Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

To report an error in current or upcoming Main Page content, please add it to the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quotation of all or part of the text in question will help.
  • Please 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 22:14 on 7 August 2022), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not give you a faster response; it is unnecessary as this page is not protected and will in fact cause problems if used here, as this is not a talk page. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • Done? Once an error has been fixed, rotated off the Main Page or acknowledged not to be an error, the report will be removed from this page; please check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the relevant article or project talk page.
  • Please respect other editors. A real person wrote the blurb or hook for which you are suggesting a fix, or a real person noticed what they honestly believe is an issue with the blurb or hook that you wrote. Everyone is interested in creating the best Main Page possible; with the compressed time frame, there is sometimes more stress and more opportunities to step on toes. Please be civil to fellow users.
  • Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, consider first attempting to fix the problem there before reporting it here if necessary. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. In addition, upcoming content is typically only protected from editing 24 hours before its scheduled appearance; in most cases, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.

Errors in the summary of the featured article[edit]

Today's FA[edit]

Tomorrow's FA[edit]

Day-after-tomorrow's FA[edit]

Errors with "In the news"[edit]

"Ayman al-Zawahiri (pictured), the leader of al-Qaeda, is killed by a U.S. drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan."

I think "killed" should be bolded here. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates states that "a blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold". What's in the news here is his death, not his biography. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to mecontribs) 12:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done. I'm not sure why the bio was posted instead of the article about the killing, but the above seems to be correct.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's because the wikipage that was discussed and approved at ITN/C was the biography. That was where the updated materials were at the time. The link to the killing page, a brand new page created that day, was added later without going through another nomination process at ITN/C. -- PFHLai (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I added that link to the blurb, I asked whether it should be bold. Nobody replied. Schwede66 19:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah that's fine, that was the originally agreed Article so understandable to keep it that way. I do think it works best with the killing article as bold though, this is a death-as-the-story blurb and we should link the death article if it's good enough (which it appears to be to me). I don't think we need to go through ITN/C again for this, by YMMV.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Errors in "Did you know ..."[edit]

Current DYK[edit]

Suleman Raza cant have a queens award for voluntary services as that award is for Groups not individuals- his company or an organisation he volunteers at may have one but he cannot.. the wording here is miss leading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:DB80:A101:F4AA:BB12:D3B3:87BC (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The references say it was for his not-for-profit Uplyft. Secretlondon (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ip is correct, and the source says "Raza's not-for-profit initiative Uplyft, based in Croydon, won the Queen's Award for Voluntary Services (QAVS)". Also, "in the 2022 Birthday Honours" is more usual than "at the 2022 Birthday Honours", it's a published list, not an event. Suggest reword to "... that Suleman Raza was coincidently awarded an MBE, while his organisation Uplyft received the Queen's Award for Voluntary Service—which is equivalent to an MBE—in the 2022 Birthday Honours?" Spokoyni (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The equivalence of the awards is incidental (and has a tinge of WP:PEACOCK about it), so the blurb might be further reduced to ... that Suleman Raza was coincidently awarded an MBE while his organisation Uplyft received the Queen's Award for Voluntary Service in the 2022 Birthday Honours?. (Comma removed as it interrupts "coincidentally"; and final link restored.) Bazza (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This looks fine to me, and I was just copying the bare text without formatting, of course, retain all links used currently. Spokoyni (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Schwede66 22:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next DYK[edit]

In the fifth hook, the Phillips suit wasn't for "allegedly violating his free speech". It was for violating his free speech. Primergrey (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, it currently reads as thought all three professors sued for violations of Phillips' free speech. Primergrey (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does not. Also, by the looks of the article, the case is still ongoing, and nobody has been convicted yet. Therefore, it is allegedly yes. That is how legal systems work. Fgf10 (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Primergrey is undoubtedly correct in the second criticism: "his" should be replaced by "their". I also suspect that Fgf10 misunderstands the first criticism: sure the case is unproven at the moment, but the suit itself presumably claimed that it did happen, not that it allegedly happened. However, perhaps this is splitting hairs. Jmchutchinson (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur, Primergrey is correct on both counts. Change to "... that in 2022, Michael Phillips became the third professor in a year to sue Collin College for violating their freedom of speech?" Spokoyni (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've amended to remove the "allegedly", that doesn't belong in the book. but I haven't made the other change, "he" is correct because the allegation isn't that all three were violated together (at least not according to the source) but that Phillip's free speech was individually violated, after two others had also previously been individually violated.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next-but-one DYK[edit]

Errors in "On this day"[edit]

Today's OTD[edit]

Tomorrow's OTD[edit]

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD[edit]

Errors in the summary of the featured list[edit]

Friday's FL[edit]

(August 12)

Monday's FL[edit]

(August 8, tomorrow)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture[edit]

Today's POTD[edit]

Tomorrow's POTD[edit]

Any other Main Page errors[edit]

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