Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Error reports

Please post error reports regarding only what is currently on the Main Page or on Main Page/Tomorrow here.
For general main page discussions, go to Talk:Main Page.

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 15:58 on June 10, 2024 (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.

Errors in In the news

The section on Darwinius masillae describes it as "humanity's transitional fossil". This is meaningless nonsense (as the article itself states). It would be better to use says that the fossil "may be a transitional form between the prosimian and simian lineages of primate, and has significance for human evolution" or something like that. Reading the article would definitely help! Animules (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is way too long, and "has significance for human evolution" is a bit too vague. Please come up with some better idea. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've amended to "Scientists announce that Darwinius masillae (radiographs pictured), a 47-million-year-old fossil of a primate, may have significance in understanding human evolution." There was POV and also an inaccuracy about the age of the species, as opposed to the specimin. Does it need a further tweak, BQ or anyone? --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I still find the "may have significance in understanding human evolution" part awkward. You could say almost every major fossil discovery is significant in understanding evolution. Perhaps the phrase can be replaced with "may be a transitional form between the prosimian and simian lineages of primate". --BorgQueen (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I find that language quite opaque, as a decided non scientist, but worse, that specific claim is uncited in the article. --Dweller (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The current formulation ("has significance for human evolution") fine. This is the wrong place to discuss the article itself's content. An article teazer will never encapsulate the content ideally. Leave it as it is. --165.145.240.82 (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC) --Adam Brink (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have changed my mind. We all do it from time to time. Is this actually newsworthy? The only news-ish aspect of it is that some news network has misrepresented what scientists think about a fossil that happens to be very complete. If it is newsworthy it should something like: "Major news network engages in wild and ignorant speculation with respect to fossil research, probably to whip up fundamentalist fury and boost ratings", which is hardly news, sadly. I now suggest removing the news item entirely. Put it in DYK as 'DYK that the extinct Darwinius masillae is believed to have opposable thumbs - an evolutionary step credited with humankind's rapid progress compared to other primates'. --Adam Brink (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am glad we finally agree. :-) The main reason the item got approval at WP:ITN/C is that missing link claim, and if the claim has turned out to be a media hype then the item probably should be removed. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The "intermediate form" claim isn't in the scientific paper [1] and ought to gone from the ITN blurb. Narayanese (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In the line about "Manmohan Singh being elected as the PM of India... ", the word "election" should probably be linkified and lead to the article on the 2009 Indian elections (whatever it's named). Not an error, but something I feel is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.138.100.115 (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It says "Manmohan Singh is elected Prime Minister of India, the first since Jawaharlal Nehru to return for a second term after completing a full five-year term." What about Indira Gandhi? Did she not return for three additional terms? --128.103.54.155 (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Singh is the first to return immediately for a second term, but a consecutive qualifier must, as you observe, be included. 68.248.238.213 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

'radiograph' should be linked Modest Genius ^talk 00:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Errors in Selected anniversaries/On this day

Please add Saint Constantine and Helena for Eastern Orthodox Christianity!

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

Reporters: please first correct the regular version.

Errors in Did you know?

...that after his death, the amateur manga collection of the manga critic Yoshihiro Yonezawa was made into a library by his alma mater, Meiji University?

There seems to be a dangling modifier here (the critic died, not his collection). I suggest revising in this way:

...that after his death, manga critic Yoshihiro Yonezawa's amateur manga collection was made into a library by his alma mater, Meiji University?

For any other problems, please report them on Talk:Main Page.