Jump to content

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Foant (talk | contribs) at 11:21, 21 January 2007 (→‎Errors in ''In the news'': serbia vs montenegro). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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 17:17 on August 11, 2024 (UTC).

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 on this page.


Errors in Today's featured article

Errors in In the news

"...since Serbian independence in 2006..." If Im not mistaken, in 2006 Montenegro got its independence from Serbia who was independent previously in various forms.

Errors in Selected anniversaries/On this day

Errors in Did you know...

Please replace the blurb on Peres with the following:
  • ...that in his satirical 1827 book Grand Erratum, French physicist Jean-Baptiste Pérès argued that Napoleon never actually existed, but was just another expression of an ancient myth?
My change makes clear that the book is satirical (no need to make anyone think he was serious in his suggestion!), and removes an unneeded "the." Picaroon 01:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried out a major revamp of Jean-Baptiste Pérès article in an effort to remove all claims that the Napoleon-was-not-real theory was seriously meant by Peres. The article seems to have been originally created by an editor who did not think that the theory was intended as a satire and thought this was a serious and convincing argument. In addition, the work is a pamphlet not a book. Please, please, please, please can someone change the DYK question on the main page so that it is clearly emphasized that it is satirical (the word "actually" should definitely be removed as it doesn't make sense - it's like saying "Jonathan Swift argued that it was actually a good idea to eat babies in A Modest Proposal"), and that it is a pamphlet. Thanks Bwithh 03:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up and old items

This holding area is for items that require further follow-up (for example, a general point that needs to be raised elsewhere), or for items that haven't been dealt with but where the topic under discussion is no longer on the Main Page. The items listed here should eventually be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as:

Any other problems

Please report other problems on Talk:Main Page.