Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors
 | Please submit error reports only for content that is currently or will imminently appear on the Main Page. For general discussion about the Main Page, kindly use its talk page. |
 | National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously:
|
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 00:25 on 30 October 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.
Errors in the summary of the featured article
Errors with "In the news"
Errors in "Did you know ..."
- ... that Crystal Castles canceled their studio recording plans for "Not in Love" because they became attached to Robert Smith's demo vocals?
Seems to be close paraphrasing of this source (search for "attached"). Suggest the hookier: ... that Crystal Castles canceled their studio recording plans for "Not in Love" because of Robert Smith's demo vocals? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Gonzo fan2007, I think it would have been worth discussing this edit here at ERRORS before unilaterally changing the hook while live on the MP. Barring any obvious BLP problems or gross oversights on the part of the people involved, I don't think it was worth doing an end-run around their decision. The hook might be counterintuitive, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not verifiable and interesting. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I concur with the decision to amend the wording. Other than possibly on April Fool's Day, we shouldn't be posting deliberately misleading hooks. "Donatello was not a Bardi" is incorrect, as his surname was Bardi. — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:FULL (which is part of the protection policy) says,
Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion
. So, yeah, unilateral edits to hooks already on the main page are contrary to policy without discussing it here first. If something were demonstrably wrong, or a copyvio, or WP:BLP violation, that's one thing. But this was just a disagreement about DYK style so should have been discussed. RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)- I agree with theleekycauldron and RoySmith that the protection policy guides against unilateral edits like the one Gonzo fan2007. To Amakuru's claim that this was a matter of something being factually incorrect, I'm inclined to RoySmith's sense that it's a matter of style. "Donatello was not a Bardi" is analogous to "Kate Bush was not a Bush". It's entirely true that Kate Bush wasn't a member of the Bush political family and that Donatello wasn't part of the Bardi banking family. And the Bardi hook is genuinely about the history of the surname Bardi, as the bolded article (Bardi (surname)) explains that even though surnames were rare in 14th-century Florence, 'Bardi' was common enough that there were famous Bardis who weren't Bardis. I think that considering hooky wording "incorrect" is putting too little faith in the ability of a reader to have a sense of humor and enjoy a laugh. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Done I've restored the hook. BorgQueen (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with theleekycauldron and RoySmith that the protection policy guides against unilateral edits like the one Gonzo fan2007. To Amakuru's claim that this was a matter of something being factually incorrect, I'm inclined to RoySmith's sense that it's a matter of style. "Donatello was not a Bardi" is analogous to "Kate Bush was not a Bush". It's entirely true that Kate Bush wasn't a member of the Bush political family and that Donatello wasn't part of the Bardi banking family. And the Bardi hook is genuinely about the history of the surname Bardi, as the bolded article (Bardi (surname)) explains that even though surnames were rare in 14th-century Florence, 'Bardi' was common enough that there were famous Bardis who weren't Bardis. I think that considering hooky wording "incorrect" is putting too little faith in the ability of a reader to have a sense of humor and enjoy a laugh. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:FULL (which is part of the protection policy) says,
- I concur with the decision to amend the wording. Other than possibly on April Fool's Day, we shouldn't be posting deliberately misleading hooks. "Donatello was not a Bardi" is incorrect, as his surname was Bardi. — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith, Hydrangeans, and Theleekycauldron: It was a purposefully misleading hook written in such a way to confuse our readers and be counterintuitive to generate clicks. As Amakuru stated, the plain wording of the hook (without links being able to clarify) is incorrect. The hook relies on a link (to be clear, not even the bolded link) to verify what the hook is actually saying. This is why I expanded the link to Bardi family. I don't even think my change made it that much clearer. If just clicking on the bolded link is needed, ok. That's the point of DYK. But if you have to also click on other links to verify or understand the hook, it is purposefully misleading. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. The hook is a direct violation of MOS:NOFORCELINK, "The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links". DYK has latitude to make certain jokes, but not those that are direct falsehoods such at this. — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I promoted the hook, but I think that the arguments against it have enough proper reasoning for me to agree with. I don't see it as rising to a direct falsehood though. Maybe the hook can be changed back to the newest one now that the promotor agrees? SL93 (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. The hook is a direct violation of MOS:NOFORCELINK, "The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links". DYK has latitude to make certain jokes, but not those that are direct falsehoods such at this. — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith, Hydrangeans, and Theleekycauldron: It was a purposefully misleading hook written in such a way to confuse our readers and be counterintuitive to generate clicks. As Amakuru stated, the plain wording of the hook (without links being able to clarify) is incorrect. The hook relies on a link (to be clear, not even the bolded link) to verify what the hook is actually saying. This is why I expanded the link to Bardi family. I don't even think my change made it that much clearer. If just clicking on the bolded link is needed, ok. That's the point of DYK. But if you have to also click on other links to verify or understand the hook, it is purposefully misleading. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Generalissima, Dumelow, and Z1720: Is anyone else concerned that Queen Anne Pool might have a notability problem? Three of its five sources are government-sponsored (on a public works project), and a fourth is a blog post. Is it worth pulling, or are the govt. sources fine and I'm barking up the wrong tree? And I don't think it'd count just because it's designated as historic... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Am I missing a guideline that says that government sources (from separate agencies in this case) don't confer notability? Footnote 3 of WP:GNG explicitly lists books and government reports as examples of reliable sources. The main source here is the report submitted to the LPB, which was put together by a private historical firm on behalf of the Queen Anne Historical Society; neither directly connected to the subject. I could have cited articles from the Queen Anne Historical Society or contemporary news coverage in the Seattle Times and SPI, but I felt that was unnecessary given how broad and comprehensive the report is. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Government reports are definitely reliable, but governments produce thousands of reports on their own public works on a regular basis – I think that'd count as non-independent. But yeah, while I guess the government publishing the LPB report technically makes it non-independent, I'm happy to IAR on that. The blog post should probably still be replaced, though. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- The blog posting meaning the Arte Noir one? Yeah, fair point; I replaced that with the Queen Anne Historical Society. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Government sources can be reliable for content, but when considering whether WP:GNG is met, the sources used to establish notability must be independent of the subject. I agree with Leeky here, this doesn't seem (based on the sources mentioned) to meet the notability threshold. Much of the detail is cited to Pratt & Howard 2023, which I don't think is independent, given that the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board is appointed by the mayor and council that owns this facillity. Similarly, Seattle Department of Neighborhoods 2024 and Seattle Parks and Recreation 1975 are connected to the city. The only independent source in the list is Mumford, but that isn't used to establish facts about the pool itself. I'd suggest pulling for now, and considering an AFD run, unless better sources can be found. — Amakuru (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Meh. I tend to think any landmarked structure is notable, but can't find anything under WP:N to support that. In any case, even if it was found to not be notable, some of the material should be merged into Benjamin F. McAdoo. I wouldn't object to it being pulled until this can be resolved. RoySmith (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima I've replaced it with another entry of yours, hoping you wouldn't feel bad. The replaced hook is in now prep 7. BorgQueen (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: @RoySmith: Important note: the report is not from the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board. It's from the Queen Anne Historical Society, submitted to the SPLB for their approval. Much of the same information is found on the QAHS website itself, but not in such a neat and tidy format. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Meh. I tend to think any landmarked structure is notable, but can't find anything under WP:N to support that. In any case, even if it was found to not be notable, some of the material should be merged into Benjamin F. McAdoo. I wouldn't object to it being pulled until this can be resolved. RoySmith (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Government sources can be reliable for content, but when considering whether WP:GNG is met, the sources used to establish notability must be independent of the subject. I agree with Leeky here, this doesn't seem (based on the sources mentioned) to meet the notability threshold. Much of the detail is cited to Pratt & Howard 2023, which I don't think is independent, given that the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board is appointed by the mayor and council that owns this facillity. Similarly, Seattle Department of Neighborhoods 2024 and Seattle Parks and Recreation 1975 are connected to the city. The only independent source in the list is Mumford, but that isn't used to establish facts about the pool itself. I'd suggest pulling for now, and considering an AFD run, unless better sources can be found. — Amakuru (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- The blog posting meaning the Arte Noir one? Yeah, fair point; I replaced that with the Queen Anne Historical Society. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Government reports are definitely reliable, but governments produce thousands of reports on their own public works on a regular basis – I think that'd count as non-independent. But yeah, while I guess the government publishing the LPB report technically makes it non-independent, I'm happy to IAR on that. The blog post should probably still be replaced, though. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66, Yue, and RoySmith: I'm not sure this article is presentable enough for DYK. A huge portion of this article rests on sources connected to the subject, like his old university and the PGA and the U.S. Open – WP:RS requires that articles be based on independent sources. Also, a significant portion of the article is WP:PROSELINE statistics, which read really awkwardly and make the article feel half-finished. I think this should be returned to WP:DYKN for further work. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Which article? Schwede66 09:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Self-trout sorry, should've specified that it's Max Greyserman :P theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Save a piece of that trout for me, please. I had noted the choppy nature of the text, but let it go. Now that you point it out, I agree that WP:PROSELINE applies. Look like Begüm Pusat from Prep 5 would be a good sports-related replacement, but I'm not in a good place right now to handle the swap. RoySmith (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Errors in "On this day"
"an arson" looks wrong to me - shouldn't that be "an arson attack"? wikt:arson says the noun is usually uncountable. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed, thanks Stephen 07:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Please replace the image of Neptune's rings with File:Neptune Close Up (NIRCam).jpg, a better and more recent image from the JWST. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Errors in the summary of the featured list
(November 1)
(November 4)
Errors in the summary of the featured picture
- at "including railway track for the", pls pipe the link to Rail profile. (Per refs, it was just the steel rails not "track" which includes other components eg sleepers etc.) JennyOz (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- at "wreck at Port Lonsdale before it sank", pls change from "Port" to 'Point'. JennyOz (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Any other Main Page errors
Please report any such problems or suggestions for improvement at the General discussion section of Talk:Main Page.