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 01:01 on 29 September 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

The article cited does not call the Psittacosaurus an "index fossil," instead, it uses two sets of index fossils (without Psittacosaurus in either set) and the first appearance datum and last appearance datum of Psittacosaurus and its field distribution to define a Pisttacosaurus biochron for the Early Cretaceous of East Asia, not "central Asia."

It is not an index fossil, but defines a biochron according to the citation. It is not Central Asian, it is an East Asian biochron. Also, the sediments are Lower Cretaceous, the time is Early Cretaceous.

This sentence should be changed to read:

"The abundance of this dinosaur in the fossil record has led to establishing the Psittacosaurus biochron for the Early Cretaceous of east Asia."

See 978-0231084833, pp. 168-170 and the cited source, Lucas, Spencer G. (2006). The Psittacosaurus biochron, Early Cretaceous of Asia. Cretaceous Research 27: 189–198.

--68.107.134.74 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this page monitored? --68.107.134.74 (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I left a note at WP:AN. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

So is this an inactive page, then? Maybe it should be deleted? --68.107.134.74 (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a volunteer organization. Sometimes things get missed. --Jayron32 05:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That's true, and my reading it is voluntary, and I can just stop again, as it the Main Page is so filled with science errors, and they don't get corrected. --68.107.134.74 (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I edited the blurb. I'm not thrilled with the "biochron" wording, but it does match the article. --Orlady (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Call it something else if you want the thrill, but that is what the sources call it, and they don't call Psittacosaurus an index fossil for the Lower Cretaceous, nor does the cited source call it Central Asia, anywhere. I don't care about the wording; I do care if the information is correct, or not. --68.107.134.74 (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source to verify these comments. At the same time this report was submitted, the article was changed to eliminate the "index" wording and add "biochron". Now the blurb matches the article. I considered deleting the sentence from the blurb; that still might be a better choice. --Orlady (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleting it from the blurb is a good idea; it's far too technical for the blurb. --68.107.134.74 (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Errors in In the news

Template:ITN-Update

Errors in the summary of Monday's featured list

Shouldn't this read:

Forty-nine drivers have suffered fatal accidents while driving Formula One cars since the creation of the Formula One World Championship in 1950. Thirty-two of the drivers died during World Championship Grand Prix race weekends, six during test sessions and eleven during non-championship Formula One events.

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.43.130 (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I edited it. --Orlady (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The singular sounds fine to me. I take it to be a general wording, rather than literally one car or one weekend. Could this be a regional variation in English? I'd be interested to hear the opinions of some of the American English speakers here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Any other problems

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