Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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 22:23 on 25 June 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. (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 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 with "In the news"

• Anyone want to change "leave 28 people dead" to "kill 28 people"? If so, cool. If not, cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Erismatopterus

... that young Erismatopterus formed shoals as a likely way to avoid predators? Should be changed to something like ... that young Erismatopterus formed shoals, likely as a way to avoid predators? or ... that young Erismatopterus likely formed shoals as a way to avoid predators?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanahary (talk • contribs)

• The former is more UK-ENG, the latter is more US-ENG. I don't see an issue with either of them, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think Zanahary might just be asking for a link for shoals? I agree the syntax is fine for either and don't feel a need to change it, but I don't mind adding a link to shoals. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  On second thought, I think I agree the syntax is a little funky. "likely" modifying "way" sounds odder to me than modifying "as a way" or "formed", though I can't of course explain why, grammer-wise. We aren't trying to say Erismatopterus did this because it would probably work, we're saying they probably did this because it would work. Right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, the original wording is wrong, but either of the two alternatives is fine. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  I just noticed another problem: shoaling behavior and its apparent motivation is ascribed only to Erismatopterus levatus, not to the whole genus. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Erismatopterus is an extinct genus of percopsiform fish which lived during the early to middle Eocene epoch and containing the single species Erismatopterus levatus." There are no other species in this genus. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Gotcha. I don’t feel strongly, but wouldn’t it still be more correct to use the specific name? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Wait. The phrasing "formed shoals, likely as a way to avoid predators" implies that we know that it formed shoals and we hypothesize that it did so to avoid predators. The phrasing "likely formed shoals as a way to avoid predators" is going from the certainty that the species would avoid predators if possible, and hypothesizing that it formed shoals to do so. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes—the current phrasing qualifies as likely the effectiveness (whether objectively assessed or as understood by the Erismatopterus) of the practice for predator avoidance rather than, as it should, the certainty of the fact that the purpose of the practice is predator avoidance. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Done, going with Z's first suggestion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Mel Carnahan

The source (which is the US Senate's official website) says "for the first time in history—voters knowingly elected a deceased candidate" I don't know why they equivocated with "knowingly", but that got turned into "the first person in U.S. history to win a U.S. Senate election posthumously" in the article, which is a stronger statement than the source supports. And of course repeated in the hook. Can we just stop running "first" hooks, please? RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, this CNN source backs up the claim, and I haven't found a counterexample yet. I'll go see if anyone elaborates on why they might hedge with "knowingly" theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Seeing more sources for the same. I think the move is to fix up the article sourcing, not to adjust the hook. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I swapped TLC's CNN source in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I find it disquieting to remove a source just because it says something which inconveniently disagrees with our article. If the source was crap, sure, but this is the official US Senate website, which I would think is authoritative to things having to do with the Senate. We're supposed to be writing articles based on what we find in WP:RS, not cherry-picking sources which support what we want to say. RoySmith (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You're reading "knowingly" to mean that there were prior Senators elected posthumously unknowingly. I'm reading it as an intensifier, calling attention to the posthumous campaign and politicking that led to Carnahan's election. The presence of so many other sources that support this being a first, and the well-studied nature of American Senate elections, led me to think the article text is correct as is. I prefer to only cite sources that unambiguously support the article text; I considered keeping the official source, but I worried not every reader would share my interpretation. I'm not confident in removal, and wouldn't object to someone adding back the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the source, along with the other two. It's not up to us to decide which sources we like or how we think people will interpret what they say. We should give our readers the sources we found and let them decide for themselves. RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that reasoning is nonsense, but I don't have any problem with the outcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It's very clear what the original source is taking about, per FFF. The "knowingly" was not intended as a qualifier for the basic fact, merely to emphasise that voters knew he was dead when they voted for him. Given that we have sources without this potential point of confusion though, it made sense to switch to those. Articles don't have to cite every source that says the same thing.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, someone might have died before the election without that being known to the public. It's rather unlikely now, but may have happened before.-- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Well when did it happen before then? I'm usually sceptical of "first" or "only" claims myself, but when I was checking this hook set I had a rummage around and couldn't see anything likely to contradict this, and the primary sources themselves like the Senate are likely to know about it.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 28)

Monday's FL

(July 1)

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.