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 23:53 on 14 May 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

• "as a digital download self-released," - Shouldn't this be "as a self-released digital download," — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Errors in In the news

Template:ITN-Update

Assange

This has been pointed out at ITN/C. The blurb should clarify that Assange is currently in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK, not in Ecuador.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Current problem

... that Impressionist, Vorticist, Pre-Raphaelite, Expressionist, Surrealist and Cubist painters became First and Second World War camoufleurs?

There are no "Pre-Raphaelites" among the artists. Solomon J. Solomon was described as a "Pre-Raphaelite" in his article, when in fact, he was everything that the Pre-Raphaelites most despised! Could someone remove this?

Amandajm (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Two problems

• that Charles Scribner described his suggestion to illustrate Marjorie Rawlings' The Secret River in cream on dark paper as "one of my silent contributions to dissolving the color barrier in the 1950's"?

There is a mistake within the article in the interpretation of a quoted source.

The illustrations were described in the article as being on dark brown paper illustrated in cream. This is plainly wrong.

The source that is cited says "he used coffee-coloured paper with a cream shade to illustrate ........book about a dark skinned girl."

The writer of the wikipedia article has misinterpreted the expression "coffee-coloured" as "dark brown". The term "coffee-coloured" refers to "milk-coffee-coloured" . If a person wants to express "dark brown, they say "dork-brown", or (more expressively) "chocolate". But "coffee-coloured" means a particular shade of fawn or beige.

On analysis of the illustrations themselves, it is perfectly obvious that the paper that the artist has used is not dark brown. The artist has used dark brown and white or off-white (cream) gouache, painted and in places stencilled onto the "coffee-coloured" background.

The problem needs sorting before the DYK is used.

NOTE: within the article, I have changed dark brown to "coffee-coloured" as per the quoted source.

To use the words "dark paper" in the DYK is not essentially wrong, but I query whether the second quoted source actually uses the word "dark". What does it actually say?

I am sure it would be acceptable to use the description "beige" or "fawn" or simply "coloured paper" to describe the colour of the paper.

The DYK description "in cream on dark paper" is wrong in so much as the illustration are "dark brown and cream on mid-toned paper".

• The second point is that Scribner was the publisher, not the illustrator. The words "Scribner described his suggestion to illustrate......." reads as if Scribner himself did the illustrations. He didn't.

It should be reworded as Scribner described his suggestion that the illustrations to ....... should be ........

OR Scribner described his suggestion that Weisgard should use ...... to illustrate.......

Amandajm (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. —howcheng {chat} 21:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The wording is now "Charles Scribner described his suggestion that the illustrations to The Secret River by Marjorie Rawlings (pictured) in cream on coffee-colored paper as..."

There seems to be a verb missing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Added "be". Art LaPella (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Still not right. The illustrations are not "in cream on coffee-coloured paper". The illustrations are in "dark brown and cream on coffee-coloured paper". LOOK at the illustrations, before describing them.

It is the "coffee-coloured paper" that is the unusual thing here. The whole book is printed on coffee-coloured paper, with the exception of the wrap, which (as customary) is a different type of paper to the pages. The wrap has been printed a coffee-colour to match the pages.

The technique that the artist Weisgard usually employed was two-colour: dark brown plus a mid-tone colour (green or blue) on a cream background (paper coloured). But in this instance the paper became his mid-tone. So instead of having a cream background, he printed cream where he wanted the light bits eg. the body of the little spotted dog. However, the main printed colour in every illustration in the book is dark brown, not cream. The cream bits are there to liven up the pictures.

So to say that the illustrations are printed in cream on coffee coloured paper, leaves out the impact of the dark brown ink, and the very very skilful way that the artist has used it.

Also, you really must mention Weisgard's name. The idea may have been Scribner's but it was the brilliance of Weisgard that made it work. he was a truly great illustrator.

Amandajm (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It would have helped if you been clear about both points earlier. If you felt it was important for the blurb to say "dark brown and cream" then you should have written that the first time. [EDIT: Now I see that you did say that near the very end, so I apologize for having missed it.] Instead, you focused on the color of the paper. Secondly, you only included Weisgard's name in the alternate suggestion of your rewrite. I used your primary suggestion, which did not mention the artist. Again, if that was important, then you should have said so. As stated above, "Be specific: Errors can be fixed faster when a correction is offered." In this case, don't give me a suggestion that you don't want me to use. —howcheng {chat} 08:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

If we have 'British author' for George Orwell, then we need 'American jazz player' from Miles Davis and 'American engineer' for Robert Fulton. Neither of their nationalities is deemed worthy of a mention. Yet again, it shouldn't have to be pointed out that the US should not be treated as the default on Wikipedia. Thanks. 86.134.49.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• (And that's to say nothing of four of the six articles in OTD are to do with the US, like no other countries have much history of note ...) 86.134.49.128 (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Instead of adding "American" to Fulton, I added the location of where the steamboat went into service instead. As for Davis, the focus there is more on the genre of music (jazz) than the nationality of the performer. Lastly, the reason why there is a preponderance of US-related articles today has more to do with trying to feature a wider variety of articles instead of having blurbs repeat from year to year. Of the eligible articles that did not appear last year, only Death of Azaria Chamberlain is non-US, and that happened be on ITN about two months ago, so it was not chosen for OTD this year. Also, as I implied previously, Kind of Blue is meant to focus on the music and not the country of origin. —howcheng {chat} 08:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • If "for Davis, the focus there is more on the genre of music (jazz) than the nationality of the performer" then surely "for Orwell, the focus there is more on the nature of the book (Animal Farm) than the nationality of the author".
    • On that basis 'British' s/b removed. Just doing that would read oddly, I would also remove the word 'author' and change 'allegory' to 'allegorical book'. FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So nothing's happened. If you don't want to add the American nationalities/country, Why not remove 'British'? Leaving the page as it is does nothing to negate the US-centrism I mentioned above. 86.134.49.128 (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

Template:POTD protected/2012-08-17 hasn't been created yet. --115.67.2.228 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Any other problems

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