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 08:49 on 19 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
Today's FA
Tomorrow's FA
Day-after-tomorrow's FA
Errors with "In the news"
- On the Giza church fire, it seems a bit POV-ish to include the number of children that were killed, eg along the lines of "Won't someone think of the children?"-type concern. --Masem (t) 12:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think we had this same discussion a couple of days ago. It's a substantial proportion of those killed and has been mentioned in headlines by reliable sources such as CNN.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- See here for the discussion a few days ago. I think we could change the blurb to make the relevance clearer, as WSJ does, by including the church also hosted a nursery, though how Im not too sure of how. nableezy - 14:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- "A church fire in Giza, Egypt, kills 41 people, including at least 18 children in a nearby nursery."? Stephen 23:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- "Nearby" isn't right. We aren't talking about a traditional church building but a multistorey building in a dense neighbourhood. This news item shows a video of the building. The article says that the
church hosts a nursery in its fourth floor
. Maybe phrase it like this: "A church fire in Giza, Egypt, kills 41 people, including at least 18 children in a nursery within the building." Schwede66 23:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)- Sounds good, go for it. Or "an associated nursery" rather than "a nearby nursery", but I think yours is better. Stephen 02:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- At least to me, as it is called a church, I would think that the chances of children being inside and part of the fatalities is rather high. If, for some reason, it was a bar that burned down and there were a number of children there (maybe part of a performance?) then calling out the surprising death of children would make more sense. But being a church which I normally associate with family and children, this isn't a major aspect of the story and something we normally don't do. --Masem (t) 02:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Would you expect nearly half though? I think that was a noteworthy part of the story, but as youre the second person to object I dont really have a problem dropping it from the blurb. nableezy - 03:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Done Schwede66 03:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- At least to me, as it is called a church, I would think that the chances of children being inside and part of the fatalities is rather high. If, for some reason, it was a bar that burned down and there were a number of children there (maybe part of a performance?) then calling out the surprising death of children would make more sense. But being a church which I normally associate with family and children, this isn't a major aspect of the story and something we normally don't do. --Masem (t) 02:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Schwede66, I dont think that works, we dont know how many children died in the nursery area (4th floor) and how many in the classrooms (2nd floor, where the fire started) or of smoke inhalation on the main floor. In a church and its nursery works but is kind of awkward. nableezy - 03:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds good, go for it. Or "an associated nursery" rather than "a nearby nursery", but I think yours is better. Stephen 02:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- "Nearby" isn't right. We aren't talking about a traditional church building but a multistorey building in a dense neighbourhood. This news item shows a video of the building. The article says that the
- "A church fire in Giza, Egypt, kills 41 people, including at least 18 children in a nearby nursery."? Stephen 23:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Errors in "Did you know ..."
Current DYK
Next DYK
Next-but-one DYK
Errors in "On this day"
Today's OTD
Tomorrow's OTD
Day-after-tomorrow's OTD
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
Today's featured picture (left) seems a poor choice because it's mostly empty and the background of the treescape is hard to make out. Looking at the nomination discussion, we find that that was for a set of pictures. So, we should either be showing the entire set or choosing one of the better pictures from the set.
If the idea to to feature each picture in the set individually, then note that there's an even more absurd member of the set – the Bellman's map (right). The joke there too is that it's empty but this sort of nonsense is best saved for 1st April.
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 19 August 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.