Jump to content

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Donnelly: out of sequence
Line 36: Line 36:
===Donnelly===
===Donnelly===
I realise I'm being slightly nit-picky here, but the entry on [[Paul C. Donnelly]] claims that "the U.S. Navy's [[Bat_(guided_bomb)|Bat]], [was] the first "[[Precision-guided_munition|smart bomb]]" in the history of warfare", whereas the article on precision-guided munition it links to says "The Germans were first to introduce PGMs in combat, using the 1,400-kg (3,100 lb) [[Fritz X]] ...". Might want to rephrase the DYK entry for consistency. [[User:SwordSmurf|SwordSmurf]] ([[User talk:SwordSmurf|talk]]) 16:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I realise I'm being slightly nit-picky here, but the entry on [[Paul C. Donnelly]] claims that "the U.S. Navy's [[Bat_(guided_bomb)|Bat]], [was] the first "[[Precision-guided_munition|smart bomb]]" in the history of warfare", whereas the article on precision-guided munition it links to says "The Germans were first to introduce PGMs in combat, using the 1,400-kg (3,100 lb) [[Fritz X]] ...". Might want to rephrase the DYK entry for consistency. [[User:SwordSmurf|SwordSmurf]] ([[User talk:SwordSmurf|talk]]) 16:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
⚫
:I don't think that's nitpicky; I think you found a major factual error, unlike the hyphens and stuff we usually fix. Thank you. I made it "the first U.S. 'smart bomb'", which I think is true. The [[Paul C. Donnelly]] article says it was the first smart bomb, with 2 references. But one is offline, and the other doesn't use the phrase "smart bomb"; it says the [[Bat (guided bomb)|Bat]] was the first "fire-and-forget" bomb, unlike the earlier German [[Fritz-X]] and [[Henschel Hs 293]] which had to be steered from a plane by a human. Dictionaries define "smart bomb" as guided by radio or other means, not necessarily "fire and forget". [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 18:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&action=historysubmit&diff=328073576&oldid=328058422 Fixed].--[[User:Chaser|chaser]] ([[User talk:Chaser|talk]]) 18:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&action=historysubmit&diff=328073576&oldid=328058422 Fixed].--[[User:Chaser|chaser]] ([[User talk:Chaser|talk]]) 18:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
⚫
:I don't think that's nitpicky; I think you found a major factual error, unlike the hyphens and stuff we usually fix. Thank you. I made it "the first U.S. 'smart bomb'", which I think is true. The [[Paul C. Donnelly]] article says it was the first smart bomb, with 2 references. But one is offline, and the other doesn't use the phrase "smart bomb"; it says the [[Bat (guided bomb)|Bat]] was the first "fire-and-forget" bomb, unlike the earlier German [[Fritz-X]] and [[Henschel Hs 293]] which had to be steered from a plane by a human. Dictionaries define "smart bomb" as guided by radio or other means, not necessarily "fire and forget". [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 18:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


===US-centrism (again)===
===US-centrism (again)===

Revision as of 18:12, 26 November 2009

Shortcuts

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
  • 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 14:23 on 21 October 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems because this is not a talk page. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
  • Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
  • Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.
Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article

Today's feature on Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide does not link 'substrate' to the 'substrate (biochemistry)' article. I updated the NAD article with that link, but the main page needs to reflect this. Thanks. Marquess (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in In the news

Template:ITN-Update

Well, that's fine, but if I could, can I suggest that it be changed to a more English-variant nuetral term, as "row" meaning "disagreement or fight" is completely unknown to 99% of Americans? It's just not in our vocabulary. To most of us we see "row" and think "boat." 173.88.172.69 (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is English Wikipedia, not "American Wikipedia" and, contrary to what you may think, English is widely spoken outside the USA. – ukexpat (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't British Wikipedia either; I thought we agreed on the rules described at WP:MOS#Opportunities for commonality, so I recently made this opposite edit. I would have fixed this too, but does "dispute" sound OK in the UK? Art LaPella (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't saying that we have to use an American term, just that we use a term that most Americans can understand. I'm actually something of an Anglofile, and only after I started following English football did I come in contact with that usage of "row." That's why I know most people don't know what it means. I wasn't complaining about "color" vs. "colour" or something inane like that, I was complaining about a "Commonwealth-Englishism" vs. "universal clarity," which should be the ultimate goal of something on the main page. 173.88.172.69 (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should certainly use a term which is common to both. I wasn't aware that 'row' was peculiarly British, but 'dispute' sounds fine to me. Modest Genius talk 12:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Let's use dispute instead of row. Glacier Wolf 16:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, when I put "row" into the hook, I knew it was a British term, but I thought it was more commonly understood among my fellow Americans than people are saying in this thread. Anyway, I'm glad it's been corrected.--chaser (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seem that it was leaked as of two days ago, or so press reports indicate. [1] [2]. Even if it has since been presented to parliament, my understanding is that presenting the news item in present tense as of when it happened (Nov. 23) is the way its done for ITN.--chaser (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


Errors in Did you know?

In "...that Plains Cree-Blackfoot artist and author Gerald McMaster says Hop-along Cassidy and the Lone Ranger were inspirations for his art?" ... Hop-along should be Hopalong... I've corrected this in the article. 207.164.131.30 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for reporting it - Dumelow (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Donnelly

I realise I'm being slightly nit-picky here, but the entry on Paul C. Donnelly claims that "the U.S. Navy's Bat, [was] the first "smart bomb" in the history of warfare", whereas the article on precision-guided munition it links to says "The Germans were first to introduce PGMs in combat, using the 1,400-kg (3,100 lb) Fritz X ...". Might want to rephrase the DYK entry for consistency. SwordSmurf (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--chaser (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's nitpicky; I think you found a major factual error, unlike the hyphens and stuff we usually fix. Thank you. I made it "the first U.S. 'smart bomb'", which I think is true. The Paul C. Donnelly article says it was the first smart bomb, with 2 references. But one is offline, and the other doesn't use the phrase "smart bomb"; it says the Bat was the first "fire-and-forget" bomb, unlike the earlier German Fritz-X and Henschel Hs 293 which had to be steered from a plane by a human. Dictionaries define "smart bomb" as guided by radio or other means, not necessarily "fire and forget". Art LaPella (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US-centrism (again)

Where's the balance? Six out of the eight articles are to do with the US. This is supposed to be an international encyclopaedia. (And yes, I have looked at the DYK noms and there are plenty of non-US ones that could have been chosen.) 86.152.23.72 (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Someone is monitoring DYK. –Howard the Duck 18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&oldid=328075236"