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 23:17 on 1 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 In the news

Template:ITN-Update

Azawad /Mali

Can we bold the link to the declaration page as thats as important, if not more, than the ceasefire. Also can we remove "new" before state...after declaring a state makes it new.Lihaas (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed the "Azawad National Liveration..." which is pure OR on the admin who posted it, and more so that it links to the ACTUAL page of te movement. Can we change that? cant believe ths blindly passed!Lihaas (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the word "new" thanks to its implicit description by the context given, but I'm not sure what you're talking about in the second point. — foxj 16:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The name of theparty, per the wikilink, is National Moveent for the Liberation of Azawad...not the Azawad... nonsense that was posted. Theres no source that mentions it as such on any of the WP pages.Lihaas (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There actually are sources that use the "Azawad National Liberation Movement" form, but the other is more common, and it only saves three short words, so I've changed it to the more common term. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The blurb reads oddly ("Mali's Azawad National Liberation Movement claims military victory and declares independent the state of Azawad."). I suggest changing it to "Mali's Azawad National Liberation Movement claims military victory and declares the independence of the state of Azawad." --Khajidha (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and revised per your suggestion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thx, seems good now. Alternatively (though j\ust a brief suggestion), to include the same words perhaps "...and declares the Independent State of Azawad" as thats

what it was officially calledLihaas (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Saenuri

Syaing "defends" in "The ruling Saenuri Party, led by Park Geun-hye (pictured), defends its majority in the South Korean legislative election." reads to me like headline-speak for the election hasn't happened yet. I think being more specific would be helpful. 68.54.4.162 (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. The election has happened already; it happened on April 11. -- tariqabjotu 23:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The word "defend" can imply a drawn-out process, and elections can take place over a number of days, so ITN could plausibly be reporting that the party is in the midst of defending its majority. This isn't meant to be a complaint about using the present tense in ITN, just that a different wording could make clear whether we are reporting an achievement (a successful defense that is over) or an ongoing event (an effort to defend its majority).--Cam (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflct) And "defends its majority" only tells us that they took part in the election, and that they had a majority before it. If we mean that they defended their majority successfully, then we should say that the party "retains its majority". Our strange habit of using present tenses adds to the misunderstanding, as the same tense would be used for the campaign, the process of the election, and consideration of the result. Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- tariqabjotu 05:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

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

This "... that the extinct witchalder Fothergilla malloryi (pictured) is the oldest confirmed member of the genus Fothergilla?" is nonsense. No extinct plant is the oldest member of its genus.

I know, someone will split hairs and argue that this nonsense is correct, because arguing on Wikipedia is far more important than getting a main page fact correct; and, sure, I've come to expect nonsense from Wikipedia, because factually accuracy doesn't matter, when you can quickly get up any piece of information. Quantity over quality always.

My favorite remains leaving a bad fact in Wikipedia for long enough that it spreads to enough mirrors that Wikipedia can then use the mirrors to establish its truth. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

How would you have worded the hook differently? Radke, Pigg, and Wehr state F. malloryi to be the oldest member of the genus, this is a normal statement in paleobotany.--Kevmin § 05:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"This occurrence represents the oldest record for the genus, which is also known in the Oligocene of North America and several Neogene Asian localities." This means that the fossil found is the earliest or oldest fossil specimen of the genus. It doesn't mean that this species is the "oldest member of the genus," a statement that doesn't really have any meaning in this context. It's not the species that is the oldest--it's the fossil occurrence that is the oldest. It's not splitting hairs, either, and please don't revert appropriate edits without edit summaries. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a member of the genus, and the fossils are the oldest for the genus, hence oldest member of the genus in a geologic context.--Kevmin § 06:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not the species that is the oldest; it's the occurrence of the fossil. Even for a holotype, the species and the specimen are not synonyms. And the significance is the first occurrence in the fossil record and what that means for the biogeography. What exactly do you mean by oldest, anyhow? Especially for an extinct organism? The wording of the article is very careful in its statement about what is the oldest of anything; we should not change that meaning for a quick hook. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the current wording indicating to you, out of curiosity.--Kevmin § 06:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're saying an extinct plant is the oldest member of an extant genus, so it doesn't parse. What the article says, especially in light of their conclusions, parses perferctly. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Why does it not parse?--Kevmin § 06:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm, and, now, reverting without edit summary instead of discussing on the article talk page, when I gave edit summaries; and, now, an off-handed out of spec sock-puppetry accusation and request for check user. It's amazing how badly Wikipedia editors with limited understanding of a topic take a correction.

I would like the main page of Wikipedia to be accurate. You would like the main page of Wikipedia to feature your contributions no matter how inaccurate. Hence, I must be a sock puppet because, it's impossible that someone could know more about a topic than you? Thanks for the notice, by the way, that you've given up and resorted to the cry of, "I can't be wrong! It has to be a sock puppet instead!"

You could have just improved Wikipedia by making a more accurate hook and article. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting for a reply as to why it doesnt parse.--Kevmin § 07:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting for a reply for how it does. See my question before yours. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The species was placed into the the modern genus by the describing authors. Thus it was is the oldest (earliest/first)species (thus far described) to have been a member of the genus.--Kevmin § 07:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so, saying it is the oldest means (and it's not a modern genus, it's more like an old genus, but it's an extant genus) it is the "oldest (earliest/first) species?" (thus far described) to have been a member of the genus?" Well, it's not the "oldest" or "earliest" or "first" species; it's the oldest occurrence of a member of the genus in the fossil record; it's the earliest occurrence of the genus to be described from the fossil record; but it's not the first species of the genus to be described from the fossil record. So, "to have been," it's no longer a member? Or "to have been a member?" Has it been removed? No, I think it's just been placed there. It's all so convoluted, and I have no more time for this particular gnaw and bite and defend, because, after all, no one could know as much about paleobotany in the Pacific Northwest as someone who has never heard of V. Standish Mallory. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Your not actually objecting to what was attempted to be conveyed then, but rather the choice of wording used to try to impart the information to the general wikipedia audience. Yes the wording is not accurate for use in a peer-reviewed article, I agree, however it was an attempt to convey that information to the public. BTW I do know who V S Mallory is, and never said I didnt.--Kevmin § 07:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I am objecting to it. This keeps happening on DYKs that the science is dumbed down to the point of it becoming incorrect, like the issue where a fact was true about a species, so the writer just upscaled it to the entire phylum or something. No; biology does not work that way. The fact that should be conveyed is the accurate one, that it's the earliest fossil find of the genus; that's the whole point of the articles and the big deal about the find, and part of why it was named after Mallory, he's an important paleontologist in the area of basin analysis, also, and this fossil find tells an important and interesting story about a disjunct distribution; it's important to biogeography, not time, and by saying this incorrectly, and by spending all this time trying to pound the IP, you've meantime missed the story. In its entirety. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

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

• Fascinating pic, but the end of the caption caught my eye: "...carrying a load of bombs", to my English ear sounds like and unencyclopaedic "carrying a lot of bombs". Unencyclopaedic as "a load of" in British English is slang for "a lot of". Looking for an example I came across A Load of Bull. "...a cargo of bombs." would be much less likely to be misunderstood. Or just "...carrying some bombs."--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think in this case it's fine as-is; "lot of" is not the only meaning, and given the context I don't agree it's likely to be misunderstood as slang. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this should stand as is, or we might change it to "payload"; a load is what the cargo of a plane is often called or more specifically a payload.Rhodesisland (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Changed to "payload". —howcheng {chat} 16:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Any other problems

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