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 01:15 on 6 November 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

Tomorrow's FA: the lead para describes the fungus as inedible, as does the summary, but the article latter contradicts this: better to say nothing in the summary than make a claim that is at best unclear. Kevin McE (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be classified as inedible. A single source saying that they are "reputed" to be edible in the rarely found immature form doesn't negate this. Rd232 ^talk 09:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A single source saying that they are reputed to have a status is more than is provided for the claim that it is inedible. What classification published where is being refuted? My query remains, however: what monitoring of this page is there if such basic errors as inappropriate capitalisation and boastful descriptions from promotional websites remain in place for 15 hours? Kevin McE (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"they are tough and fibrous, and of "no alimentary interest"", sourced to two good sources. As to your query, you could poke WP:AN. Monitoring this page doesn't happen by magic, it needs people to do it. Rd232 ^talk 17:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

unappetising ≠ inedible. Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Geastrum triplex - in ...the outer layer of tissue (the exoperidium) splits into four to eight pointed segments which spread... please change "which" to "that". I have corrected it in the article. – ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing inaccurate or ungrammatical in use of which. Kevin McE (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you read rule 2 at http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhVt.asp - essential vs non-essential clauses. – ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, that reference supports "which". Paraphrasing that reference to fit this sentence: "The [segments are] already identified. Therefore, 'which' begins a nonessential clause." A shorter version of that rule is "'That' tells which, and 'which' tells that". Should we add a comma, as this source recommends? Art LaPella (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Errors in In the news

Gebrselassie

While it remains truthful to report that Haile Gebrselassie announced his retirement after the NY marathon, he has today said that he is reconsidering that decision, so maybe that part of the blurb should be dropped. Kevin McE (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Michel Houellebecq

The word "territoire" should not be capitalised in Houellebecq's novel La Carte et le territoire; only the first word (not counting the article "la") is capitalised in French titles. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed, thanks --Stephen 03:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The book cover says "La carte et le territoire". The French Wikipedia article is "La Carte et le Territoire". The French language references are split between "La Carte et le Territoire" and "La carte et le territoire", but not "La Carte et le territoire". Art LaPella (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Haiti cholera

The "Saint Marc" region needs to be changes as it is not sourced on the page, i just re-reverted someone's unsourced addition to what the source says.Lihaas (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Haiti x2

it could be possible to merge the Hurricane and the Haitian cholera outbreak. sources on the page have already made a link and then more room wouldbe made for somethign else.Lihaas (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The two events are not that related (although obviously the tropical cyclone makes the cholera situation worse). Also, ITN rarely has a problem of "needing more room" (if only!): even when we have rapid updates (like today), most stories stay up for at least three days. Often, it's nearer a week before they drop off the bottom of the list. Physchim62 (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Mount Merapi blurb

130 people + have been killed, who knows how many thousands made homeless, and our blurb complains about flights being disrupted? Extraordinary. Is this deliberately dismissive of people who happen to have had the misfortune to be born in a non-wealthy-white-Anglophone nation. Is this really the impression that we want to give on the front page? Kevin McE (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The flights are the main headline focus at the moment on both the BBC (international coverage) and The Straits Times (regional coverage) just to pick two sources at random, not the deaths. I think it's perfectly fair that we do the same. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I would hope that the systemic bias of the press need not dictate to ITN. Kevin McE (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Strongest possible support in adding the 122 deaths, sure we can "focus" on the flight disruptions but leaving put out the deaths is absolutely stupid. 09:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Its main impact should be the focus of its notability, not what the papers are reporting. Nightw 13:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning is that 283,000 people have been forced to flee the area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've modified the blurb to reflect the deaths and evacuations but kept the numbers deliberately vague because the article doesn't seem certain on casualty figures and I can't find any figure in there for the number of people evacuated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

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

Errors in Did you know?

• Someone needs to do a quick read-through of Oscar season because the article is poor at best. The origins section in particular makes no sense, and the campaigning section has some borderline BLP issues. DC T•C 06:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, can the hook be changed to read 'autumn' rather than 'fall'? Fall is not universally understood; if a word has universal currency it should always be used over one that does not. 213.122.250.108 (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)