Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

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 08:58 on 10 July 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 the featured article

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

I made an edit today that I hope addresses all the concerns on the blurb's talk page. Thoughts and edits are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Errors with In the news

@MSGJ: I'm wondering why you chose to swap Strasburg for Tänak and Järveoja when the world rally championship ended days ago. Per Wikipedia:In_the_news#Pictures "In most cases, the picture is posted for the topmost blurb which has an eligible picture to go with it." I didn't see any discussion here, at WP:ITNC or WT:ITN to explain it, was there a vandalism or non-free issue or something? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging MSGJ, who made the switch. Kees08 (Talk) 01:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I am guessing because Tänak and Järveoja are actually the subjects of the ITN hook, whereas Strasburg is not. Black Kite (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite, they aren't the subject, the championship is the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Well yes, but they're at least mentioned in the hook. Anyway, that's all I can think of. Black Kite (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Baseball, it says the World Series MVP is generally included in the blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

That rally pic was already posted on Oct 29. Is there a guideline of when a current image is "stale" and an even older pic gets swapped back in? At any rate, it seems to soon after the completion of the World Series (WS img posted Oct 31) to remove it for anything but a new blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no "too soon", the guideline is top blurb with image is the image unless there is some WP:IAR reason for otherwise but none is provided. This should be an easy fix, can someone please just put the picture back. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Flipped back. What's up with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.131.252 (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

MSGJ probably rotated an older image in for a bit of variety otherwise the MVP would have been there for a few days. Stephen 11:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Can we please just fix this? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Errors in Did you know ...

Current DYK

• "that Kurt Rackow and his soldiers...", there is no American involvement in this, therefore there is absolutly no reason to lead with the non-metric unit. Fgf10 (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  Appears to be "feet" in the reference, which I cannot see. Would that be a good reason? Jmar67 (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  It is cm in the citation and in the target article. Changed to lead with cm, abbreviated, used inches instead of ft. Kees08 (Talk) 01:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  Oops, we just switched over to a new DYK, which had a similar issue...disregard my comment on this, I did not touch this hook. Kees08 (Talk) 01:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have two issues with the hook about today's RWC final ("...that today's 2019 Rugby World Cup Final between England and South Africa is a rematch of the 2007 final?"). It wasn't a rematch, and the hook is misleading without good reason (I appreciate now and again we run hooks that can be construed as deliberately misleading, but there's really no need for it in this instance). To use the term "rematch" implies the game is a replay of a past game (inasmuch as the reason today's final was played was due to past events). Of course, both England and South Africa progressed through the relevant knockout stage and faced each other in the final—the events of 2007 have no impact. My second issue is that the approved wording at Template:Did you know nominations/2019 Rugby World Cup Final made no use of the word "rematch". The original hook referred to the two teams meeting again, and the alt hook used the word "repeat" (which is distinct from "rematch" and I don't think carries the same implication). It appears the rewording came in with this edit. I presume this is all unintentional, but is it too late (or unnecessary) to change the wording? MIDI (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Being bold and changing. I feel the rewording introduced an unintentional change of meaning (WP:AGF) but original wording is more accurate (and what was approved). MIDI (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wouldn't be the first time one of my hooks have been tampered with in the queue @MIDI:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• I do understand that sometimes hooks need to change at the last minute for various reasons, but this should not be at the expense of changing the meaning or implication of the hook. I'm sure this was an honest and unintentional mistake, given the edit summary. MIDI (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

This is probably just an ENGVAR issue, as I don't get the same implication from "rematch" that MIDI does. A statement like the one mentioned here reads perfectly normal to this American. Using "repeat', however, seems really weird to me. --Khajidha (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

• (Mill Creek) Needs comma after Washington per MOS:GEOCOMMA. Jmar67 (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Done Kees08 (Talk) 00:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 12)

Monday's FL

(July 15)

Please report any such problems or suggestions for improvement at the General discussion section of Talk:Main Page.