Jump to content

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Main Page
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HaEr48 (talk | contribs) at 04:17, 12 June 2018 (→DYK next: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcuts

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 05:37 on 18 June 2025) 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.
  • Actual errors only. Failures of subjective criteria such as interestingness are not errors.
  • 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 today's or tomorrow's featured article

TFA today

TFA tomorrow

Errors in In the news

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

OTD today

OTD tomorrow

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

DYK current

  • ... that a newlywed man was killed and his wife seriously injured in February after opening a parcel bomb that looked like a wedding gift?
Is the second DYK appropriate? Did you know statements generally hold their contents in a sort-of-quirky or interesting light, as if the statement would be hard to believe otherwise. Asking "Did you know...that a newlywed man was killed and his wife seriously injured in February after opening a parcel bomb that looked like a wedding gift?" seems a bit in contrast and almost disrespectful, also considering that the statement has no current relevance.  Matt Sylvester  Talk  07:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's completely inappropriate, given that it's happened recently and relatives of these individuals are most definitely alive and could well be reading this. It's pageviews or nothing, even when it's resorting to publishing sickening "hooks" like this one. Needless to say this was not in the set I reviewed, it appears to have been snuck in at the last minute. I wonder why people complain about my error reports at the last minute if this kind of last-gasp hook replacement is so commonplace? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was added by @Vanamonde93: ([1]) - I would agree it's not appropriate at all. I've removed it. I'd rather be a hook short then have that on our main page. Fish+Karate 09:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fish and karate: Actually, all I did was move it into Prep 4 from Prep 6 [2], in order to replace a hook which I believed was of insufficient quality. I can see your point about the victim's family, but aside from arguments about whether we should care about that (I agree we should, to an extent) I see this as no different from any disaster/death posted routinely to ITN, because we're not turning this into a joke at all. A couple were killed by a carefully disguised bomb, and that's what we're saying. How is this different from the Toronto van attack ITN blurb, for instance? Besides, there were at least four people, in addition to the original nominator, who believed it was okay (see here). It was Yoninah who proposed this hook: I'd like to hear her thoughts. I am, of course, not going to replace this because that would be grounds for a summary de-sysopping. Vanamonde (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that strongly it should be restored then please go ahead, I waive any issues about wheel warring etc etc, it would not be undoing an administrative action. I just think a snappy hook in DYK is not really a good way to highlight a recent murder/ongoing investigation. Fish+Karate 10:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fish and karate: I appreciate that, but I take your concerns seriously, so I'd be willing to wait for more opinions. Perhaps its a perception issue with DYK itself. If it's seen as a trivia section, then this would indeed be inappropriate; but I don't see it as a trivia section at all. If you look through my DYKs, for instance, a number have mentioned riots, discrimination, slavery, and whatnot (admittedly very little of it is so recent). The ITN blurb comparison is even more apposite, I think (person X commits suicide...). A note on the wheel warring: since I moved that single hook into queue today and you removed it, it wouldn't just be reversing an admin action, but undoing a reversed admin action. I've no wish to cause drama, which is likely to ensue even though you are being reasonable. Now if we reach consensus for restoration here, that's a different matter. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, and seriously note, highlighting deaths and accidents in the serious ITN section is very different from making a hook for an article for the pageviews which is all DYK is doing. It's the "fun" part of the main page and, as such, should never be highlighting such things. The hook should be salted and should never have been passed in the first instance, let alone then moved swiftly to the main page at the last moment. Very poor form indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we see it as the "fun" part of the main page in the first place? There's specific parts of it that are meant to be silly; the quirky slot, April 1st, etc, but hardly the entire section. You are, after all, frequently the one who complains that it features trivia. Are you then saying that previous hooks about riots, or murder, or whatnot, should not have been featured? Vanamonde (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm saying that hooks about current murders "or whatnot" should not feature at DYK, because it's the crap/funny/joke section of the main page. It's humiliating to see such hooks being used for pageviews, not to mention completely insensitive. But hey, keep fighting for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crap/funny/joke section of the main page" Then your premise about the role of DYK is different from mine, and we've to agree to disagree about that. Which is why I am waiting for more opinions. Vanamonde (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I do not appreciate the suggestion that I promoted this for the pageviews, and while I'm completely uninterested in seeking action, I suggest you strike that comment (and the version of it above). Vanamonde (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly, ALL hooks are there for the pageviews. It's nothing to do with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the same sense that all articles on the main page are there to attract people to them, yes, of course, and that includes the blurbs at ITN. The "pageviews or nothing" comment above, on the otherhand, suggests fairly explicitly that it's DYK which is manufacturing clickbait. Vanamonde (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other parts of the mainpage do not manifestly exploit the deaths of individuals in this way either. So nor should DYK, ever. All other parts of the main page do not have "owners" who are seeking for pageviews, either. Just DYK I'm afraid. To that end, no it's not a "suggestion", it's absolute fact that DYK is all about clickbait. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing "did you know...?" is (in and of itself) much lighter in tone than "on this day" or "in the news". With an intro like that, the reader is primed for a lighter tone in the items listed (not necessarily "jokey", but definitely lighter). Murders, riots, etc seem horribly out of place in such a situation. The fact that this item involved such a recent event magnifies the inappropriateness. --Khajidha (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all: "interesting" and "light-hearted" are not synonymous. I'm hardly hung up on this hook, but I reject completely the idea that DYK should stay away from serious topics. In any case, if you genuinely want it to you'd have to propose that notion to the project. DYK's featured wars, civil conflict, discrimination, and many such topics as long as I've been there, and is unlikely to stop because somebody thinks it should restrict itself to trivia. Vanamonde (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed the hook, and I still stand by it. It is not jokey at all. We have had plenty of hooks that reported murders, riots, etc., and we have printed even more grisly stuff that happened hundreds of years ago. We cannot make a blanket statement that we will never report murders and riots. TRM, we had a whole discussion a while back about a college student who was murdered by a satanic cult; you rightly pulled that hook because it was gory and the grieving family would be hurt by it. We could pull this hook for the same reason, but then the article might not qualify for DYK at all, even though it is a well-publicized news event and does meet the Wikipedia guidelines. Readers who are familiar with current events might even wonder why Wikipedia isn't featuring them on the main page.
A heads-up: We have another hook coming up in Prep 1 which I have worked to tone down immensely. The original hook read:
The hook in prep is:
IMO this approved hook is completely straightforward and not sensationalist at all.
I would like to call on more editors to make consensus on hooks about murders, riots, etc., rather than having a few admins here at ERRORS pull everything they don't like. I'll post a note at WT:DYK. Yoninah (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Yoninah. The hook is straightforward and merely states a key fact from a bombing case without embellishment. I don't see anything inappropriate about it. -Zanhe (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the original hook was distasteful and completely unnecessary. DYK is the jokey part of the main page, "Did you know...?" is already light in tone. Maybe this is a cultural thing. I certainly would not want to read about my brother/father/sister/mother/son/daughter's untimely death just a few months ago in the jokey section of the main page of Wikipedia. As for the improved hook, well yes, clearly the first hook about the allegations of crime is completely inappropriate, and no-one needs a medal for that. The replacement hook isn't so bad but that's what you're going to get when all you want is pageviews I suppose. Revel in the death! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • St. Martin organ – ... that Orgelbau Mebold built a new organ (pictured) in St. Martin, Idstein, in 2006 ....
This reads as if St. Martin were a town, which it isn't.
Suggest add "Germany" after the town name, Idstein – and clarify for English-language readers by making it in "St. Martin's Church in Idstein, Germany." St. Martin is the name of a parish in the town of Idstein. (In German the name of the church is die Pfarrkirche St. Martin – the Parish Church of St. Martin.) – Sca (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not happy, sorry. The construction "St Martin's church" is soooo English, while plain "St. Martin" is international. Most pipe organs are built in churches, this is visibly not a department store or restaurant. How about "St. Martin in Idstein"? - I don't think "Germany" matters at all. The names of the organists make it international, and I like that. - I would have appreciated a ping. I do watch this page, but lost attention after many comments not regarding the instrument pictured on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But this is the English language Wikipedia. It needs to be either "St Martin's church" (my preference), or "St Martin's". DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Gerda Arendt: I'm okay taking out Germany, as the link does sort of take care of that. The other point I'm not so sure. Sca is quite correct in saying that unless we specifically mention it's a church, it reads like a town....Vanamonde (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "English" as in England or "English" as in the language? In English language usage, St. Martin by itself would be either the saint himself or the island. To mean the church you have to use "St. Martin's", with or without the word church. But with church is preferred for initial mentions. --Khajidha (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean both. Churches in England are called St Martin's Church, churches elsewhere are called in the English language St. Martin's church (as we see on the Main page now). However, this church is called in German St. Martin, period. We had hooks which used that, to be a bit international, 2011 example: ... that Markus Flaig brought Handel's darkness and great light to St. Martin, Idstein? - French churches are not subject of transformation of their name, see Notre-Dame de Paris. An organ will not be built in a saint, and if people think it's a town, and click and find out no, - so what? And how would "St. Martin in Idstein" - as suggested above - make people think it's a town, anyway? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Either would be correct, but St. Martin's church conforms with global English usage, and this is English-language WP. In this case, though, I have to disagree (just this once) with our sehr geehrte colleague Gerda in that by itself, in English, St. Martin seems to refer to one of three RC saints named Martin. It's not readily apparent that St. Martin is a church – which may be the cause of the DYK error. (The church of St. Martin would be OK, too.) Also, readers instinctively want to know where a thing is. Sca (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me how would you say that an organ was built in Notre-Dame de Paris. Transform that to English? - I'd prefer "church of St. Martin", btw. For some reason it sounds less like St. Martin owns the church than the wording we have. - Thanks for removing "Germany". The only real nation is humanity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notre Dame is well known in English as Notre Dame. St Martin's church in Idstein isn't well known in English as anything. You're asking the English language to behave in a way it just doesn't want to. English uses apostrophe s here, that's just how the language is.DuncanHill (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"An organ was built in Notre Dame cathedral in Paris". Easy. And I still feel that Germany should be mentioned. --Khajidha (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not easy for me. There was a move discussion, DYK. Cathedral of our Lady, or Notre-Dame, please not some half-French in combination with en English term. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. - Whether it's in Germany, Morocco or on Malta really doesn't matter, if you ask me. - Off to rehearsal, Christmas Oratorio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that it should say "Idstein, Germany". --Khajidha (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The Church of St Martin in Idstein" sounds like the church in the town or village of "St Martin in Idstein". I'm sorry, but this "apostrophobia" creates bad and unclear English. I also think that we can get away with not saying Germany for somewhere well known, like Berlin or Hamelin or Cologne, but not for a comparatively unknown place. DuncanHill (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on all points.--Khajidha (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of belaboring a minor issue: Since Idstein is a relatively small town not generally known outside Germany, the word Germany should be there as a service to the reader. Ist aber wirklich keine große Sache. (Not much in DYK is.) – Sca (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 • Comment: Seems a bit soon to feature Arkady Babchenko in DYK. Sca (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that's true of the second nomination on June 1. The one I linked above was the first nomination on May 30. But my view – which may not be shared by many – is that topics should be allowed to ripen in the public consciousness for a while before they're suitable for DYK treatment. Otherwise, readers may think, "Yeah, I knew that," and move on. Just an opinion.
PS: Thanks for fixing St. Martin's, etc. – Sca (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had someone who recently died on DYK yesterday, but will go for RD next time: it gets more attention although less is said about the person, - strange. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because people (even our readers) know that ITN has some gravitas and quality control applied, so what's listed there is probably worth a look. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The average ITN article is no better referenced than DYK, nor does the average ITN post have any less chance of having an ERROR than one from DYK. Of course, when such errors are brought up on the ITN talk page, there is usually deafening silence from those who supported it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably because no-one attempts to "own" ITN articles, whereas DYK is full of those who can't quite grip the fact that once something is submitted to Wikipedia, it no longer belongs to them. And in your little sandbox of error counts, I'd suggest you check how many of the issues at ITN relate to updates which aren't actually errors. ITN articles are usually comprehensively referenced, whereas DYK articles are even encouraged to run with "one inline reference per paragraph"!! What a joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody owns DYK articles either. It is helpful to ping nominators not because the articles are theirs, but because they are often best qualified to resolve issues; isn't that the purpose of this page? Re "I'd suggest you check how many of the issues at ITN relate to updates which aren't actually errors." the answer is none. Those are in a separate column. Furthermore, I haven't even counted fixes made to the ITN template directly, without a post here; these are far more frequent for ITN than for any other main page section. Re "ITN articles are usually comprehensively referenced" no, they are frequently not. Those articles were supported by a bunch of ITN regulars (including you) and posted by a variety of admins (including me). I'm not playing a blame game: my point is simply that these issues are not remotely endemic to DYK, but are shared by all main sections (ITN is one of the better ones; did you look at the stats for OTD?), and we need a collective effort to fix the bunch of them. Vanamonde (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Nobody owns DYK articles either." seriously. This is by far the funniest thing I have read this calendar year, so thank you for that, I really appreciate the lols. Anyway, you'll be glad to know that there's a proposal forming which will remove both DYK and ITN from the main page, which is great because it'll save me a LOT of time every day wading through the detritus, particularly at DYK. And your stats need to run for a few more months (while DYK exists of course) as previously the vast majority of the errors at DYK were dealt with at WT:DYK, whereas now the vast majority are handled at ERRORS. So let's see what May, June and (maybe) July bring shall we? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"previously the vast majority of the errors at DYK were dealt with at WT:DYK" Which is why my stats counted errors pointed out at WT:DYK as well. As you would know if you had read the page carefully. I've been hearing a lot (from you) about this proposal, but it's proven a little insubstantial so far. Where is it? Also, why stop at DYK and ITN though? OTD has at least three times as many errors as DYK does [3]; TFA not infrequently gets fewer views than the lead DYK, and has to recycle FAs passed in the dark ages from many many years ago to produce one a day. Why not dump them all, and have just a search bar instead? Then we can get rid of this page too, and avoid this whole mess. Vanamonde (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know something, the funny thing about dealing with Howcheng and OTD is that "things just get fixed", and there's not one jot of ownership and not any kind of defence of the indefensible that I see day in, day out at DYK. The hooks manifestly are owned and that's really unhealthy. As is the "do or die" quest for clickbait hooks. It's now descended into making a main page entry about a recently murdered man in a jaunty little hook about a bomb in the form of a wedding gift. Brilliant! What about TFA? What about if it gets less than a shoddy clickbaity DYK? Well, I guess we're forgetting this is an encyclopedia and not Reddit. We'll ditch DYK, ITN and leave the rest, maybe add TGA with a proper synopsis rather than cherry-picking a salubrious hook. I can't wait, think of all that free time we'll all have to create actual content. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have plenty of respect for Howcheng. He's not the problem, and I'm not suggesting getting rid of OTD in any case. All I'm asking for is a little consistency and constructiveness; remind me, for instance, of the last time I replied to one of your posts here without fixing the error? What's strange is that you're bothered more about the process than the outcome, because I've demonstrated that DYK has far fewer errors per post, no matter how much grief you and Gatoclass give each other. If you think TGA is going to have fewer errors than DYK, you're much mistaken. Some of our GAs may be error free, but very few reviewers take verifiability seriously, as I've demonstrated at FAC and elsewhere multiple times now. In sum, verifiability problems are everywhere, and blaming a hated section of the main page isn't going to fix them. Vanamonde (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I have plenty of respect for {Howcheng. He's not the problem" - um, who said he was? I was actually stating that working with Howcheng is a complete breath of fresh air compared with dealing with the owners of hooks and the DYK admins. You've demonstrated nothing of any substance. Each "ERROR" has a subjective order of magnitude, which I'm sure you accept. I can't remember the last time we all objected to an ITN posting beyond those posted by the admin who took me back to Arbcom (zzz). Perhaps do a recount and tell me how many DYK hooks have been pulled from WT:DYK and ERRORS vs how many ITN blurbs have been pulled from ERRORS? That would be very instructive and much more about this discussion. Oh, and how did you get onto "verifiability issues"? DYK is rife with myriad issues, not just verifiability. This whole discussion stems from a clickbait lust as evidenced by the project's high score table. Can you show me the ITN high score table? Or the TFA high score table? or the OTD high score table? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have demonstrated that DYK has the least basic policy issues (mostly verifiability and factual correctness) per blurb of the main page sections. Therefore, any claim that DYK should be removed because of too many errors should logically require the removal of other sections too. I don't expect you to like it, but don't hide behind stuff like "errors are subjective". I did this based on compiling a list of basic policy issues, mostly raised by you. If you want to create a different table based on criteria you think will be more favorable to your argument, go right ahead: I'm not doing it for you. Vanamonde (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care about your personal list. The bare fact is that more DYKs are removed from the main page than any other error. DYK embarrasses Wikipedia more frequently than any other part of the main page. The rest of your "analysis", minor shuffles, typos etc, yawn. But DYK is the long pole in the tent and will be excised. You have demonstrated nothing of substance I'm afraid to back your position in any sense. And I'm not going to help you make it look any better by reporting fewer errors just to appease you and Gatoclass and Cwmhiraeth etc. The first step on the road to recovery is admitting there's a problem. DYK is yet to make that first step, but once it does, it'll be better for everyone. Unless, of course, it's not around to even do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I can't speak about DYK in general, but the German aspect looks like gravitas to me, little trivia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK next

I must say the chosen hook seems rather dull and the hook fact doesn't seem to bear much relationship to the article. If it's not too late there is an alt along the lines of "that the Indonesian participation in the 1952 Summer Olympics was the first time an ethnic Chinese Indonesian had taken part in an international sporting event? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would be better. But the caption etc needs fixing as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, The proposed hook by Philafrenzy and doesn't link to Maram Sudarmodjo which is one of the two articles in the DYK nomination. If we were going to tweak the hook, how about:
This somewhat addresses Philafrenzy's points because the fact that it's the first-ever participation and that the athlete was a high jumper are some of the main facts of the article.--HaEr48 (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK next next

POTD today

  • " In 1816, following the establishment of a union between Sweden and Norway, the rigsdaler was renamed the speciedaler and became the standard unit of currency in Norway." not referenced at all, but POTD doesn't care about that, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POTD tomorrow

FL current

FL next

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&oldid=845492490"