Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

To report an error in content currently or imminently to appear on Main Page, use the appropriate section below. Reports should contain:

• Where is the error? An exact quotation using {{!xt}} of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible using {{xt}}.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 15:24 on 2 August 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 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)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

... that a community mural inspired by John Jonik's pet duck was destroyed by a cleanup crew who mistook it for graffiti: this isn't quite right: it was graffiti (writing/painting on walls, generally public, generally without permission -- which isn't necessarily unartistic or considered a bad thing). According to the article, the crew mistook it for a different piece of graffiti, in a different place, which they were instructed to clean up. Not sure immediately how to fix this: "accidentally destroyed by a cleanup crew sent to whitewash a different site?" Pinging those involved in the nomination: @Viriditas and Cat's Tuxedo: any thoughts? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The mural was not graffiti. It was a known community mural that had been accepted by the entire community for more than a decade and had been given permission by officials as the article explains. The explanation that the cleanup crew mistook the known mural for other graffiti was one of many different explanations that emerged over time, as if they were trying to find an adequate explanation that would quiet down the outrage and national news coverage it was getting (the story was syndicated by wire services). There is a larger political issue here that I did not cover because it was tangential to the biography, namely a graffiti removal campaign at a higher government level that was overzealous in its approach. The idea that they mistook a well known mural for another so-called piece of graffiti that they claimed existed was never proven. If you read the larger coverage, it has the appearance of a PR excuse and I didn't cover it. The fact of the matter is that there was a larger graffiti removal campaign at work, and this mural was a victim of it whether another piece was confused with it or not, an explanation that sounds very much like something they made up on the spot. Furthermore, the explanation that they confused it with another did not hold up, as Jonik and others tried to get them to stop removing it and momentarily succeeded, only for the city to tell them that it had to be removed anyway. I was charitable enough to give the other side the benefit of the doubt to mention that the cleanup crew mistook it for graffiti. I did not cover their other ad hoc justifications for the removal because that explanation did not receive consistent coverage across multiple sources and seemed to emerge fully formed when further queries were made. In other words, it's likely BS and I didn't give it coverage because it lacked authenticity. What we do know is that the cleanup crew was given free reign to remove any graffiti they saw and they didn't appear to be familiar with the town's mural they removed, a mural that had permission. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The mural was not graffiti: this is the issue -- I think you're taking "graffiti" (as, frustratingly, some of the sources do) to mean something ugly/unwanted/unartistic. However, it can refer to authorised and commissioned works (for example, the election graffiti of Pompeii), and to works considered artistic (Banksy's work is almost always labelled "graffiti", even by those celebrating it). Mirriam Webster defines it as usually unauthorized writing or drawing on a public surface -- is that not correct here? If we're saying that the making of mural was authorised, that doesn't seem to match the article, since the owner of the wall ordered him to take it down -- he then received retrospective permission not to remove it, but that's a different thing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

There's no error. A community mural inspired by John Jonik's pet duck was destroyed by a cleanup crew who mistook it for graffiti. You're arguing that this is an error how? The statement is accurate. SEPTA's clarification that it was an accident caused by a mix-up with another site of a similar name that was scheduled for graffiti removal came out much later and reads like PR. That they added to their story with additional explanations (if you believe it) doesn't change the factual accuracy of the hook, whether they mistook this mural for graffiti here or there. It's the same truth value. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it's an error because mistook it for graffiti means that it was not graffiti, and the usual definition of graffiti means that it was graffiti (even if it was beloved, artistic, etc graffiti).

More importantly, perhaps, the article does not state that the team mistook it for graffiti, the hook currently fails WP:DYKHFC that The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear.. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The mural was not graffiti, it was a known community mural that was accidentally removed by an official graffiti removal project. The current article does indeed state that the team mistook it for graffiti, as do the sources. Some of the sources go into more detail saying it was accidentally removed because the cleanup crew got the location confused. It doesn't matter, as there's no error of any kind. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll bow out and let others chip in at this point, as I think we're unlikely to convince each other, but will note that the relevant bit of the article text is The mural lasted for 14 years until a graffiti removal project by SEPTA destroyed it in 1983. This does not state that they mistook it for graffiti -- compare "the garbage men destroyed my car this morning", which does not state that they mistook it for garbage. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

They absolutely mistook it for graffiti as all the sources make clear, whether they were at the wrong station or not. The sources say they mistook a mural for graffiti.[1][2] How are you not understanding this? United Press International: "Workers Destroy Mural by Mistake...instead of blasting grafitti [sic], the proceeded to obliterate the mural...'It was done in error,' a SEPTA spokesman said. "There had been traces of grafitti [sic] in the area, and we sent workers out to quickly remove it. Unfortunately, the artwork this fellow did was also cleaned off.'"[3] Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

But the article also says, "SEPTA said that the unfortunate incident was an accident caused by a mix-up with another site of a similar name that was scheduled for graffiti removal." Is the concern using Wikipedia's voice in the hook and attribution in the actual article? The article also says, "The group invited Merritt H. Taylor Jr., the president of Red Arrow, to visit the mural for himself, which he did, reversing course and giving it his official approval and re-classifying it as a beautification project." So at least by the time it was destroyed it no longer unauthorized. The cited source gives some additional details about how Jonik was going back after approval to touch up the mural every now and then. The hook seems supported by the sources to me. Perhaps some small changes to the wording in the article would help? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist & Viriditas: Does this change to the article resolve the concerns? And of course if I introduced some other problem, feel free to revert, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

My reading is the hook is correct. The mural wasn't graffiti which then became regarded as something other than graffiti; it was authorized/legal in the first place. The cleanup crew mistook it for something unauthorized. "Mural" and "graffiti" are often used to distinguish authorized from unauthorized, but the distinction is also articulated in Viriditas's two links just above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 8)

Monday's FL

(August 4)

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.

Today's POTD

There's a grammar problem.

"It grows with square stems to 5 to 20 centimetres (2 to 8 inches) in height"

should probably be either

"It grows with square stems from 5 to 20 centimetres (2 to 8 inches) in height"

or simply

"It grows with square stems 5 to 20 centimetres (2 to 8 inches) in height"

ShoneBrooks (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

But ShoneBrooks, if what's meant is that after the process of growth, its height ranges from 5 to 20 cm, then it's OK as is. And indeed the article Lamium purpureum tells us that it "grows with square stems to 5–20 centimetres (2–8 in), rarely 40 cm, in height". I'll agree that what's proposed can be misread; so how about something like "With square stems, it reaches 5 to 20 centimetres (2 to 8 inches) in height"? -- Hoary (talk) [an interloper in both main page and in botanical matters] 06:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I read the meaning in the same way as Hoary -- some teachers/style guides would advocate for commas around the adverbial phrase (It grows, with square stems, to 5 to 20 centimetres...). However, as we have to 50 to 20 centimetres, there's no ambiguity, so others, particularly in the UK, would avoid the commas (as it's doing the same job as e.g. it grows quickly to 50 to 20 centimetres). A separate tweak might be to go for to between 5 and 20 centimetres, which would avoid the repetition of "to" and perhaps make it more obvious that the first "to" isn't a mistake. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, with the additional insight, either option makes sense; "It grows with square stems between 5 to 20 (2 to 8 inches) in height," or "With square stems, it reaches 5 to 20 centimetres (2 to 8 inches) in height." Both seem fine. A simpler construct might be, "Its square stems grow to a height of 5 to 20 centimetres (2 to 8 inches)." -ShoneBrooks (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the last one is quite right, since the stems have other stuff (showing my botanical knowledge...) on the top, and it's the total height that reaches 5–20 cm. However, a thought -- "it has square stems, and grows to between..."? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Or make the "to" come later, as in "It grows [...] to a height of 5 to 20 cm?" —Kusma (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

This one and UC's 20:23 proposal both work for me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

As it's now live, I've implemented Kusma's suggested wording. To me, that clears up any ambiguity around the measurement. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Any other Main Page errors

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