m rvv |
Soetermans (talk | contribs) →Errors in In the news: boxing match |
||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
===Dutch Attack=== |
===Dutch Attack=== |
||
7 people including the attacker have died from the attack. The page only says that 6 people died. We probably should include that there. [[user:ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 18:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC) |
7 people including the attacker have died from the attack. The page only says that 6 people died. We probably should include that there. [[user:ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 18:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
===Boxing match=== |
|||
I might just be wrong, but normally there are no sports —except for international competitions (i.e., Olympics, World Cup)— mention in ITN right? With all the other current events, the outcome of a boxing match seems out of place to me. But like I said, I could just be plain wrong. --[[User:Soetermans|<small>'''Soetermans'''</small>]] | [[User talk:Soetermans|<small>'''is listening'''</small>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Soetermans|<small>'''what he'd do now?'''</small>]] 09:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
<!-------------- DO NOT EDIT below this line -------------------------------------------------------------------------> |
<!-------------- DO NOT EDIT below this line -------------------------------------------------------------------------> |
Revision as of 09:37, 3 May 2009
For general main page discussions, go to Talk:Main Page.
To report an error you have noticed on the current Main Page or tomorrow's Main Page please add it to the appropriate section below. Errors can be fixed faster when a correction is offered, so please be specific. You can do this by pressing the [edit] button to the right of the appropriate section's heading. Also, please sign your post using four tildes (~~~~)
Note that the current date and time are in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which may not coincide with your local time zone. The next day's featured article of the day, picture of the day, and anniversaries update at midnight (00:00) according to UTC. The current time is 23:34 on June 14, 2024 (UTC). (Update)
Once an error has been fixed, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history to verify that the error has been rectified and for any other comments the administrator may have made. Lengthy discussions should not take place here, and should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error, and a suggested rewording is helpful with a stylistic complaint. The main page usually defers to supporting pages when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.
Errors in the summary of Today's featured article on the Main Page
Errors in In the news
2009 swine flu outbreak
The article itself mentions under 300 confirmed cases, and 7 confirmed deaths. The title is just fearmongering. 70.72.219.120 (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we please change the front page to reflect reality? 7 confirmed deaths, not 159. By all means put that number on the other pages, but the only real and confirmed number of deaths is 7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.8.1 (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- This urgently needs to be changed! It is downright false to say that the virus has killed "at least 159" when it has in fact killed 159 at most. Every major news source is saying "up to 159". See for example the lastest BBC update. Please change this as soon as possible as the current version is totally erroneous! DJLayton4 (talk)
Link should be to 2009 swine flu outbreak, not to Swine influenza! Wwheaton (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I added at the top. I just read these after putting that last post up. I'm glad people are corroborating. But why can't we change the report?! I'm still too new to know why I have no edit tab for the main page. As it stands, the report is terribly irresponsible. It really needs to be changed.Jcblackmon (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I've changed it to reflect reality - 7 lab-confirmed deaths in Mexico and 1 in the US. – Toon(talk) 17:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Toon!Jcblackmon (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Deaths by Swine Flu in the U.S
One of the deaths was discounted and is not because of the swine flu, however they are still looking into the other one.[1] Txtrooper (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- The statement that there are "suspectedly 2 [deaths] in the United States" appears to be incorrect. According to the article 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States there are yet no reported or suspected deaths in the US from swine flu--
- "On April 28th the Los Angeles County Coroner announced he was looking into the deaths of two men, and would be testing them for possible swine influenza.[49] However the Los Angeles County public health official Jonathan Fielding announced that both of the deaths was discounted as resulting from the swine flu."Ecphora (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry to be a pest, but "purportedly [killed] two in the United States" is worse. No one has purported (i.e., claimed) that any have been killed; at most there are conflicting views on whether two deaths might be from swine flu. I would suggest "possibly two in the United States". Ecphora (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree they should just take the wording out and reword it to suspectedly 1 death in the United States Txtrooper (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think one death would ever be considered notable enough for the Main Page. It would be very unusual. It is obvious that the main story is Mexico so let's not have the US (or indeed any other country) take it over unless it has a substantial amount of deaths. --candle•wicke 11:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- If the 22- month boy was from Mexico and came from Mexico to Texas with his familie to visit would it still be considered as a U.S Death [2] Txtrooper (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Picture placement problem
That doesn't look like Carol Ann Duffy ... oh ... hang on. Yes, I know this is a recurring problem - but why oh why can't the ITN picture be placed next to the item that it illustrates ? Gandalf61 (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- So when I wrote the above, the picture next to the Carol Ann Duffy item was of Beatrix of the Netherlands, 5th item in the ITN list. Now it has been changed - to Souleymane Ndéné Ndiaye, 4th item in the list. Ha ha. Very funny. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Openly gay
"openly gay" is wrong. just "gay" will do. every single other poet laureate married and had kids AND there is no suggestion of inappropriate ball-tickling activities. she isn't the first openly gay, just the first gay. you people need to get over yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.59 (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Quite pointless. Many gays, both male and female, get married and have kids, mainly due to social pressure. We never know unless we have them under constant surveillance or something. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
which of the others is gay? none. which has been suspected of being gay? none. then "openly gay" is redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.59 (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- While it's phrased quite crudely (I've changed the section title, for example), the IP does have a point. While it's reasonable to hedge things this way in order to avoid a potential inaccuracy, it's also quite possible that it lends undue weight to something that is, after all, speculative. Of course, there have been lots of Poet Laureates over a very large span of time, so I think that bet-hedging is reasonable, as I said. However, we might want to do so a bit more conservatively - say, "believed to be the first gay" rather than "the first openly gay". That's just a suggestion. — Gavia immer (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- but writing "openly-gay" is also weasel-like towards those other poets laureate (yeah, not poet laureates, tsk,tsk and you call yourselves editors...) it suggests that one or more of them may have been secretly gay, but there is NO EVIDENCE that they were, nor even a question about the sexuality of a single one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.236.59 (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Saying that Duffy is the first openly gay poet laureate doesn't imply anything about the other poets laureate. It just says that, whatever their sexuality and/or openness regarding it, they weren't openly gay. Whether every past poet laureate was completely heterosexual or if one or more were gay and closeted, the statement is correct. I don't see what the problem is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- ...who, er, actually cares? Is this news? 82.32.252.203 (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is it such a big deal that she is the first to be openly gay, get a grip. You wouldn't see it if she was the first with brown hair, for example, would you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.24.30 (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Dutch Attack
7 people including the attacker have died from the attack. The page only says that 6 people died. We probably should include that there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Boxing match
I might just be wrong, but normally there are no sports —except for international competitions (i.e., Olympics, World Cup)— mention in ITN right? With all the other current events, the outcome of a boxing match seems out of place to me. But like I said, I could just be plain wrong. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 09:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Template:In the news/Next update/Time
Errors in Selected anniversaries/On this day
Reporters: please first correct the regular version.
Errors in Did you know?
Protection
Something's wrong with cascading protection. DYK Images on the main page are not being automatically protected. There was problems with the previous group. I tested and protected the image on this group. There's a thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Main_page_cascading_protection_not_working. Royalbroil 12:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- The DYK image which is live now, File:Lyon0002soft.JPG, suffered some vandalism. I briefly deleted the image to remove the bad history, and restored the page and then purged the main page and re-applied image protection. I'm posting for two reasons. The first, so people can double check and make sure I didn't mess anything up and the second, to find out why the heck an unprotected image slipped by? Does this have to do with the broken cascade protection discussed above? Any ideas?-Andrew c [talk] 21:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be the cascading protection issue. The image is (and was) hosted on En, and therefore should be automatically protected by cascading protection once it's on the front page (which is why DYK admins intentionally haven't been manually protecting the images). However, it seems to have a few cracks now. Does anyone know if the software changed around the middle of March (Royalbroil's post) that would affect cascading protection? Also, we seem to be having a rash of Main Page image vandalism (I remember this OTD image getting vandalized a few days ago)...anyone know if it's the same person/IP? Shubinator (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (btw, archived Village pump thread is here)
- I just created a bug report, it's number 18483. Royalbroil 01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- The implementation of filters? As you can probably tell, I have no idea what's going on. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 11:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I just created a bug report, it's number 18483. Royalbroil 01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be the cascading protection issue. The image is (and was) hosted on En, and therefore should be automatically protected by cascading protection once it's on the front page (which is why DYK admins intentionally haven't been manually protecting the images). However, it seems to have a few cracks now. Does anyone know if the software changed around the middle of March (Royalbroil's post) that would affect cascading protection? Also, we seem to be having a rash of Main Page image vandalism (I remember this OTD image getting vandalized a few days ago)...anyone know if it's the same person/IP? Shubinator (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (btw, archived Village pump thread is here)
- The DYK image which is live now, File:Lyon0002soft.JPG, suffered some vandalism. I briefly deleted the image to remove the bad history, and restored the page and then purged the main page and re-applied image protection. I'm posting for two reasons. The first, so people can double check and make sure I didn't mess anything up and the second, to find out why the heck an unprotected image slipped by? Does this have to do with the broken cascade protection discussed above? Any ideas?-Andrew c [talk] 21:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Can this be removed yet? --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)