From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Main Page error reports

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 06:26 on December 3, 2008 (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.

[edit] Errors in the summary of Today's featured article on the Main Page

[edit] Errors in In the news

[edit] Errors in Selected anniversaries/On this day

[edit] Errors in Picture of the Day/Today's featured picture

Reporters: please first correct the regular version.
Apologies, I remain unsure of the correct procedure. Anyway, the point: Blow flies can't 'smell death'. 'Death' doesn't have a smell, just as 'coma', for example, doesn't have smell. Decomposition perhaps? Zetetic Apparatchik (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see Carrion, particularly the second paragraph. I think that's what the author(s) was referring to. I've changed "smell" to "detect", anyway. --PFHLai (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in Did you know?

[edit] How to remove the donation notice

If you've already donated, cannot afford to do so, or otherwise would rather hide the notice at the top of every page:

Logged-in users: Go to 'my preferences', select the 'Gadgets' tab, check the box labelled 'Suppress display of the fundraiser site notice', click 'Save', then bypass your browser cache (Ctrl + F5 on Internet Explorer, Ctrl + Shift + R on Firefox) to see changes.

Not logged in: Create an account (this takes very little time, all you have to do is pick a username and password), then follow the above instructions. It is beyond the control of the English language Wikipedia to remove the donation notice for users not logged in.

[edit] General discussion

[edit] Featured Article Today

This is a minor issue, but the featured article about Harvey Milk, while interesting, is the subject of a film to be released shortly. Unfortunately, after reading the abridged version on the front page I now know what happens in the film. Stupid, I know, but I'd rather not know the ending to films I'm interested in seeing before they come out. In future, perhaps you could wait until after film releases before providing more information. I'm aware that Milk is an established name, but he is not known in England. 78.86.151.128 ([[User

Please see WP:SPOILER Modest Genius ^talk 19:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, why the hell didn't Wikipedia get into a time machine, go back to 1929, and kill Harvey Milk's parents so that he wouldn't spoil the plot of the movie about his life by living it?

Does Wikipedia even care about its readers? --86.168.108.98 (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Such a time machine would better serve Wikipedia if it can be used to prevent vandalism and other dumb edits on this talk page. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Did the information serve an encyclopedic purpose? If the film has not yet been released ought a detailed synopsis be included? Especially if the article itself isn't even about the film but the man within? --➨Candlewicke  ^{:) Sign/Talk} 12:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If the film was a fictional story, I might agree. But when you are dealing with a film based on the real life of a notable person from the past, with hundreds of articles and references written about him, I do not see how it is "a spoiler" that needs to be censored from the Main Page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody forced you to read the article. At least, I hope not. Grandmasterka 02:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth. let me suggest that the screenwriter and director probably intended the film to be seen by folks broadly familiar with Milk's life, and that the film's characterizations probably cannot be fully appreciated if you don't know the history.--Pharos (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the more bizzare spoiler complaints I've come across. Let's just hope we don't feature Jesus Christ on the main page. I'm sure there are a lot of people who haven't finished his biographies Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How is the choser of the featured article supposed to know that there is a film coming out about someone. I've never heard of the guy nor knew about a film. Dark verdant (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well if it's an up to date FA and a film with decent notability the FA itself will probably say. And actually the FA in question does say Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Albania ITN

I don't want to sound like a whinger, nor am I complaining or saying anything is wrong about this. I am merely pointing out that there are three items concerning Albania in to-day's (11.28) ITN. Thank you for your attention. 70.16.16.109 (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Where? I don't see anything about Albania on ITN right now. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Begging y'all's pardon. I meant OTD. 70.16.16.109 (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad. I remembered a few months ago an admin had to add a manga item just to offset the 4 U.S. items. –Howard the Duck 17:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monitor poll

Polling to figure out who is using what monitor resolution; this way we can factor that into future redesign attempts, as we know stuff shows up differently depending on aspect ratio. Poll is here. Also, we're trying to reach mostly readers; vote on whether or not you'd be ok with using MediaWiki:Sitenotice to notify people of the poll's existence. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 01:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is silly. The user's browser can be obtained by the site itself - I suggest you contact Wikimedia for some statistics. This poll will only include people who know who to edit, who found the poll, and can be bothered to write in it. --Teggles (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with their browser, it's the resolution and aspect ratio of their screen, which cannot be obtained from the user agent. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is also irrelevant to wikipedia, what's needed is the size of their browser window. Modest Genius ^talk 17:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, many people who always browse full-screen can't be easily made to understand that other people don't. It's some sort of weird force of habit thing. You can explain all day the various reasons for browsing windowed, but in the end they still come away thinking that you're talking about some bizarre exceptional circumstances, and a few odd-balls who don't know how to maximize their window. 24.2.176.64 (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The resolution of the user's screen cannot be obtained from the browser ID string (I assume you mean User-Agent), but it can easily be obtained using Javascript's screen.width and screen.height variables. When I said the user's browser, I meant their resolution, which can be easily obtained by the website itself. This poll will be incredibly inaccurate. --Teggles (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terror attacks in Mumbai

The In the News section describes these attacks as "Terror attacks" - which they obviously are- but doesn't that contravene WP:WTA? NoCal100 (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Pls suggest alternative wording at WP:ERRORS. --74.14.20.24 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: "Attacks" instead of "Terror attacks". --Teggles (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Pls suggest alternative wording at WP:ERRORS (or WP:ITN/C.) Posting here doesn't always get you the attention of the right admins. --74.14.20.24 (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 10:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What "at least" Really Means

Concerning the recent terrorist attacks in Mombei, the term "at least (#) killed" was used. The problem is, that a number (190+) seems to to have been settled upon that was at the higher end of the estimated killed. The phrase "at least" should be the SMALLEST number agreed upon (the actual body count was around 80+ during most of this time), not the largest. Current number of those killed is at around 180. If an airplane carrying 200 people goes missing and you find 4 bodies floating in the ocean, the death toll is "at least 4", NOT "at least 200" until you can confirm the plane's wreakage or more bodies. CFLeon (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Pls suggest alternative wording at WP:ERRORS (or WP:ITN/C.) Posting here doesn't always get you the attention of the right admins. --74.14.18.48 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)