Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Main Page toolbox
Yesterday February 27	Today February 28, 2012	Tomorrow February 29
TFA	TFA	TFA
SA/OTD	SA/OTD	SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.	POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.	POTD Main Page v. POTD regular v.
TFL (Mondays only)
In the news: candidates · discussion · admin instructions
Did you know: suggestions · prep area · queue
Protected main page images Protected pages associated with Main Page articles
Error reports · General discussions · FAQ · Help · Sandbox
It is now 22:23 UTC Purge the Main Page Purge this page

To report an error you have noticed on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below.

Please note the following:

• Where is the error?: The more specific you can be (an exact item, for example "item number 3 on DYK"; or a sentence) the faster an admin can find it.
• Be specific: Errors can be fixed faster when a correction is offered.
• References: Can be helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Consensus: 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.
• Time zones: Note that Coordinated Universal Time is used for the current date and time (22:23 on 28 Feb 2012), and this may not coincide with your local time zone.
• Should I use {{edit protected}}?: No. Using {{edit protected}} here will not give you a faster response, and in fact breaks the template when it is placed directly on the Main Page Errors page instead of on a talk page.
• Done?: 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.
• No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.

Errors in In the news

Quran burning

Can we change US troops to ISAF troops as its technically ISAF and also npov without exact vrification of who did it. All troops at Bagram are not americans alone.Lihaas (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have been taken down by Tariq for reasons unknown (haven't asked him why, though). — foxj 06:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, copyvio. — foxj 07:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked the tagging user but he hasnt said why...so ill remove the tag. i also cleaned up the page since then,.Lihaas (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

So change it to NATO troops? Don't understand why this was pulled. Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It was pulled because the article had copyright violations in it. The blurb is back now that this has been addressed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

84th Academy Awards

While I understand that the film The Artist won 5 Oscars including Best Picture, I don't understand why Hugo, which also won 5 Oscars, has been so conspicuously left out. Taking the example of the 83rd Academy Awards, both The King's Speech and Inception won 4 Oscars (the former winning Best Picture) but in the "In The News" section, both films were mentioned. Please correct this. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Inception was not mentioned in the blurb last year. It's very difficult to mention multiple films in the blurb and work in which one won Best Picture. -- tariqabjotu 09:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that so? Because I seem to distinctly remember seeing Inception named in the news. Can't we just write :-

"The Artist and Hugo won five Academy Awards each at the 84th Academy Awards, the former also winning Best Picture."

Is this wrong/impossible/not allowed? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's so. And that sounds incredibly awkward, if not grammatically incorrect. -- tariqabjotu 09:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammatically incorrect can be fixed. Awkward? How so? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My only point here is that we shouldn't leave out any film; just because Hugo didn't get Best Picture doesn't mean its 5-Oscar win is lesser than The Artist's. (Btw, I haven't seen either of the films so this isn't just a fan asking for some recognition) I hope that makes it clear. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Awkward meaning it's a mouthful. I really don't think there's a reasonable way to get it all in there without resorting to a blurb that is either long, repetitive, or grammatically incorrect. -- tariqabjotu 09:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What? I've seen much bigger news bits appearing in the ITN section, especially when related to some blasts or terrorist attacks. I'd like more discussion on this matter, as clearly "being a mouthful" is not a good enough reason to leave out something like this. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, well, good luck. But do prepare to be disappointed. -- tariqabjotu 09:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; disappointment is something that doesn't associate with these matters, its just a shame. Doesn't affect me in any particular way. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hugo only won in the minor categories in a thin attempt for Hollywood to justify 3D films. Lugnuts (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories aside, the reason we've put The Artist in there is for its Best Picture win. — foxj 15:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Artist should be in bold too, not just the award ceremony. Look at the quality of the former compared to the latter. Lugnuts (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day

It says Washington DC is a planned city, but the link to that article (new town), doesn't even mention Washington DC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.40.100 (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

True, but New town doesn't include any listings all from the Americas. If you look at the top of that article, there's a suggestion to merge that article with Planned community; the latter does list DC as a planned city. —howcheng {chat} 23:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Shouldn't it say "Roman co-Emperors" instead of "Co-Roman Emperors"? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, why not. —howcheng {chat} 23:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

Reporters: please first correct today's or tomorrow's regular version.

Any other problems

Please report any other problems on General discussion part of Talk: Main Page.