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 18:27 on 25 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.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Today's FA

• The commas after "worldwide" and "variety of symptoms" are not needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• "The cancer can spread to other organs, causing a variety of symptoms, and eventually death." I worry that this could be parsed to imply both that metastasis always causes death and that non-metastatic lung cancer doesn't kill. Can we rephrase to "The cancer can spread to other organs, increasing both the variety of symptoms and the likelihood of death."? It does add three words. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

   Done both of the above.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Firefangledfeathers, where have you been all my life? (Redundancy). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  💛💛💛 Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Tomorrow's FA

• Plants take in carbon, including radiocarbon, through photosynthesis, and after an animal or plant dies, it stops exchanging carbon with its environment. - This sentence mentions plants as taking in radiocarbon and then states that both animals and plants stop exchanging radiocarbon upon death. I assume animals take in this radiocarbon through respiration (and ingestion?), but the blurb doesn't mention it. Suggesting Plants and animals take in carbon, including radiocarbon, through photosysnthesis and respiration, and stop exchanging carbon with their environments upon death. which saves a word but might sound run-on and/or not fully explain how animals intake carbon. AviationFreak💬 18:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  oh, this gave me a good laugh, AviationFreak, but you are correct: the blurb says nothing about how animals acquire radiocarbon. the article actually explains that this is by eating the plants (and i assume that animals that don't eat plants get it by eating animals that do). i don't think respiration is a notable factor, as it generally involves the intake of oxygen, which doesn't include radiocarbon. what are your thoughts on the following rewrite?

  Plants take in radiocarbon through photosynthesis, and animals eat the plants. After death, they stop exchanging carbon with the environment.

  this version is actually 12 characters shorter than the original, so there shouldn't be any issues with the character limit. dying (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  dying, glad to hear it. I wouldn't have any problem with that sentence being used instead, but I am going to ping Mike Christie as the author of the FA to make sure he agrees it's accurate. Respiration would involve intake of everything in the air (mostly nitrogen, albeit some carbon), but from a cursory look online it looks like it's closer to the food chain you described. AviationFreak💬 19:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• "... that Arc lets people vandalize websites?" It does not. "Vandalize" should be in quotation marks at best, as it doesn't contain a hacking tool that actually vandalizes a site, though even then it's very clickbaity in a way that is atypical for Wikipedia. "Personalize the content of websites" would be less misleading. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I shall put it in quotation marks. RoySmith, ping to you as the promoting admin for further input (or disagreement). Zxcvbnm, this hook is in the quirky (or last) slot where we are a bit looser with the content. Schwede66 09:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, okay. Then I think the quotation marks are perfectly fine to get across that it's pretend. Even the article itself uses quotes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm fine with the quotations, thanks for adding them. RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think this fact should be included in a hook at all. Fiddling around with a copy of a website on your local browser is not remotely vandalism of any sort, and was probably only included to give the source article a catchy headline (it isn't mentioned elsewhere). Suggest amendment or pulling.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I guess different people have different ideas of how far "quirky" can be pushed, but if somebody wants to pull this, I have no objection. RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  The misleading description was in the hook before it was in the article! Changing the display of a website on your own device isn't in any way vandalising it. Secretlondon (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Pulled. BorgQueen (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Next DYK

Hanna Cavinder (nom)

The article relies on two pieces from Kristi Dosh of Forbes, but Dosh is only a contributor and the pieces are not reliable sources per WP:FORBESCON. Also, two pieces from the New York Post and one from Business Wire. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger @Smartse @Edge3 BorgQueen (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The promoter wouldn't've been required to do any checks that turn this issue up, in their defense :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The hook is sourced to Las Vegas Review-Journal. Edge3 (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Right, I'm talking about the sources used in the article. The article does have to comply with WP:RS. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

To jump in: the existence of a consensus against use of The New York Post for its sports section seems non-existent, so I don't see it as instantly disqualifying. The source from Business Wire is a self-published announcement from Cavinder's business partner that supports the citation (WP:ABOUTSELF hits a bit of an edge case here, since people regularly accept corporate bios/announcements of future events and the like as ABOUTSELF sources), but I can see going either way on this. I agree with Leek's concerns respect to the WP:FORBESCON pieces. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll buy that for New York Post, but isn't the Business Wire source an aboutself claim about a third party? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It is. My broader point is that these sorts of press releases ("X person is working with Y company to do Z", where Y is the releasing company, are sometimes treated a-la-aboutself in the spirit of the rules rather than the letter). I don't think that's always wise, so I could go either way on this in this case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Tomorrow's OTD

• July 6 - 1941 "After a three month siege the" - three month could be hyphenated. Item also needs full stop. JennyOz (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

   Done  — Amakuru (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(October 25, today)

Monday's FL

(October 28)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Tomorrow's POTD

• Kowloon Walled City - The city's site size (2.6 hectares) could be added. The blurb has "The population was estimated at 33,000 in 1987, giving the walled city a density of c. 1,255,000 per square kilometre" but article lede has "By 1990, the walled city contained 50,000 residents[1] within its territory of 2.6 hectares (6.4 acres)." And its infobox has Population (1990) 50,000, Density 1,923,000/km2 (4,980,000/sq mi). Although the 33,000 figure is mentioned three times in article. All rather confusing.

Protected version doesn't have italics on de jure.

Also, if it matters, the KWC and image appeared at OTD on 23 March. JennyOz (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the 33,000 seems more reliable as it is sourced as being from a thorough government survey, while the 50,000 comes from popsci.com, not sure how reliable that is. I've therefore amended the lead and infobox accordingly. Re "de jure", that shouldn't be italicised per MOS:FOREIGNITALICS as it's an English term found in the dictionary.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Any other Main Page errors

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