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 22:11 on 24 May 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, determined not to be an error, or the item has 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
Today's FA
Tomorrow's FA
Day-after-tomorrow's FA
Errors with "In the news"
Errors in "Did you know ..."
Current DYK
- ... that linebacker Carlton Martial, who broke the college-football record for the most tackles in November 2022, began his career as a walk-on? not sure why "college football" is hyphenated. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Went a step farther and changed it to "NCAA Division I FBS record", to match what the article and its cited sources say. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Cbl62 @Therapyisgood @Cbl62:
...broke the NCAA Division I FBS record for the most tackles...
: "college football" seems more accessible than more cryptic acronyms. Also "the" seems inaccurate, as he broke the career tackles record, but there are also records for single-game and single-season. Suggest changing to:...broke
—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)theaNCAA Division I FBScollege football record for the most tackles...- @Tamzin Ack, missed you. —Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Bagumba: Definitely no objection to a more accessible description; my concern is just with whether "college football", unqualified, is actually accurate. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Tamzin: "the college football record" is not ok, because there are many levels of college football, NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision being one of them. However, "a college football record", generically, seems ok as it is some record at an unspecified level and for an unspecified time span (e.g. game, season, career). —Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Bagumba: Definitely no objection to a more accessible description; my concern is just with whether "college football", unqualified, is actually accurate. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think changing it to "career record" instead of just "record" would be fine. I share Bagumba's concern that "NCAA Division I FBS" is too wordy -- sounds like mumbo jumbo to most of the audience. I prefer bringing it back to college football but piping it to NCAA Division I FBS. Cbl62 (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Changed to "a college football record" per Bagumba. Does this work for you, Cbl62? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, that works, and it avoids the "NCAA Division I FBS" bit. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth I prefer the specificity of NCAA Division I FBS but I have no problem with how it's currently worded. Perhaps add "career" for specificity. Thanks for the ping. Therapyisgood (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- I considered adding career before, but
...for the most career tackles, began his career as a walk-on?
repeats career (ok, minor point), and I think some vagueness can only invite more clicks. —Bagumba (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)- Hang about, saying "college football" does not match what the article or the source say. Perhaps that term carries a vague implication that it's Division I or whatever, but "college football" could technically mean any level, and that is not verified at all. Suggest we go back to "NCAA Division I FBS" per Tamzin. It might seem wordy to some, but we must be accurate on the main page. — Amakuru (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, "college football" does not imply a specific level. —Bagumba (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- "A college football record" sounds comprehensible, unlike "the NCAA mumbo jumbo record". It is bad enough that the hook relies on the jargon "walk-on" to work. —Kusma (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- While "NCAA Division I FBS" certainly isn't wrong, I'd ultimately defer to CBl62 and their intent in the nom on whether to go with the generic (accessible to non-fans) or specific angle (more interesting to subject experts) for the hook. They preferred "college football". —Bagumba (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not American, so again perhaps the meaning is obvious from the context, but just to be clear, if "college football" covers a much broader spectrum then "NCAA Division I FBS", then the hook is simply unverified and likely inaccurate (as in there's probably someone who made more tackles than that at some level of the college pyramid at some point in time and we don't have evidence on that one way or the other). We don't defer to nominators if there's an accuracy issue at stake, that's what we're here at ERRORS to sort out. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hang about, saying "college football" does not match what the article or the source say. Perhaps that term carries a vague implication that it's Division I or whatever, but "college football" could technically mean any level, and that is not verified at all. Suggest we go back to "NCAA Division I FBS" per Tamzin. It might seem wordy to some, but we must be accurate on the main page. — Amakuru (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- I considered adding career before, but
- For what it's worth I prefer the specificity of NCAA Division I FBS but I have no problem with how it's currently worded. Perhaps add "career" for specificity. Thanks for the ping. Therapyisgood (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, that works, and it avoids the "NCAA Division I FBS" bit. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Changed to "a college football record" per Bagumba. Does this work for you, Cbl62? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Tamzin Ack, missed you. —Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Cbl62 @Therapyisgood @Cbl62:
- Went a step farther and changed it to "NCAA Division I FBS record", to match what the article and its cited sources say. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Next DYK
Hook states "the Japanese fire-bellied newt has a toxin that blocks sodium channels in most vertebrates?" but the article states "This toxin stops the activity of sodium channels, discouraging predation by both birds and mammals" no mention of it working in most vertebrates. The source cited appears to support the statement ("a neurotoxin that blocks sodium channels present in most vertebrates"), but my attempt to change the article to match the DYK was reverted by LittleJerry. Either the article needs to change to support the DYK or vice versa - Dumelow (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- I changed the wording due to close paraphasing. They are still saying the same thing. LittleJerry (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- This seems to be another case of tension between following sources while avoiding copying them. If the hook is accurate, as it appears to be, then there isn't an error which need concern WP:ERRORS. The article's text is under active consideration at FAC and so is best discussed there. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- So where in the article does it state that the toxin blocks sodium channels in most vertebrates? At the moment it just says that it blocks sodium channels which discourages predation by birds and mammals. The hook fact must appear in the article (it once did, but no longer). If the article text changes to remove the fact then the hook must also change - Dumelow (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- DYK doesn't get to freeze article development. DYK has a ridiculous number of fussy rules – about a hundred of them – but they are local. Here at WP:ERRORS, we should be mainly concerned with factual errors and this not such an error. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- If the article doesn't say what the hook says, then it fails DYK on criterion 3a. I've re-added the "most vertebrates" line for now, as I don't think that's close paraphrasing - WP:CLOP specifically says that "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing", which is the case here; while missing out the "most vertebrates" part changes the meaning and means the article is no-longer true to the source. If it's reverted again, we'll have to postpone the DYK. — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Amakuru may be familiar with the case of Clem Rutter who is still indeffed for such close paraphrase. Anyway, I've looked more closely at the toxin in question. There are two main sorts of sodium channel – voltage-gated and ligand-gated – and tetrodotoxin only affects the voltage-gated kind. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with vertebrate classification because invertebrates such as insects have sodium channels in their nerves too. So, the clause about vertebrates should be removed as irrelevant. A more accurate hook would be "the Japanese fire-bellied newt usually contains a toxin that blocks voltage-gated sodium channels". But I suppose this is too technical to be a good hook. I prefer the variation in behaviour which suggests something like:
- If the article doesn't say what the hook says, then it fails DYK on criterion 3a. I've re-added the "most vertebrates" line for now, as I don't think that's close paraphrasing - WP:CLOP specifically says that "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing", which is the case here; while missing out the "most vertebrates" part changes the meaning and means the article is no-longer true to the source. If it's reverted again, we'll have to postpone the DYK. — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- DYK doesn't get to freeze article development. DYK has a ridiculous number of fussy rules – about a hundred of them – but they are local. Here at WP:ERRORS, we should be mainly concerned with factual errors and this not such an error. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- So where in the article does it state that the toxin blocks sodium channels in most vertebrates? At the moment it just says that it blocks sodium channels which discourages predation by birds and mammals. The hook fact must appear in the article (it once did, but no longer). If the article text changes to remove the fact then the hook must also change - Dumelow (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that the Japanese fire-bellied newt tends to show its belly to birds but wag its tail at snakes?
Next-but-one DYK
- ... that Casey Newton's reporting of Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter led to at least two employees learning through Newton's tweets that they were laid off?
- The article currently states only "Through his coverage of the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, at least two Twitter employees learned that they had been laid off" while the DYK states it was specifically through his tweets - Dumelow (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- The sourcing for this is too weak – essentially it's screenshots of a couple of tweets and so doesn't pass WP:SELFSOURCE. Twitter is quite unreliable and parody tweets have proliferated lately. As this is an employment dispute issue, we should require better sourcing or switch to a less controversial hook. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- The ALTs seem to be much the same so let's consult @SWinxy, Onegreatjoke, and Theleekycauldron: Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- The article currently states only "Through his coverage of the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, at least two Twitter employees learned that they had been laid off" while the DYK states it was specifically through his tweets - Dumelow (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Errors in "On this day"
Today's OTD
He's listed as having died on December 1, but his article mentions only the year. Art LaPella (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Found date in here (search for 1255) on p151 "was found murdered under enigmatic circumstances on the last day of Shawwāl 653/1 December 1255." I have added to lede. Pls check. JennyOz (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- @JennyOz: Looks fine sourcing-wise; however, your wording was a borderline COPYVIO of the source. I know there's only so many ways to express the idea "Person X was killed on date Y", but this was the same but for the omission of "found" (left over from the previous wording) and the change of "enigmatic" to "suspicious". I've reworded that, but I have concerns about the article more broadly. Lots of MoS issues, unencyclopedic tone, no mention of his death in the body of the article... Should this be pulled? I'm not very familiar with OTD birth/death quality standards. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Tamzin, yep I was hoping the words were few enough not to be a copyvio concern. I also sought to include the "Shawwāl 653" to ensure that date in the infobox was explained and cited. As for the rest of the article... I agree it may need work and hopefully someone more familiar with the subject area will improve it. I was only interested in citing the death date for its OTD appearance. Thanks for checking and for your tweak. JennyOz (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Tamzin, the criteria are stated at: Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries#Selected_anniversaries_criteria. In short if the article is bad enough that it'd warrant a yellow tag (or worse) then it should not be included. Recently I've been trying to do a pass every day to check if upcoming main page content is stated in the article and cited but don't have time to check for less obvious errors. Any help gratefully appreciated! - Dumelow (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Tamzin, yep I was hoping the words were few enough not to be a copyvio concern. I also sought to include the "Shawwāl 653" to ensure that date in the infobox was explained and cited. As for the rest of the article... I agree it may need work and hopefully someone more familiar with the subject area will improve it. I was only interested in citing the death date for its OTD appearance. Thanks for checking and for your tweak. JennyOz (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @JennyOz: Looks fine sourcing-wise; however, your wording was a borderline COPYVIO of the source. I know there's only so many ways to express the idea "Person X was killed on date Y", but this was the same but for the omission of "found" (left over from the previous wording) and the change of "enigmatic" to "suspicious". I've reworded that, but I have concerns about the article more broadly. Lots of MoS issues, unencyclopedic tone, no mention of his death in the body of the article... Should this be pulled? I'm not very familiar with OTD birth/death quality standards. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Tomorrow's OTD
- Please remove one of the two 19th-century anniversaries, for balance and also because they're both about Napoleons. If removing the first, please also replace the image. Thanks — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Day-after-tomorrow's OTD
- 1800 – War of the Second Coalition: French forces defeated Austrian and Bavarian troops at the Battle of Hohenlinden, eventually resulting in the Austrians signing the Treaty of Lunéville.
Errors in the summary of the featured list
Friday's FL
Monday's FL
Errors in the summary of the featured picture
Today's POTD
Most of the content of this blurb comes from The Roaring Lion and not the Winston Churchill article. This should be bolded also so the reader knows where the information is verifiable - Dumelow (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable. Ahecht, you wrote the blurb. Any thoughts? Schwede66 15:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Schwede66 It was Ravenpuff that added the text about The Roaring Lion, I had just included information about Churchill. I have no objection to bolding. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)- I've bolded the Roaring Lion link. Another reminder to the writers of these blurbs that "All facts mentioned in the blurb must be found in the target article, or in the description linked to the image itself, if it's a specific detail not relevant to the article topic" - Dumelow (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Schwede66 It was Ravenpuff that added the text about The Roaring Lion, I had just included information about Churchill. I have no objection to bolding. --Ahecht (TALK
@Dumelow, Schwede66, Ravenpuff. I think the greater concern is the copyright status. The Karsh website is very clear that they still hold the copyright to all his photographs, so the Library and Archives Canada never had the ability to freely release them on Flickr (and have since changed the licensing there to indicate "All rights reserved"). --Ahecht (TALKNever mind, seems to fall Commons:Template:PD-Canada. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
PAGE) 20:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)- I see on karsh.org: "All images © Yousuf Karsh". That is indeed of concern. Who knows why it was that those photos had previously been floating around with a free licence. We shouldn't run that image; I'll look for a replacement. Schwede66 20:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Our posts crossed paths. Yes, it appears to meet the PD-Canada criteria. But in that case, it must also pass PD-US, which it doesn't. Am I correct? Schwede66 20:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, if I'm parsing this correctly, it does not pass PD-US. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Swap with Template:POTD protected/2022-12-01 temporarily? (someone else will need to do this, I'm on my phone). Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, if I'm parsing this correctly, it does not pass PD-US. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Our posts crossed paths. Yes, it appears to meet the PD-Canada criteria. But in that case, it must also pass PD-US, which it doesn't. Am I correct? Schwede66 20:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- I see on karsh.org: "All images © Yousuf Karsh". That is indeed of concern. Who knows why it was that those photos had previously been floating around with a free licence. We shouldn't run that image; I'll look for a replacement. Schwede66 20:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Now that the Churchill POTD isn't being run on his anniversary, we can remove the dates of his birth/death from the lead, keeping only the years. (Alternatively, we could further postpone the POTD to a future date, perhaps the anniversary of his death or the photograph itself?) — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I understand from the text above, the Churchill photo doesn't have a suitable licence for display on the main page, so will probably never be able to run. It was pushed from 30 Nov to 1 Dec to give more time to look at it, but then nobody did anything about it and it went live today. I've now Replaced it with the previous entry for 2 Dec. If the licence issue is sorted out it could maybe run again, but for now I'm going to remove it from the queues and substitute something else for tomorrow. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The new Today's POTD after swap
"They are not a migratory species but travel to seek out conditions conducive to breeding and spawning during periods of increased rainfall" is not cited in the article. "They are a popular aquarium fish" is stated in the lead but the main text only says they are "sometimes kept as aquarium fish" - Dumelow (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Tomorrow's POTD
Any other Main Page errors
Please report any such problems or suggestions for improvement at the General discussion section of Talk:Main Page.