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 15:38 on 17 July 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.
Errors in the summary of the featured article
[edit]Errors with "In the news"
[edit]Errors in "Did you know ..."
[edit]- ... that Patriarch Arnulf's "niece" Emma probably really was just his niece?
What is this supposed to mean? Srnec (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, and aside from the fact this hook doesn't really make much sense, and the use of scare quotes around "niece" isn't found in sources, the fact itself is not even really stated in the article. Where does the "probably" come from? We have one historian saying one thing and another saying another. There is no cited source in the article assigning a probability to the matter. I'd suggest we should pull this. — Amakuru (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- The relevant text in the article is 'The historian Harry W. Hazard notes that, "in view of Arnulf's notorious lechery", "niece" may be a euphemism for daughter,[3] but his colleague Bernard Hamilton argues that there is no evidence that Arnulf fathered Emma.[4]' In the light of this statement, the hook makes sense to me. I find the "probably" a fair way to describe the uncertainty and disagreement of experts. JMCHutchinson (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think we're chancing our arms a bit there -- if we said "may actually have been his daughter", that's clearly in the article, but the "probably" isn't -- we're inferring that "there is no evidence against it" = "it probably happened", and that "may have been" = "probably wasn't", which isn't always true (I certainly haven't seen any direct evidence that Patriarch Arnulf's niece wasn't the Virgin Mary, but I do know that drinking bleach may be hazardous). I'd probably query this as a WP:TSI concern if it were written in the article, and at any case it doesn't seem that the hook is a) clearly stated in the article and b) clearly stated in a source. I would adjust rather than pulling, personally. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- The relevant text in the article is 'The historian Harry W. Hazard notes that, "in view of Arnulf's notorious lechery", "niece" may be a euphemism for daughter,[3] but his colleague Bernard Hamilton argues that there is no evidence that Arnulf fathered Emma.[4]' In the light of this statement, the hook makes sense to me. I find the "probably" a fair way to describe the uncertainty and disagreement of experts. JMCHutchinson (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Errors in "On this day"
[edit]- The Battle of Castillon, the last engagement of the Hundred Years' War, ended with the English losing all holdings in France except the Pale of Calais. -- the date of Castillon is correct, but not the last bit -- the loss of holdings happened over the ensuing months (Bordeaux was lost in October) and, per the article, it wasn't obvious on 17 June that the war was even over. Suggest "ended, leading to the English losing...". UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Errors in the summary of the featured list
[edit](July 18, tomorrow)
Bat is linked twice, the second time piped to display Chiroptera. Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
(July 21)
Errors in the summary of the featured picture
[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.