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 21:01 on 4 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 today's or tomorrow's featured article

TFA today

I would like to suggest that you include ALL "Bay Area" Counties when considering the total population for the San Francisco Bay Area in the Metropolitan Statistical Area of US Cities. Currently, you have "San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area" separate from "San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area". These two metros make-up the total populated geographic area defined as the "Bay Area". The link detailing the San Jose–San Francisco–Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose%E2%80%93San_Francisco%E2%80%93Oakland,_CA_Combined_Statistical_Area) should be used when considering the population that is reported on the page: List of metropolitan statistical areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas).

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.87.35.114 (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't find anything about the Bay Area on the Main Page. When the comment was posted above, the Featured Article was about a movie (now it's about a geologist). Art LaPella (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Errors in In the news

Marielle Franco

"Brazilian politician and human rights activist Marielle Franco is killed in a shooting in Rio de Janeiro." This should read, "is assassinated in Rio de Janeiro." "Killed in a shooting" makes it sound like this was random. All of the sources point to it not being random and that it was an assassination, see: https://theintercept.com/2018/03/16/marielle-franco-assassination-brazil-police-brutality/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/15/marielle-franco-shot-dead-targeted-killing-rio "Rio's Public Security Secretary Richard Nunes said in a statement there will be "full investigation on the assassination" of council member Marielle Franco and her driver."Petrichor (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that's what the investigation's for. She can be targeted without it being an assassination. At this point, it's all too preliminary. We would be, so to speak, jumping the gun. Especially since two of the cited officials are anonymous, and Rio is not a safe city. Better to call it a shooting now and an assassination later, than to call it an assassination now and have to backtrack later, possibly in an embarrassing and public manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It is an assassination. That is ridiculous. Everyone is calling it an assassination and the investigation is beginning with that because of the crime scene and the background of her story. Wikipedia is doing a huge disservice by not calling it what it is. She was shot from behind, in a tinted car where you couldn't even see her from outside, and the shots were fired directly at her, and her driver was killed due to the way the shots were fired, i.e. not with real intent, as the shots were all towards her direction and in front of that direction was the driver. Please call this an assassination as this is what it is. I cannot believe this. She was a very public figure who was going against the political establishment and raising attention to police violence. How slow English Wikipedia was to respond to this in the beginning, and how slower yet to actually call this what it is. An example of how shallow this place can be when it doesn't concern the American-English-etc-western world. Petrichor (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, why should you override the vast consensus of all media reports? We're not supposed to do original research, which is what you're attempting here. Show me sources that are doubting that this is an assassination? I don't think they exist, and I don't think that's being debated. I'm only speaking from what the secondary sources are providing us and you're saying we should ignore it. Petrichor (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Errors in the current or next Did you know...

DYK current

"... that in 1998, Dottie Lamm, former First Lady of Colorado, ran for a US Senate seat against the same man who had defeated her husband in the Democratic primary for the same seat six years earlier?" Neither "same" is actually needed and having both in the sentence is clunky. I suggest: "... that in 1998, Dottie Lamm, former First Lady of Colorado, ran for a US Senate seat against the man who had defeated her husband in the Democratic primary for that seat six years earlier?" --Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the last or next featured list

• The only link to the page is in "Full list..." so the bold in the prose should probably be hyperlinked. (On a side note, the summary presented may be too long as well.) Hameltion (talk, contribs) 01:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've linked it and trimmed the summary a touch; it's still a little longer than average, if anyone more knowledgeable cares to have a go. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• As an aside, the TFL was changed without discussion by an apparently new editor who failed to restyle it -- is anyone from that section aware of this? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I hadn't noticed that. Two edits: (MVP) should be neither bolded nor linked, and everything after "Oscar Robertson" can probably be cut. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've moved MVP. It's now about the right word count so I've left the final sentence in situ. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Really, the whole thing should have been restored to the TFL selected by the TFL director, rather than patch up what was rushed through. Perhaps edit protection needs to be extended by a few days to prevent this kind of thing from happening. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• It had already been up a couple of hours before my attention was drawn to it. On the 17th, Art LaPella did some edits with a summary requesting review and also posted at the TFL talk page about the change, with no response. As Giants2008 had been active in the interim I assumed all was well. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Well given that talk page gets an average of fewer than three hits a day, and given the message didn't actually state that the whole blurb had been completely changed, it's no wonder we're where we are. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Can an admin please change the list back to the one I had originally picked? I've been busy with work in real life and haven't been as active as usual, so I didn't notice that somebody decided to unilaterally change the TFL. I obviously haven't checked the other page for quality, and don't want this to be that list's only crack at TFL under these circumstances. Giants2008 (Talk) 12:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Just a heads up, the same new editor has also changed the TFL that had been selected for March 23 ([1]). –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Restored the previously chosen TFL. Someone needs to guide this editor away from such behavior. Meanwhile, please change the current TFL back to the one I originally picked, as I requested earlier. I haven't reviewed the NBA MVP list in detail and can't vouch for it, and the blurb wasn't in great shape when it was written. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sigh, both Crisco 1492 and I had already spoken with him regarding similar behavior in POTD. —howcheng {chat} 21:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That editor appears[2] to be here only to mess around with pages revolving around the main page. The appropriate thing to do would be to give them a final warning, and an instruction to stay out of wikipedia space until they can demonstrate competence, and a "HERE" attitude. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Trying not to be too WP:BITEy. —howcheng {chat} 22:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

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