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 18:02 on 7 June 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, determined not to be an error, or the item has 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 tomorrow

" The battle had little strategic impact, and the Japanese were unable to recapture Guadalcanal from Allied forces."

It was the first of a series of failures to resupply Japanese troops that lead to their abandoning the islands, that seems a very significant strategic impact. Literally nobody knows what the effect might have been if the Japanese forces had been successfully supplied, so ridiculous and unsustainable to say that this had little strategic impact. Kevin McE (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Still recusing while I talk things over with the coords. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day

OTD tomorrow

• John Sentamu (pictured) was enthroned as Archbishop of York, becoming the first member of an ethnic minority to serve as an archbishop in the Church of England.

The claim does not seem to be present on the article. The Caucasian ethnic group that all previous incumbents shared is globally an ethnic minority. Kevin McE (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Changed to "first coloured person". Mjroots (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to describe John Sentamu as "coloured"?

As that article clearly says, with two references, "In British usage, the term refers to "a person who is wholly or partly of non-white descent" and its use may be regarded as antiquated or offensive,[5][6] and other terms are preferable, particularly when referring to a single ethnicity." [emphasis added]. 213.205.240.196 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, no. "Coloured" can indeed be offensive. Changed to "black" (which in any case matches the source here). Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

But the article does not say that: should blurbs refer to ideas that, although true, are absent from the article? Kevin McE (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Rather than wringing or indeed washing hands, it is hardly rocket science to add a sentence sourced to the refererence that already say it. As I have just done. 213.205.240.196 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

"The Caucasian ethnic group that all previous incumbents shared is globally an ethnic minority." True, but this is specifically about England, so the term "minority" should be understood in the context of the English populace. --Khajidha (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Who says it should be? Why should we expect a global readership to apply an English filter to their understanding. As I said in the edit note, "reliant on some unspecificed restriction" Kevin McE (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Because the event is in England? If you talk about minorities in a particular country, you are obviously comparing them to the general populace of that country. --Khajidha (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, Sentamu himself is not originally from England, so perhaps "non-Caucasian" is the best we could do. --Khajidha (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• 2005 – John Sentamu (pictured) - caption has typo in his name "Senamu". Thanks JennyOz (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed Mjroots (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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

DYK current

• Today's first item is on iconic Holocaust photograph. The hooks reads that "...West German newspaper claimed that..." I think "claim" should be replaced by 'said', per WP:CLAIM. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  WP:CLAIM is a good principle in general; here, it's clear that the "claim" is a false one, and this is something the article substantiates. As such, I think the current wording is okay. Vanamonde (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  It is also a little misleading to say a "right-wing" newspaper claimed this. The article on the paper itself calls it "extreme right". And that should be reflected in the hook. It is not just a right-wing paper but a far-right extremist one. A rather large distinction. And in general, a nazi rag denying the holocaust... yeah, very surprising that... 91.248.65.42 (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  Just for clarification, "a right-wing West German newspaper" is not who claimed it. A weekly far-right extremist fringe publication did. I noted that on the article talk as well because in the article itself there also is no mention of it being basically a fringe neo-nazi mouthpiece. 91.248.65.42 (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• We recently had a DYK photograph that spent all day on the Main Page with the laudatory description "famous", and now we have another one called "iconic". These are important documents of historical events, but why the peacock terms? Do we not pay attention to WP:WTW any more? To put it another way, what reliable sources call it "iconic"? 213.205.240.196 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I just came here to report the same issue: 'iconic' should be removed per WP:PEACOCK. Modest Genius ^talk 11:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Iconic has become one of the most overused words in the English language. And as a WWII buff, I'm not aware of this photo's purported "iconic" status. Sca (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

POTD today

It is unlikely that most readers will be familiar with the medical term cadaver. Please link, or replace with 'dead body'. Modest Genius ^talk 13:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikilink added. Mjroots (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the current or next featured list

FL next

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