Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of all or part of the text in question will help.
• Please offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones: The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 05:46 on 18 March 2023), not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not give you a faster response; it is unnecessary as this page is not protected and will in fact cause problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• Done? Once an error has been fixed, rotated off the Main Page or acknowledged not to be an error, the report will be removed from this page; please check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept.
• No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the relevant article or project talk page.
• Please respect other editors. A real person wrote the blurb or hook for which you are suggesting a fix, or a real person noticed what they honestly believe is an issue with the blurb or hook that you wrote. Everyone is interested in creating the best Main Page possible; with the compressed time frame, there is sometimes more stress and more opportunities to step on toes. Please be civil to fellow users.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, consider first attempting to fix the problem there before reporting it here if necessary. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. In addition, upcoming content is typically only protected from editing 24 hours before its scheduled appearance; in most cases, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Errors with "In the news"

Putin

Not an error, but "arrest warrants" should be wikilinked as a key term. Brandmeister^talk 21:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd have thought arrest warrant is a common-enough term that it doesn't require linking to aid reader understanding. Also, the linked article has no mention of the ICC's arrest warrants, the whole content is a breakdown of specific countries only.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't insist, but I'd say "arrest warrant" isn't as common as e.g. "arrest", "police" or "president" in terms of WP:NOTDIC. Brandmeister^talk 21:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Should definitely say alleged abduction of children per BLPCRIME and probably call the "official" who she officially is (if space is the worry, remove "Russian president", since everyone knows who Putin officially is). I'm not saying say "Presidential Commissioner for Children's Rights in the Russian Federation". Just "children's rights commissioner" (and "Russian" is already clear). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The wording definitely should be changed. Reuters has it as for the illegal deportation, I cant find the actual arrest warrant on the ICC site yet, but their news release said the Pre-Trial Chamber has confirmed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that President Putin and Ms Lvova-Belova bear criminal responsibility for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, contrary to article 8(2)(a)(vii) and article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute. I dont think we should be using the word abduction in our blurb as the crime, and if we are going to name the crime then actually use its name, that being the unlawful deportation and transfer of children, or follow Reuters and say illegal deportation. nableezy - 05:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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."[1] In any event, feel free to suggest alternative wording.—Bagumba (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I would go with something like ALT1: "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)

The current title being "Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank" makes it hard to not use collapse.—Bagumba (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I just proposed to use the wording from the opening sentence of that article. The only problem with "collapse" combined with the posted image is that it may misguide readers to believe that the headquarters collapsed. Other than that, it can also be used.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That picture has been off the MP for a while.—Bagumba (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem with "collapse" then.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I updated the WP article to mention that its limited to FDIC banks, measured by assets.[2] I'm ambivalent if the blurb needs to reflect those details or go with its simplified presentation in reliable sources. —Bagumba (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

FDIC-insured in plain English would be "depository institution" because FDIC insures depositors from commercial and savings banks up to $250,000.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I consider "depository institution" to be plain English, at least not in this part of the English-speaking world. Bazza (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not Plain English. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's my fault. I forgot this terminology is too sophisticated to be considered plain English (perhaps "deposit-taking institution" is clearer and easiest to get by an ordinary reader). Anyway, we need to find a way to highlight the deposit-taking activity of the failed banks because "bank" in the US doesn't have the same meaning as here in Europe (for instance, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) defines a bank as a firm with a Part 4A Permission to carry on the regulated activity of accepting deposits and is a credit institution, but is not a credit union, friendly society or a building society). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the concerns around "second largest" and what that means in detail, and whether it's true in its simplification. I'm inclined to avoid "second largest" to get around that. I'm also concerned about the word "collapse" as it has a dual meaning and notwithstanding the use of the term in the article title, other words that convey the same meaning but aren't subject to the same ambiguity might be better for a hook. How about the following?

ALT2: Silicon Valley Bank, which mainly serves companies from the technology industry, fails after a bank run on its deposits and goes into receivership. Schwede66 23:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Collapse has become the common term in sources for this news item. In WP, we even have Silicon Valley Bank § Collapse (2023), aside from the standalone page about the collapse. For this specific case, I'd want to see support for a rename of Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank first to gauge WP:COMMONNAME over precision.—Bagumba (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That still leaves the other issue, though. How about this version?

ALT2a: Silicon Valley Bank, which mainly serves companies from the technology industry, collapses after a bank run on its deposits and goes into receivership. Schwede66 02:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards not changing "second-largest". Even today, Reuters is still referring to SVB and now Signature Bank as the second and third largest, respectively.[3] I'd be more concerned if the blurb was factualy wrong. In this case, the devil is in the details, which should be placed in the article, whether we are referring to number of branches, height of skyscrapers, number of employees, etc. "Second-largest" has been oft-mentioned, so there is no WP:OR or WP:NPOV concerns. It's a judgement on balancing conciseness in the lead with technical details.—Bagumba (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with Bagumba about not removing second-largest. Also, not a big fan of editorializing with words like "mainly serves ...". So, if we need to clarify the headline, I would recommend --

• ALT3. Silicon Valley Bank collapses in the second-largest depository bank failure in U.S. history. Any concerns with that approach? cc @Bagumba, Kiril Simeonovski, Andrew Davidson, Pawnkingthree, and Schwede66:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktin (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• My problem with this approach is that I'd have to upskill myself about the concept of depository banks; that's not a banking concept that I'm familiar with. It's mentioned in the discussion above and appears to be an American thing. Schwede66 00:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow! My bad. Depository bank means a totally different thing and not a bank that accepts deposits. Please scratch my recommendation. Ktin (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Depositary bank (or depository bank) has a different meaning. If we want to highlight the deposit-taking activity, which is crucial because the bank failed as a result of a run on its deposits, then a more appropriate term would be "deposit-taking institution" (even "depository institution" sounds too sophisticated). By definition, a bank has to take deposits to be considered a bank (see my reference to the PRA's definition of bank in the UK context, which is pretty much the same in every European country where banks are universal), but the problem arises from the fact that banks are not universal in the US and there are many investment banks that don't take deposits (see Goldman Sachs as an example), so the basic definition of a bank becomes incomplete and even delusive in that context. In sum, if we want to mention the record in the blurb, then the most precise wording would be "Silicon Valley Bank collapses in the second-largest failure of a deposit-taking institution in US history." In my opinion, however, including that record in the blurb isn't necessary at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

IMO, there is no need for specific qualifiers. Very much respected financial news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal ([4]), Bloomberg ([5]), and the Financial Times ([6]) have without any qualifiers called it the second largest bank failure. Investment banks like Lehman was probably counted separately by most outlets. Juxlos (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• We shouldn't tie ourselves in knots in order to justify the tenuous claim of "second-largest". And the blurb needs a complete rewrite as the bank hasn't collapsed. It has been restructured under much the same name and its operations are now continuing and its checks being honored. The focus and pressure is now on other banks such as Credit Suisse and First Republic which are also being rescued in various ways. So, an up-to-date and more accurate blurb might be:

• ALT4. Silicon Valley Bank is restructured after a bank run due to a loss of confidence in it and other banks.

This isn't perfect either but that's because the articles aren't keeping up with events and we can't easily fix that here. Our focus should be on avoiding error by being too specific. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I like that wording very much because it serves our readers with more relevant information and links to an article in a much better shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(March 24)

Monday's FL

(March 20)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

General discussion

Problematic image

File:Charcoal and chalk pastel sketch of Pania Newton by L Maule.jpg

I'm surprised that the people who run the Main Page and DYK let this slide without any discussion. What, exactly, is the source for this "charcoal and chalk pastel" drawing of Pania Newton because I can't find it. We've had an enormous discussion over at WP:NORN about hand-drawn as well as AI art of people—but, especially living people being highly questionable from a standpoint of original research and copyright derivative work. This is one of the reasons Wiki prefers photos of people and objects to drawings. Did the artist who made this have Ms. Newton as a model? Did they do the drawing based on copyrighted work(s)? Was it invented from memory? What's the source and was it OR? -- Veggies (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

First off, to me, drawings made by actual humans are nowhere near as problematic as AI art. At the very least, the person who made this charcoal and chalk pastel drawing (@Pakoire, courtesy ping) did it by herself. Also, speaking of which, she might know the answer to your question? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was based on the photo in this article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Per Derivative Works, this image would likely qualify for speedy deletion under F3. As it is protected, I wouldn't able to add the speedy template.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi all - yes the image is a chalk pastel and charcoal drawing I created based on a photo. Sorry I have realised now this is a derivative work. Any future drawings I put in commons will not be derivative like this, or from CC works. Pakoire (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with this particular image but it seems consistent with the WMF-sponsored work being done at Unseen. One paradoxical issue seems to be that, if it's a good likeness, then it's challenged as derivative. If it's not a good likeness then it's challenged as inaccurate. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  An excellent observation about how that half-baked idea has encouraged both amateurish doodles and copyright washing. It was really poorly thought out. -- Veggies (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Please remove it. Derivative work, one can even see the right side of the original (but in some photoshopped version turning it into a "drawing") at the left side of the portrait. A strangely framed photo of a thoroughly unflattering version of a copyrighted photo. Fram (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It has been removed by Black Kite. I will replace shortly with File:Lisette olivera 2022 2.jpg, which seems to be suitably licensed, once that file has been protected on Commons.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

My god. what a perfect example of the pitfalls of using user-drawn art to illustrate people. -- Veggies (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There were three admins involved at DYK to get this onto the main page, and none of us picked up that there could be an issue with the image. I commented on the nomination but because I had previously contributed to the article (and I know both the article expander and the artist personally), I didn’t review the nomination. The review was done by another admin. And only admins can promote hooks to queue. Apologies for my part in it; the possibility that this could be a derivative work never occurred to me. Schwede66 18:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Unfortunately image copyright can get quite dicey. I understand how admins could miss this, if they don't tend to deal with media. I am more concerned that the issue stayed on the MP for half the day.

As for Andrew's concerns: the issue is not that a true likeness was produced. The issue is that this likeness was created by essentially copying a non-free work in a different format. The somewhat changed background does not change the fact that the pose, framing, etc. are all directly from the copyrighted image. Had the subject sat for a portrait, there would be little chance of the image being flagged as a derivative work.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC

• Kudos to GRuban who has found and added another image of Pania Newton (right). Please could GRuban tell us more so we may learn from his success. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Aw, gee, shucks. I find the occasional image when I can, and started a page listing places to find image licenses on various sites. The main places I find images are Flickr, YouTube, and Vimeo, then there are US Federal Government/Military sites, then others... Even with all those, my success rate finding a free image for a specific subject is only maybe 20%. --GRuban (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Seconded... Excellent find! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

International Women's Day

The picture in question is for a set which was especially prepared for International Women's Day. Most of the other articles in that set don't have a free image or any image at all. DYK coordinators such as Cielquiparle will know more about this.

I browsed the main page this morning and noticed that DYK seemed to have such a theme. I confirmed this by looking at OTD, which has the relevant link. The Featured Article also seems to have been selected to support the theme. And ITN got lucky in that it happens to be showing an image of Kaja Kallas who was elected recently.

What was surprising was that the Featured Picture section doesn't seem to have got the memo. It showed a picture of a woman yesterday but today it's showing a picture of a bridge. This seems more problematic as its failure to follow the theme is jarring. @Amakuru: may be able to help with that.

Anyway, my point is that, as the page has mostly been composed around this theme, we should please coordinate and establish consensus before rushing to make changes.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I have been trying to prioritise some women bios in POTD during March, to coincide with Women's History Month. I didn't know there was a day as well as a month... This is quite tricky. I'm always happy to coordinate with people if I know what's going on, but if you wanted a theme wouldn't it have been better to tell people well in advance rather than waiting ten hours into the day, when it will not be straightforward to change? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The theme is not my idea so I'm just deducing what's going on. I'm not sure how the main page handles other theme dates such as Christmas. Perhaps it's all done in a bottom-up way but it might help if there was a central calendar to give all the sections better advance notice. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Unless it's changed from when I helped with POTD and TFA, "themes" tend to emerge organically, as each section is administered by its own people with relatively little communication. We'd normally see what the other sections had scheduled, just to avoid having (for example) two birds on the same day, but we wouldn't really coordinate for special dates (though we did take requests, and sometimes editors would request articles related to a theme). So, if Amakuru was unaware that March 8th is IWD, it makes sense that something would slip. As they've mentioned, they are scheduling thematically for Women's History Month.

As for having a centralized location... it feels like it would be nice in theory. As to how much people would actually use such a page...  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Andrew Davidson: OK thanks, and yeah, there's generally no coordination between the sections. In fact, sometimes we find that different sections have scheduled the exact same thing, and that gets handled at ERRORS. Anyway, so that we remember this, I've created an entry for next year - Rosalind Goodrich Bates POTD - and another one for 2026 - Lilly Walleni POTD. I was going to do 2025 too, but there's an entry already there - for Jules Barbier's 200th birthday... we can debate whether having a man on IWD is a worse look than missing his centenary!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the last time there was a joint effort was Wikipedia:Main Page history/2019 July 21? Mostly it's organic, as we saw with the death of Elizabeth II (and subsequent complaints). CMD (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) again! @Crisco 1492: you're right, I'm not sure that the "special occasions" come up often enough that a dedicated page would be particularly well trafficked. When we do it well, it creates a really nice effect, as we saw for example at Wikipedia:Main Page history/2019 July 21, the anniversary of the moon landing. Most likely occasions like that can be handled with bespoke conversations right here at Talk:Main Page though, with notes on the pages of the individual projects if they want to get involved. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Bridges are for women, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ha, I wonder if they had the Hayden Bridge in mind when they said that!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That'd be weird. But as "they" came from B.C., not that weird. Abstract Cascadian concepts of shared heritage aside, though, I'm willing to bet about half of all bridgecrossers spanning the entirety of today's First World are (in fact) women. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It turns out that the Hayden Bridge was preserved and is now owned by a non-profit which was founded and run by a woman -- Julie Bowers. The article mentions this but the main page does not. It would be nice to make more of this in the main page blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

What's more, it now proudly serves Oregon's 4th congressional district alongside former state labour commissioner Val Hoyle. Any further work on that mighty American monument will come under the eagle eye of Christina Stephenson. In case it isn't obvious, Oregon is full of powerful women! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

As the TFA coordinator who selected today, we did not try to coordinate with any other project. There were three nominations for today, and this received the most support. All were nominated with an eye to today's observance. Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust in Greece

On what basis are we saying "The Holocaust hit Greece especially hard" ? What made it especially hard in Greece, compared to anywhere else? There is comparative data here [7] -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like there's a bit of a dispute over this sentence; it's been removed from the article lead but retained in the blurb. Mostly a stylistic issue though, I think. The claim itself seems to be based on the second sentence of the lead, one of the highest proportions [of deaths] in Europe, which is cited in the Aftermath section. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know about that dispute, which shows lack of WP:CONS. A quick fix is to remove the clause "The Holocaust hit Greece especially hard;" up to the semi-colon, leaving the rest of the sentence. In addition to the description being questionable (higher percentages and totals killed elsewhere), it feels morally inappropriate to say anyone is hit by mass murder, including the slaughter of women and children "especially" hard. We all are. Fancy making the change? -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I can change anything, it's all protected. However, I've checked the sources, and I don't think there's a problem with factual accuracy.

Bowman 2009, p.1: [Greek Jewry's] percentage of loss during the Holocaust was exceeded only by that of Poland.

Antoniou & Moses 2018, p. 1: In 1945, only about 10,000 Jews remained [in Greece], representing a survival rate of about 13–17 percent, the lowest in the Balkans and among the lowest in Europe.

I've got no opinion on the moral question, but if you still think it should be changed, I suggest pinging an admin or maybe moving this thread to WP:ERRORS where it might get more eyes.—Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC) (ETA: I've dropped a link to this discussion at the article talk page.) 17:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that "especially hard" is a subjective statement which should be avoided , as opposed to an objective comparison in terms of the quantitative death rate.

The issue should be resolved by reverting to the previous version prior to the last minute changes. (t · c) buidhe 20:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's unfair for the change to get through at last minute because the person making it happens to be an admin, and given the complaints here and at ERRORS, I've reverted it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Red links

Do I know this right that we don't show red links on the main page? I'm asking because Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 17, 2023 written by Jimfbleak contains a red link. I can't find anything about this in our guidance, though. Is my memory making this up? If I'm correct, we should amend Wikipedia:Red link as that's the logical depository for this rule. Schwede66 00:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of it being codified anywhere, but yes we avoid putting red links on the Main Page. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with having red links in articles, but the Main Page isn't an article, it's a way of directing incoming readers to articles. A red link defeats the purpose of that (as it would on a portal). Modest Genius ^talk 12:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If the link is still red in four weeks, we should probably unlink it. —Kusma (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this will spur someone to create William Marks Simpson in the next month! — xaosflux ^Talk 12:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Penrhyn Castle: Current "Did you know"

Isn't it worth adding "part funded from profits from the Slave Trade" to this item? The fakery is interesting, but has a context which seems quite important to mention. Jim Killock (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

On this day - Edward definitely not the first duke in English history

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

---

Edward the Black Prince was not the first duke in English history, since the first King of England, William the Conqueror, was Duke of Normandy. What the entry could legitimately say is that Edward was the first duke of an English dukedom (as opposed to a French one). Bermicourt (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bermicourt, I've changed this to "created Duke of Cornwall, the first English dukedom". Does that work for you? PS: You're better posting such reports at WP:ERRORS rather than here - Dumelow (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, at least that's correct. And thanks for the tip. :) Bermicourt (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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