a bigger bank failure than that of Lehman Brothers?” (I suppose it’s because SVB was a commercial bank, whereas Lehman Brothers was an investment bank, but we should serve precise information for our readers, not to let them make guesses. A non-economist wouldn’t probably vet this and falsely believe that this failure was bigger than that of Lehman Brothers.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I came to ask why no accompanying image of SVB was added along with the story? Crusader1096 (message) 04:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

A picture of a building is not really a good front page image. Masem (t) 05:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The image should convey something useful, which a random pic of a building does not. It also could cause Confusion given that the bolded word is "collapses". It makes it seem like the headquarters was what collapsed.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Restored picture back to Kaja Kallas.—Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that the claim of "second largest" is weak and debatable. The link to List of largest U.S. bank failures should not be used because it's not a reliable source. It is orange-tagged as lacking adequate sources. And see the talk page discussion which points out multiple major omissions. Also, the list is tagged as dynamic and so "may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness".

The word "collapse" also seems misleading when we also run blurbs about actual physical collapses such as the recent earthquake. The news is now reporting various rescue schemes so that depositors can continue to operate. For example, in the UK, a takeover by HSBC has been arranged. So, it's not a complete collapse and is more of a restructuring. As this is a work-in-progress, we should not add to the panic with sensational headlines.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the claim of "second largest" is weak and debatable. The link to List of largest U.S. bank failures should not be used because it's not a reliable source: The "second largest" claim is sourced at Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, it's not relying on the WP list. No opinion if the sources are themselves accurate, if that is what is being contested. —Bagumba (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Drilling down to the source, we find that its claim is "The Silicon Valley-based bank is the second-largest FDIC-insured bank by assets to fail". Notice how carefully that is qualified and phrased. I suppose that it's the FDIC aspect that distinguishes these banks from the investment banks such as Lehman Brothers, which were bigger. Our blurb is over-simplifying and so getting it wrong. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Second-largest bank failure is imprecise and contradictory given our terminology. This may be the second-largest failure of a commercial bank, but surely not of a bank of any kind (see Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the current discussion on its inclusion to the list linked from the blurb). And frankly speaking, it's a shame for an encyclopedia to accept the exact wording from news articles without adapting it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It might have been based off the NYT source in the lead: "The bank’s failure is the second-largest in U.S. history, and the largest since the financial crisis of 2008."[22] In any event, feel free to suggest alternative wording.—Bagumba (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I would go with something like "Silicon Valley Bank fails after a bank run on its deposits and goes into receivership under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation." If a reader wants to find out more about the bank's size, that piece of information is readily available in the bolded article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Cyclone Gabrielle (Going round in circles)

Storm building

View from a helicopter near Napier

Cyclone Gabrielle image caption - there is no context for the two countries (NZ and Aust) mentioned in the item and its image caption, and the land masses aren't visible under the satellite animation. Maybe add 'east' to caption ie from "intensifying off the coast of Australia" to 'intensifying off the east coast of Australia' might give a hint of the geographic relationship? JennyOz (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggested that image of the cyclone but it has been up for four days now and its repetitive flashing will now be highlighting ITN's staleness. I'd have liked a picture of Raquel Welch per discussion but she has already flashed past on the RD ticker. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that an animated image draws much more attention than a static one and having the same thing being animated for days on end is less than ideal. I've had a look around and suggest that we could use either a static cyclone photo or any of the three media files that the 2023 Ohio train derailment article uses. Note that I've just put 8 images from the cyclone commons category up for deletion and since it's a mass deletion, this currently just shows with one of the files. Hence, if you want to post something different about the cyclone than suggested here, please check the deletion nomination first. Schwede66 09:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Jenny, I've added "east" to the caption. Schwede66 09:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 • This constantly repeating vid is getting more annoying and less relevant with each passing day. Suggest a pic. of the damage, which includes 11 dead (so far) and thousands missing. – Sca (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a bunch of images for protection so that we can swap this over. When media report about Cyclone Gabrielle that thousands are "missing" that's highly deceptive. Thousands have not been had contact with because rural areas are totally cut off. They may be on higher ground but have no way of contacting anybody as cell networks are down. Lots of helicopters are whizzing around but it'll take a while to figure out who is where, not helped by New Zealand not having a system whereby you need to register your permanent address. The death toll will go up, but it might be dozens and won't be hundreds, let alone thousands. Schwede66 23:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

In any case, we're highly unlikely to find thousands of missing person pictures and fairly unlikely to picture even one body. Thanks for the other options, though. I, too, was getting pretty annoyed by that swirling sheepdog's butt (as I interpreted the loop, after a while). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• The rotating image was briefly replaced by a picture of the train wreck but now it's back! Andrew🐉(talk) 09:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  I've swapped in the flood damage pic that was mentioned above and already protected by Schwede.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Detention of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig

"Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig (pictured) are released from detention in China shortly after Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou is released from house arrest in Canada." That is needs to be a was. Primergrey (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

ITN uses simple present tense, and that doesn’t read better to me. Stephen 10:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Gererally we use present tense for blurbs, but this might be an exception becuase it follows after, which implies a past event.—Bagumba (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm familiar with ITN being written in present tense, however "[they] are released shortly after Meng Wanshou is released..." does not read as correct in any tense. Primergrey (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me (American). Maybe ENGVAR? 71.175.88.163 (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

How can something that is happening occur after something that is also happening? Primergrey (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a use of historical present tense. It's not a flawless example of grammar and indeed exists mostly for dramatic purpose. But ITN, like other sources that post news, uses it. Not an error. WaltCip-(talk) 12:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, after doesn't "imply" a past event. It denotes it. Primergrey (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

If we wish to maintain the use of historical present, "they are released shortly after the release of Meng Wanshou" would seem better. However, I agree with several of the other posters that such usage is rather odd coming from an encyclopedia and ITN should move away from it. This might even help people to understand that ITN is not a news ticker. --Khajidha (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• The release happened four days ago and so use of the present tense is erroneous. Affectation of a journalistic style is inappropriate because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so it is our policy that "Wikipedia is not written in news style." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You're ignoring the established conventions of ITN, where listed Wiki articles are treated as constantly occurring. – Sca (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Present tense may be appropriate for genuine news media which report current events promptly and then move on. ITN is not like that though as it often spends some time digesting the news before posting it and then continues to run headlines long after they have passed out of the news cycle. For example, the Inspiration4 mission landed 10 days ago but ITN still has a ridiculous headline talking about the launch in the present tense. No real news media reports stale news like this – the editors would be fired if they kept running the same headlines day after day. We are an encyclopedia and so should act like one. That's our policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It's really an embarrassment. Primergrey (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Even in the historical present, effects cannot precede their causes. It's an offence to both logic and literacy. Primergrey (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the latter part of the sentence to read "shortly after the release of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou from house arrest in Canada", which is I suspect how an actual newspaper would phrase it. Speaking personally I have absolutely no problem with the general concept of historical present for ITN, given that the intention is to present articles about recent events in a "news headline" format. You'd need to form consensus at WP:ITN/C to effect any change in that direction, in any case.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Dick Schoof

• In the Netherlands, a new cabinet is sworn in, with independent politician Dick Schoof (pictured) serving as the prime minister.

The subject is not a politician; he's a career civil servant. And he's not an independent agent as the idea is that he's a neutral caretaker or placeholder who will implement the program agreed by the coalition. See Who is Dick Schoof?, for example. So, a more accurate headline would be:

• In the Netherlands, a new cabinet is sworn in, with non-party civil servant Dick Schoof (pictured) serving as the prime minister.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

His article clearly states he's a "civil servant and politician", so describing him as a politician is not inaccurate. Regardless of that, * In the Netherlands, a new cabinet is sworn in, with Dick Schoof (pictured) serving as the prime minister. might be a better way of stating a fact. Bazza 7 (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done As suggested, I've removed the words "independent politician" from the hook. Problem gone (if ever there was one). Schwede66 08:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein

Weinstein: I question whether this is correct English. It sounds more natural to word it "former American film producer". We recently had headlines of the death of "former Egyptian president" Mubarak, not "Egyptian former president". Jmar67 (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Egads, why won't this one be settled? Egyptian president is a shorthand for President of Egypt. The role is linked to the nation. That's not the case with Weinstein's film producing. If we rephrased it the way you suggest, it might carry a suggestion that he was no longer American. Best left as it is. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Weinstein is still American (which is also consistent with the lead sentence's phrasing of "is an American former ...")—Bagumba (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

And Mubarak was still Egyptian at the time of his death. He didn't stop being so. There's a clear inconsistency there in phrasing. --Jayron32 13:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably best to word Mubarak's listing as "former President of Egypt" to avoid this. It's not saying he was a president, formerly Egyptian, but he was formerly the Egyptian President, and so a wording change here would be beneficial. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 13:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be. I will be doing so presently. --Jayron32 13:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 13:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This is pedantic. "Former Egyptian president" is fine. "Former President of Egypt" goes against precedent with former heads of state blurbs e.g. Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf is ...[23] As Amakuru stated earlier, "Egyptian president" is taken to mean the " President of Egypt" office. Nobody uses "Egyptian president" to precede an Egyptian corporate executive, so there is no confusion that "former Egyptian president" means a former Egyptian who is president. "former <nationality> president" will never be used like "Former American singer Tina Turner", a former American (now Swiss) who is a singer.—Bagumba (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Look, if "Former Egyptian president" was fine, then "Former American producer" was also fine. They both parse the same way despite your insistence that they don't; if one causes confusion the other would cause the same confusion because they both are "former nationality job" structures. Almost certainly only you, very few of our readers, is doing the deep thinking that would lead one to believe that they should be treated differently. I'm fine with returning it to "Former Egyptian president" if we also return "Former American film producer" because if no one is confused about the meaning of the first, no one is confused about the meaning of the second. --Jayron32 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"American" was dropped from the Weinstein blurb already (see below).—Bagumba (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• The OP has a point. Per the OSASCOMP convention, age comes before origin, and so "American former film producer" sounds odd. Best to just drop the word "American" as his nationality seems quite irrelevant to the more notable aspects. Per MOS:FLAGCRUFT, "Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view" policy." Andrew🐉(talk) 14:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  Fair enough, that's not a bad suggestion.  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  Except "former" is not age, per se, and "American" is not necessarily origin and is not always permanent. "Old French table" refers to a table that will always be from France, but "Former American film producer" is ambiguous if they are no longer an American citizen or no longer a film producer". That being said, "American" is trivial in this blurb (but nothing to do with MOS:FLAGCRUFT).—Bagumba (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Before someone complains about the stupid guideline MOS:JOBTITLES, may I suggest "Hosni Mubarak (pictured), President of Egypt from 1981 until the revolution of 2011, dies at the age of 91." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Iranian strikes in Israel

The blurb currently reads, "In retaliation for an Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Iran conducts missile and drone strikes against Israel." As discussed at the Village pump, such use of the present tense is misleading when the event is past. It's a particular issue in this case because the event in question occurred over a week ago and there have been several rounds of tit for tat. Readers might see this headline and think that there has been a fresh strike by Iran. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

ITN uses the simple present tense, the date is given in the first 3 words of the article. Stephen 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Magnitude

• There are different measures of magnitude, when saying "magnitude 6.4" we should be specific that this is M_w and not leave it ambiguous as it currently stands. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  "M_w" has now been added, but it's kind of redundant to still include "magnitude". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, remove the word "magnitude" please. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  It would be clearer to keep the word "magnitude" but to link it to the specific definition:

  A magnitude 6.4 earthquake strikes Petrinja, Croatia, killing seven people.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  I think that might possibly run afoul of MOS:EGG; we shouldn't expect readers to find out hidden details by having to click on links. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Andrew, as the notation M_w isn't widely understood. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Curious. That notation has appeared literally dozens of times on the main page over the last few years and yet not one soul has made such a complaint! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I've looked thru the history of T:ITN for the last couple of years, and what we typically do is:

• most common: don't include the magnitude in the blurb at all
• remainder: link M_w, without saying the word "magnitude".

I like the idea of removing the magnitude altogether, and just say "an earthquake", but don't feel strongly enough to argue much more than saying so here, once. Pretty much any of the 3 choices is fairly harmless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

National Museum of Natural History, New Delhi

The top blurb currently reads "The National Museum of Natural History, in New Delhi, India, and its entire collection, are destroyed by fire." If you read reports such as the Smithsonian or Times of India, they indicate that staff expect to salvage about 30% of the specimens from the lower floors but that it is still too soon say exactly. The words "entire collection" therefore seem to be erroneous. I suggest trimming the entry to "The National Museum of Natural History, in New Delhi, India, is destroyed by fire." Andrew D. (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would therefore suggest the article is updated to include your sources otherwise we will have a discrepancy. Feel free to fix that and remove the source which states the whole collection has been confirmed destroyed ("by officials"). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  Agreed. Our front page should reflect our article. If there's an error in the article, this isn't the venue to raise it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Tried reporting it to Fram
I reported an error in the lead ITN item about the fire at India's National Museum of Natural History. I cited sources indicating that as much as 30% of the specimens might be saved from the lower floors. Here's a fresh source indicating that damage assessment is still happening: Museum fire: crime, forensic teams inspect premises. And here's a picture showing intact shelving and specimens: This Is The Extent Of Damage Inside Delhi's National Museum Of Natural History. The main page wording "entire collection" still seems erroneous but WP:ERROR didn't do anything. Over to you, please. Andrew D. (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Oculudentavis

• The article is much less certain than the blurb that this is an actual dinosaur. "Controversies" section says it could very well be a lizard. I guess the problem is twofold:
  1. How best to change the wording? "...thought to be the smallest dinosaur known"? "...possibly..."?
  2. If this isn't a dinosaur, this isn't really ITN-worthy, is it? That a lizard head fossil was found?

--Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• I raised my eyebrows at the ITN nomination as there is no scientific consensus about this finding; it's hype based on one paper about one specimen. It reminded me of another recent news story -- "biggest explosion since Big Bang". I checked that out and the claim seemed overblown as I could find an earlier claim of similar magnitude. There's a well-established phenomenon that journals like Nature like to publish impressive claims but they are correspondingly less likely to stand up. See Publish and be wrong for details.

Anyway, if the item is to be kept it should say something like

Paleontologists debate the taxonomy of a skull found in Burmese amber

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It was, I think, rushed through because people are understandably stir-crazy for lack of non-coronavirus news. I would probably just pull it given the lack of academic consensus... —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 00:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I have pulled this item for now, regrettably. I suggest further discussion takes place on WP:ITN/C — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Pedro Sánchez

• "Pedro Sánchez (pictured) is re-elected as the prime minister of Spain, after extending amnesty to Catalan separatists."

This is incorrect because it implies that the amnesty has happened. But it hasn't. What has happened is that Sanchez' party has proposed a draft bill for an amnesty but this has yet to become legislation and this is far from certain as Sanchez doesn't control the Senate. See What is the Catalan amnesty deal agreed by Pedro Sánchez?. So the blurb should be more like:

• "Pedro Sánchez (pictured) is re-elected as the prime minister of Spain, after proposing amnesty for Catalan separatists, who then supported him."

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• The whole hook is misleading anyway. The story here and the linked article is about him forming a government, not that he was reelected. The election was 5 months ago. Needs a major reword.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  The Spanish word used for this process seems to be investidura which is investiture in English. So, the blurb might be better as the following. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Pedro Sánchez (pictured) is invested as the prime minister of Spain, after proposing amnesty for Catalan separatists, whose parties then gave his coalition a majority."

  I've tweaked to something close to this:

  Pedro Sánchez (pictured) is invested as Prime Minister of Spain, after proposing amnesty for Catalan separatists and then receiving support from them. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Starliner

The word maiden in the Starliner blurb seems too colloquial a metaphor while our article maiden is mostly sexual content which may confuse. We should just use the simple word first, like the article's lead. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Schwede66 12:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Taliban/US agreement

The current wording is

• The United States and the Taliban sign a peace agreement which establishes a framework for ending the War in Afghanistan.

But the BBC report says '"US, Afghan and Taliban officials have all been careful to avoid calling Saturday's agreement in Doha "a peace deal."' So, if the parties don't consider this to be a peace deal, we shouldn't be describing it as such.

Reports indicate that the key elements are:

1. US withdrawal
2. a prisoner exchange
3. a promise by the Taliban to cease supporting Al Qaeda and the like
4. a "reduction in violence"
5. some hope of talks between the Taliban and Afghan government

As the latter were pointedly excluded from the agreement, the idea seems to be that the US gets peace and the Afghans get a more subdued civil war. As it's quite complex and speculative to summarise this, I suggest we start by dropping the word "peace" to give:

• The United States and the Taliban sign an agreement which establishes a framework for ending the War in Afghanistan.

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree this reword would be an improvement. Any objections from anyone? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Agreed, came here to post this suggestion myself.130.233.2.197 (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Stephen 09:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (7 May 2024 – present)

The page Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (7 May 2024 – present) has multiple orange tags and so its use by ITN is debatable. Perhaps the timeline link in Ongoing ought to be to Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war which is higher-level and so perhaps less contentious? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Not that the orange tags are not an issue, but the more specific article is the target because it is more consistently updated(the requirement of Ongoing). 331dot (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752

• Iran – Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 is shot down shortly after takeoff...−

– Woefully soft formulation. Every RS I've seen uses "Iran admits ... accidentally" or something like "Iran says it unintentionally..."

Revised suggestion:

"Iran says it mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian airliner shortly after it took off at Tehran, killing all 176 people on board."

– Sca (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with sticking the the facts, and leaving the politics to the article. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates § (Ready) Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752

 – @Sca: There is no need to have duplicate discussions.—Bagumba (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Discussion belongs here because WP:ITN/C says that it is "not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS."

The current ITN entry is "Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 is shot down shortly after takeoff from Tehran, Iran, killing all 176 people on board." This is erroneous because the flight did not take off from Tehran. The airport is 30 km outside the city and the flight was even further away when it was shot down. BBC coverage shows the closest city to the incident to be Shahedshahr.

There are also errors of omission, of course, too. A selection of current headlines shows that the location is not the significant aspect.

1. Iran plane crash: Protesters condemn 'lies' on downed jet
2. Iran plane crash / Dominic Raab warns Iran of 'pariah' status after ambassador arrest
3. Furor in Iran and Abroad After Tehran Admits Downing Ukrainian Jetliner
4. Iran plane crash: Tehran confession blows up national unity

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Do you have a suggested rewording?—Bagumba (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

As before, this should be agreed at WP:ITNC, it's not an error as such. (And I'm going to beg to differ on the "takeoff from Tehran" part - if an airport is clearly associated with a given city, it's fair to say the plane took off from that city.) The current blurb does a reasonable job of stating the fats without breaking neutrality IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Depending on where the airport is, it can be piped to Greater Tehran or just Tehran Province.—Bagumba (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, well Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport is known as "Tehran Airport", not really as "Robat Karim and Eslamshahr Airport". So that point is somewhat moot. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Then the link/pipe should be changed.—Bagumba (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That is an error. There can be no debate that the aircraft took off from that airport. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

On this Day

Amazing Grace

1773 – The hymn "Amazing Grace" was probably first used in a prayer meeting in Olney, England, without the music familiar to modern listeners.

This is an FA but should we really feature it in "On This Day" if it only probably happened? - Dumelow (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, we should run this because this is an FA and the 250th anniversary is being celebrated as such and New Year's Day merits such special anniversaries ([24]; [25]; [26]). The details of the sermon which Newton preached on 1 Jan 1773 are well established from his notebooks which have been preserved and studied. The association of the hymn with the sermon seems to be a deduction based on the Biblical passage 1 Chronicles 17:16–17 which was the basis for both. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• How can it be in "on this day?" if we don't actually know it was on this day? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• This has appeared at OTD three times already so clearly it can be done. The dating seems well established now and so reputable organisations such as the BBC recognise it. Many such historical dates may have some uncertainty but so it goes. We recently had Christmas and it was amusing to read that Ukraine is now celebrating that on 25 Dec as well as 7 Jan – see Calendar reform in Ukraine. Christmas is nominally Jesus' birthday but that dating is even more uncertain. Even Jimmy Wales' birthday is subject to some uncertainty! Andrew🐉(talk) 23:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• "we screwed up three times before" is not a defense for screwing up now. As for Christmas, the holiday is celebrated (by many) on 25 December, but that does not necessarily indicate that the birth of Jesus occurred on that date or even that people believe that it occurred on that date. Or even that it occurred at all.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 01:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

If the dating is "well established" then the article should be updated to say it happened on this date, anniversaries of events that "probably" happened. For clarity the OTD guidelines state: "The selected article (boldfaced item) needs to be updated to clearly state the event or day of the celebration/observance or birth/death, as well as the exact day it occurred/occurs". I can't see how "probably" complies with the "exact date" part - Dumelow (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

As the anniversary approaches, one would expect news coverage and it's no surprise to find a column about it in the UK's newspaper of record, The Times, which starts "Amazing Grace still has power to inspire – Tomorrow is the 250th anniversary of a song featured in the Guinness Book of Records...". As the BBC and Times are content with this being its anniversary, who are we to differ? If Dumelow doesn't like the word "probably" then he can just remove it. I'd revise the wording myself but I've not had much to do with OTD and the process is not yet clear to me. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It should be swapped out. OTD is not the place for "probably", we run things that are sourced and verified as having happened on a given date. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• What is quite certain is that John Newton gave a sermon on this theme on 1 Jan 1773 and the common inference is that the hymn was written to accompany this as that was his habit. A wording along these lines might be used such as the following. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• 1773 – In Olney, John Newton preached a sermon on the biblical theme which he used for his famous hymn "Amazing Grace", whose anniversary is now celebrated on New Year's Day.

• Yes, this works, because there is certainly no doubt that the anniversary of the hymn is celebrated on 1st January (indeed, most sources don't even shed any doubt on the fact that it was used that day). Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like from what Andrew is describing above that reliable sources are claiming that it was first performed on 30 December 1 January, 1773. So I think we may have caused ourselves some unintentional grief by hedging our bets. It may be easier just to remove the word "probably". Moot point now, though. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• So, after days of discussion, the item has been run unchanged! But I got something out of it by researching the issue and created a page for a related red link too. And I plan to follow up by figuring out how to update the OTD item when it is unprotected. So, until next time ... Happy New Year! Andrew🐉(talk) 22:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Good Friday

Not technically an error, or else an error by omission, but I would expect Good Friday in this section today, considering it is one of the world’s most celebrated holidays. Something along the lines of: Good Friday in Western Christianity and many countries. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8440:6218:A4CF:BCC1:D0FD:33C2:E1E7 (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Articles on the Main Page need to have a basic level of quality. Good Friday has a lot of unsourced passages. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Agree with Black Kite. If the uncited passages get citations or are removed, I'll support its inclusion on the template. Z1720 (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  If they get citations, yes. But not if material is "removed". There's a longstanding convention that we don't chop uncited material from articles just to shoehorn them on to the main page, unless there's a clear and valid encyclopaedic reason to do so (e.g. the material is obviously false or demonstrably out of scope).  — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The OP has a good point. The article has over 140 citations and is graded B-class, which is better than much of what appears on the main page. And it has appeared on the main page 19 times previously. I looked at the first of the {{citation needed}} to see what the fuss was about and found that it was a footling detail of the Orthodox ceremony. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Footling detail? I thought that was the bit that happened yesterday? Not sure it helps with shoehorning though. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ve had a look, placed a few more tags, and downgraded the article to C class. It’s not fit for mainpage exposure. Schwede66 17:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The numbers are in and the good news is that the readership was quite unaffected by this omission, being as big as it has ever been and #3 top read for the day. So, it appears that OTD is quite unimportant for this as most readers have no difficulty finding the topic directly.

The editing on the day pushed the topic to and fro a bit but it is so substantial that this didn't make much difference either.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Memphis sanitation strike

• Memphis sanitation strike - the lead and infobox clearly state this started on 12 Feb, i.e. not 11 Feb. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've changed it to "agreed to begin a strike" which is how the article has it. May be better off pulling it and having it up tomorrow though. If someone else wants to do that, fine by me. Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Jenks24: Thanks but please note that the new wording of "about 1,300 black sanitation workers in Memphis, Tennessee, U.S., agreed to begin a strike" is not quite right as the number that attended the meeting on this day was about 700. I suggest you drop the number to have something like "After two were crushed to death, black sanitation workers in Memphis, Tennessee, U.S., agreed to begin a strike that lasted over two months." Andrew D. (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• ANYONE HERE to address the Colonel's comments above? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• I believe Howcheng did hours ago; unless there was something else? Mackensen (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

ANYONE HERE? Ten hours into today and these appear to remain unaddressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Tu BiShvat moved to Feb 10 (we lack consistency when it comes to Jewish holidays that go from sunset to sunset: some get listed on the start day, some get listed on the end day). Blurb fixed for the sanitation strike. —howcheng {chat} 21:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

"1972 – Following Pakistan's defeat in the Bangladesh Liberation War, President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto released Bangladeshi politician Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (pictured) from prison in response to international pressure."

The sentence is the article is not supported by a citation (the next sentence is cited to a December 1971 news article) - Dumelow (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

As of this time the image of Sheikh ...appears without an explanatory note.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a topic expert here, but I think we might have the date wrong. It looks like Mujib flew from Pakistan to England after his release. NYT says he arrived in London at about 6:30 AM on January 8. This piece from the Daily Sun places Mujib out of prison for a dinner with Bhutto on 7 January before his flight. I'd also love a second opinion smell test on the YouTube sources used in that article. Copyvio? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 08:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Dumelow and other patrolling admins, can we swap another item in for this? At best it's unsourced, and in searching for a source I only found evidence that it's incorrect. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed it - Dumelow (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you remove (or change) the photo too? I came here to ask who the pictured Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was, and found the answer! 2.220.175.253 (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I was just browsing the main page and noticed the photo of this famous leader without a corresponding entry. I figured that WP:ERRORS was the cause of this disruption and so it proves. I just added a citation for the fairly simple fact in question and it only took about a minute. Please can Dumelow explain why they did not do this themselves rather than wasting the time of several editors and confusing countless readers. Please see WP:SOFIXIT – "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it". See also WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Pull the image of the Sheikh and add one of the Pope or for whoever you can write something underneath. Ok I have seen SOFIXIT comment by Andrew and will try. But am skeptical I can do it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the blurb for Rahman as it is now cited, though I note the other comments above by Firefangledfeathers that might want further insight. Andrew I spend significant time every morning checking upcoming OTD and POTD blurbs as they are so prone to error. Where a fix is straightforward such as rescuing a dead link I will usually do so and not post here, I simply don't have time to do anything that takes much longer. You are better asking why it was listed on OTD in the first place or why in the two days since I posted it here it wasn't actioned, rather than criticising me for pointing out it doesn't meet the OTD guidelines - Dumelow (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dumelow Excellent. And I was right, I wasn't able to edit. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll grant that there's more to this than I first thought. I think it's a case like Jimmy Wales' birthday which happened at night and so the news broke the following day. According to TIME, Rahman was put on a flight to London at 3 am and an announcement was not made until 10 hours later (13:00). With the time zone as a factor, Rahman would have arrived in London on the same day (8 Jan). The exact date depends on when you record the release -- when it was agreed or when it was announced -- and some sources clearly have it as the latter = 8 Jan.

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Vellore Mutiny

1806 – Indian sepoys mutinied against the East India Company when they broke into Vellore Fort and killed or injured 200 British troops.

– I assume the sepoys mutinied and then broke into the fort. When implies they mutinied after the attack on the fort. Sca (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

My reading of this is that the mutiny was the act of breaking into the fort. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Same here, but "when" makes it possible to read it otherwise. Sca (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

1806 – In a mutiny against the East India Company, Indian sepoys broke into Vellore Fort and killed or injured 200 British troops. : seems to avoid the problem. Haploidavey (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sca (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a tangible improvement, but I'm sure another admin may decide that it's easier to just appease such non-erroneous minutiae and do it. It won't be me, as a natural English speaker, it parses perfectly with no ambiguity. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Why assume? Our account of the matter explains that "One of Tipu Sultan's daughters was to be married on 9 July 1806, and the plotters of the uprising gathered at the fort under the pretext of attending the wedding." So, they did not break into the fort – they were already inside when they made their uprising. It was the relief force which had to break in, blowing down the gates of the fort with their horse artillery. So, the item in question is somewhat mistaken and would be more accurate as something like

1806 – Indian sepoys mutinied against the East India Company at Vellore Fort, killing their officers and over 100 British soldiers.

As a native English-speaker (and longtime editor of English-language publications), I see substantial improvement, in terms of clarity, in both alternatives offered above. However, reluctance to change anything that has been 'published,' so to speak, is not unknown at English-language Wikipedia, unfortunately. Sca (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, as I said, the offerings make no tangible difference to a natural English speaker. Perhaps the German Wikipedia can offer something more interesting for you if you find the approach here so "reluctant". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• As observed above, there is a clear error in the sentence currently on the main page. The mutinous sepoys did not break into the fort; they were already inside. This is not a matter of language, it's a factual error. Andrew D. (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  No, when can read as "as". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  No, that wouldn't make any difference. The sepoys were inside the fort and so did not "break into" it. It was the relief force which had to break in. Andrew D. (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  Just to remind you, as an aside, you have had weeks to bring this anyone's attention. Per your standard approach of waiting until it's on the main page, please desist, or else you'll be topic banned. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  I've not looked closely at OtD before. Checking this out, it seems that this anniversary was set up in 2011 and so the error has been repeated six times before I noticed it! The nice thing about fixing such errors is that they should stay fixed for the following years. Andrew D. (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

outcome: anniversary updated

Waitangi Day

on't even know if this is against any of our Main page working practices, but seems a bit daft to have an item on DYK and OTD about the very same article, Treaty of Waitangi. Bit of a waste of valuable real estate? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's Waitangi Day and it is normal DYK policy to hold items for an anniversary of this sort. There's another NZ hook up currently too and that's presumably there for the same reason. This is not an error; it's a topical theme. Andrew D. (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems wasteful to have the same item twice. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

We certainly do not deliberately have bold targets to the same article multiple times, but that's a symptom of a main page borne out of multiple processes with no single over-arching authority. We could request that OTD replace the item there with another one. To highlight the same article twice in different sections of the main page is, indeed, wasteful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• There's another NZ hook in the next batch. Aroha. Andrew D. (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• That's not really relevant to the point being made, i.e. the linking of the same article twice on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk page discussions

House of Plantagenet

I appreciate your help so far, we can use all the volunteers we can get, but what you're doing today isn't helpful. Please stop waiting until the very day that a TFA goes live to make whatever point you want to make. TFAs are typically scheduled at least two weeks in advance and often more; see WP:TFAA. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You could also spend a lot more of your time at FAC which I'm sure would be appreciated. After all, the community consensus upon the promotion of today's article was to include the paragraph you have summarily deleted. Clearly your approach differs substantially to the rest of the FAC community so I'm certain your input would be considered helpful, especially well in advance of such perceived "errors" going live on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• I browse the main page every morning. This is not especially focussed on any of the sections or articles; I just fasten on whatever catches my eye. This might be the FA, the featured picture, a DYK, an ITN headline or whatever. For example, I recognise the FP today too and recall raising some issue about that in the past but don't have the relevant link at my fingertips. Anyway, if I spot a fresh issue with something, then it is my duty to report it, right? This doesn't make me responsible for fixing everything that has led up to that point because this is a collaborative effort covering numerous articles and other pages. My own development efforts tend to be focussed on my own articles such as the DYK which has just gone up. I have just been active to see if we can get a free image for that while it's still up. I expect that to be a struggle but so it goes. And, of course, I have plenty of other non-Wikipedia things to do too.

See also shooting the messenger. :)

Andrew D. (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, most of the time you're not delivering bad news, you're just wasting time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Andrew, in my experience the single most common mistake made in contentious community discussions is the unchangeable belief that a person knows what the point is, what everyone should be focusing on, and the certainty that anyone who thinks different is irrelevant. In contentious RfCs concerning policy, it's more often true than not that the participants can't even agree on what questions should be under discussion. You're making a mistake here because I know what's happened at ANI in the past when a person kept waiting until the day FAs showed up at TFA to make a point about perceived flaws in those FAs ... but if you don't hear what I'm saying, I'm not going to hold it against you because this mistake is so common on Wikipedia. I'll just be sad, because you could otherwise have been a great contributor to the process. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Dank, Rambling man, this account has basically been trolling for a number of years, or AGF wrong 100% on everything, every time - ignore/discount and just work through. Time sinking seems to be the aim. Ceoil (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Dank seems to be referring to some previous case that I don't recall or am not familiar with. Please provide details, if you think it will help. There seem to be various editors who regularly point out errors on the main page. Dealing with these seems unavoidable and that's the point of the WP:ERROR process. It would be nice if we could catch everything before it gets put up but I doubt that we're ever going to achieve such 100% perfection. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• See also The Boy Who Cried Wolf... ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I urge Dank not to provide details, and just walk away. Ceoil (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Any long-time observer at ANI will know the incidents I'm talking about. You can probably pull them up by searching for "TFA" at WP:ANI. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• I try to avoid observing ANI and when I try the suggested search I just find some fuss about Pigsonthewing and infoboxes, which doesn't seem relevant. What we have here is a vital topic that doesn't seem up to scratch. The period is generally in the news because of the Shakespeare anniversary and so we should be dealing with such issues as they appear. The idea that we should be sweeping them under the carpet instead seems quite bizarre. Andrew D. (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you know by now what you're doing isn't right, let's hope we don't need to take it further. Looks like Ceoil hit the nail on the head. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• I am still waiting for action to be taken at WP:ERRORS where both TRM and Dank indicate that they are unwilling or unable to resolve the reported error. It's puzzling that such a straightforward content issue should prove so difficult but perhaps some editor will step up. Andrew D. (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Are you really puzzled that numerous editors (five last count) are tired of trying to service your time-wasting? Time to get a different Wolf. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure who those five were but some other editors have turned up now who are actually willing to talk about the content in question. Those who wish to study fairy tales instead should please consider The Emperor's New Clothes. Andrew D. (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Please feel free to join those discussing issues with the article. Avoid ERRORS for a while if I were you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• And as the edit summary says Restore paragraph removed without discussion - use talk to discuss objections. Read, learn, improve. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Covent Garden

That was a depressing reminder of why I never go anywhere near that part of Wikipedia. Yuk.  — Scott • talk 22:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• I suppose you are referring to the recent discussion about Covent Garden. It's odd that the FA review is so quiet. I may return to it when I have more free time. Andrew D. (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Before I bring this up at WT:TFA, I'm wondering if you see the problem and if you can give me anything in the way of a compromise. What I have in mind was illustrated at, among other articles, House of Plantagenet, on its TFA day. Would you be willing to make your reports to ERRORS and hold off on edits directly to articles on their TFA day? I'm trying to find a way to wrap up this conflict quietly. - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Of course, I prefer a sensible compromise to tiresome drama. We should first clarify what the problem is. I had supposed that it was my postings at WP:ERROR. But now you indicate that it is my editing of the actual articles. This has not happened on many occasions, as I recall. I edited Dan Leno some years ago, adding a famous example of his patter to the article when it appeared on the main page. There was some kind of edit conflict with Tim Riley but we sorted that out quite amicably. I have attended several editathons with him since and we get along fine. Most recently, I read yesterday's FA, John Balmer, with interest and made a minor copy edit which caused no fuss or muss. I read the sources in some detail for that topic and thought there was scope to say more about the subject but didn't have time or inclination to get into it in detail. None of this would have been appropriate at WP:ERROR because there was no error on the main page. As I understand it, WP:ERROR is only for issues with the blurbs, hooks and other content which actually appears on the main page. Andrew D. (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This sounds really promising, thanks for the details. I think I can work with this. I need to get over a stomach bug. More soon. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, feeling better. Sorry, I don't like to do this stuff when I'm sick, I suck at it. Let's start here: what would you like to do? (Uncontroversial copyediting to a FA is of course welcome ... on any day other than the TFA day itself. Article maintainers feel besieged on TFA, and the less they have to process, the better.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Archive

What's this page for?

Please excuse my nosiness. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's an archive. I don't understand why WP:ERROR doesn't keep an archive of the usual sort, especially as discussions are often removed so swiftly there. It's quite unlike the practise at AFD or RFA, say, where discussions are maintained indefinitely and so can be easily referred to years later. I've been keeping a record of the discussions I've participated in. It's a work in progress but the structure has developed naturally and it's not yet too big to be awkward. Andrew D. (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not archived because there's no real need for archiving. The discussions there are about what it says on Main Page, which is a fleeting thing, unlike AfD or RfA that have longlasting impact. Besides, it's all there in the page history anyway. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I stumbled across this page. Please could you tell me its purpose? Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• You asked about this in July of last year - see above. It's an archive of issues raised in which I took an interest. By keeping such archives, one is able to deal with recurring items such as your query. The general practise at WP:ERRORS is to remove items when they scroll off the main page but sometimes there are unresolved issues. And, in any case, I find it interesting to review and follow up such topics once I have started investigating the content in detail. For similar reasons, I keep records of my other activities such as page creations, DYK and editathons. See maxims such as know thyself and lessons learned. Andrew D. (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing through protection

You are aware this happens on all portions of the main page via ERRORS every day, right? And you are aware that it happens multiple times per day at DYK once sets have been promoted to queues, right? In neither case is there any obligation to seek permission or consensus. It'd be best if you stopped trying to claim that it was required in all such cases, as clearly, practically and empirically, you're wrong to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• What seems to happen every day is that WP:ERRORS wastes time and energy by revisiting topics afresh, rather than consulting the relevant editors. For example, there was some carping and cavilling about the NZ hooks on Waitangi Day yesterday. I said that this was probably deliberate and have just noticed some relevant discussion which confirms this. Andrew D. (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think you missed the point here. Stop telling people that you need a consensus to edit through protection. It's simply not true. Besides, I'm not clear on what your link is supposed to demonstrate? That had precisely zero to do with Waitangi Day being linked as a target article on two different sections of the main page simultaneously. Please stop misleading others regarding the editing through protection, though, that really must stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Another fresh example is the case of Easton Area Public Library in which a hook was changed in the queue then reverted at WP:ERRORS and then chewed over some more to "fix the fix". What's needed in such cases is discussion and consensus rather jumping to conclusions. The principal editor should be notified and involved in this because they will tend to know the topic best. Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• You missed both points again. Editing through protection happens every day, so telling people they must not or cannot is factually incorrect. And "principal editors" are often not available so decisions have to be made on their behalf. Of course, if you took any of what you're saying seriously, you'd be requesting that every admin who edits through protection at both DYK queues and the main page be de-sysopped. Of course that's not going to happen. So I think we're done here, but if you make false statements to other users who aren't aware of this conversation in the future, I'll gladly drop them a line with a diff to this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

Hi Andrew,

I've mentioned this before, but I now feel the need to be more emphatic. What you're doing at WP:ERRORS and WT:DYK is not useful. As I noted earlier, we welcome users to help us find problems before publication, but that does not appear to be your intent. You wrote in Special:Diff/1231899272 of a desire to "shame" the people who work at DYK for "sloppy work". Given that you are steadfastly waiting until after hooks are on the main page to point out the problems you've found, I assume your intent is indeed to shame people. That's not useful. That's making a WP:POINT and is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Please stop. RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your perspective is different from mine. As I understand it, you are deeply involved in DYK processing and so see the hooks progress from nomination to prep to queue to the main page. And you regularly engage in discussion at WT:DYK about the issues arising and get involved in the fixes, moves, holding areas and whatever.

Me, I'm far less involved in DYK and so just nominate a new article now and again. I do the QPQ but don't otherwise get involved in the prep-building and other activities. I occasionally look at WT:DYK and may latch on to some issue but am not a regular.

So, my main role for this is as a reader of the main page. I look at the main page every day and I'm usually seeing the articles and DYK hooks for the first time. The hooks may well have been devised weeks earlier but, as I'm not so involved DYK, I'm not aware of their history.

Now DYK is the most interesting part of the main page and that's because its hooks are deliberately provocative -- they are intended and designed to engage the reader. The FA, by contrast, is usually quite boring because its focus is excellence and completeness rather than being interesting and quirky. ITN can be interesting but I'm more closely involved in the daily processing for that section and so usually already familiar with the issues.

So, your supposition that I'm holding back in some way is mistaken because I don't have the same overview of DYK that you do. I'm just engaging with DYK as it is supposed to be consumed. If I like a hook then I may drill down to thank the author -- Whispyhistory's John Henry Bryant (physician) was a recent example. I may read around the hook and engage with the general topic. For example, The Strip (book) hook mentioned Meyer Lansky and that led me down a rabbit hole of reading about him, The Godfather and so forth.

If I engage closely with a hook and spot an error of some kind then I report it at WP:ERRORS because that's the proper process. It may well be too late to do much about it but "better late than never".

Anyway, I see that AJM29 has started an interesting discussion about the "definite fact" rule at WT:DYK. It will be good to clarify that as that might help move us forward.

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

So far, discussion indicates that the problem is not just careless oversights but that there are often disagreements whether something is an error or not. Some editors seem to have a higher tolerance for approximations and loose language than others.

Another issue is that the journey from nomination to main page can be complex. In the latest case of the article island, this went with ALT1 until it reached Queue1 when there was then an extensive discussion by others at WT:DYK. ALT0 was then switched in and that's what I then engaged with. Such switching will tend to trigger a fresh round of objections. A broad topic like island may cover quite a lot of ground and so you effectively have to start afresh.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:AN#Andrew Davidson's behavior at DYK. Thank you. RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That discussion doesn't seem very edifying as yet. At WP:ERRORS yesterday, the report about the island hook was accepted and it was modified. Discussion of the detailed issue continues at the article's talk page.

I looked at today's set and drilled down on a couple of topics which caught my attention: Amy Sawyer and Jarrett Robertson. The claim in the latter case seemed debatable but I held my peace and moved on. The thing is that most hooks are reasonably acceptable but you don't then get any drama or dispute about them. The current process of WP:ERRORS and post-mortems tends to focus only on the most problematic cases and so, by their nature, accentuates the negative. Other editors are arguing at WP:ERRORS about another hook today but I'm leaving them to it. It might be good if there was a forum in which we could discuss the good stuff in a more congenial way but that tends to happen outside Wikipedia -- the recent Wikimania, for example, which I browsed online.

So, it's good to keep things in proportion. Looking at my records, I've discussed about 80 DYK hooks at WP:ERRORS in about 8 years -- a long-term average of about 10/year. In that time, DYK must have run about 30,000 hooks and most of them were fine by me. Overall, I approve of this high productivity and now need to work on my own forthcoming contribution as it is not yet passable...

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• The discussion at AN scrolled off without a formal conclusion. The last word went to Buffs who wrote "I side with AD here as the net benefit to the community. There's a LOT of sloppy work on the main page..."