Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

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 09:05 on 27 December 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 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 In the news

Template:ITN-Update

Apple/Samsung European spat

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 has been blocked for sale in the EU over a legal challenge from Apple. But the injunction given was not for a patent, as specified in the hook, but a community design. Now, in the US you have the design patent, so you could call it a patent lawsuit, but I think it would clear up confusion, be more specific, and inform readers of something new if it mentioned community designs specifically. Here's a suggestion -

• Current Hook - Apple wins a temporary injunction in a patent lawsuit, blocking the sale of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer in most of the European Union.
• Suggested Hook - Apple wins a temporary injunction over a community design, blocking the sale of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer in most of the European Union.
  • hahnchen 20:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• It is probably best to take this to WP:ITN/C where they can deal with the intricacies of the issue and given that you want to change the bolding. I don't think the blurb is inaccurate as it stands as it is the subject of a patent lawsuit, which is what the hook describes. Either way, best to take it there I think. Woody (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Some authoritative decision needs to be made about this batting of issues back and forth. At ITN/C, very little admin attention is given to an item once it has been tagged as [Posted]. Kevin McE (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Patents are distinct from industrial design rights, which is what the injunction is over; I'd go for "industrial design right" myself, just because it's a more general term ("community design" is rather EU-centric) but most certainly not patents. Alternately, you could go for mega-neutrality; "In an intellectual property dispute, Apple wins a temporary injunction blocking the sale of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer in most of the European Union." - using the general term (IP) rather than context-specific ones. Ironholds (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I understand the desire not to punt this back and forth, but I'm not comfortable changing it based on a conversation here. The article uses the phrase "patent lawsuit" multiple times in that section; we almost always defer to the article. Especially since this isn't (apparently, if I understand right) actually wrong, and it is apparently not definitive what to change it to. I'd suggest (this is going to annoy you) taking it to the article talk page, and getting consensus about the wording there first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  Err, actually, yes, it is actually wrong. It'd be akin to describing a copyright dispute as a patent one. Ironholds (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  I don't have time to edit the article, I've not been very active of late. But the front page has been propagating an error for over a day now. Go with my hook, or go with Ironholds', or even remove it given that we're advertising an erroneous article with an erroneous hook on our most visible page. The best option of course, would be to fix it. - hahnchen 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Rioting in London What an awfully skewed & shamefully biased image. The image is clearly negative, showing a lone policeman with full gear when in reality the vast majority of what was seen in these few days of rioting was... well, rioters causing 200 million pounds of damage. Why isn't an image of that shown? Because everyone automatically targets the police.

The image is terrible, an image depicting the rioters (who are responsible for the rioting that is reported!) should be shown instead.

This one is ideal: http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Looters_and_onlookers_outside_Foot_Locker%2C_Walworth_Road%2C_Elephant_and_Castle%2C_London.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.9.12 (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Looters and onlookers outside Foot Locker, Walworth Road, Elephant and Castle, London.jpg

Does this thumbnail seem "ideal" to you?

I selected the image because its subject is easily discernible at thumbnail resolution. The suggested photograph's subject is not, nor does the image lend itself to significant cropping.

I'm baffled as to why you believe that the displayed image "targets the police." The deployment of officers in riot gear is highly illustrative of the situation's nature and severity. —David Levy 01:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• On the rioting item, can "fatal police shooting" be wikilinked to Death of Mark Duggan, since that article's AFD resulted in a keep closure? jcgoble3 (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

PAMELA results

A bit misleading to say that it confirmed the presence of an "antimatter belt" around the Earth. Indeed, that's simply not true. It confirms the existences of antimatter emanating from the Van Allen Belts, but such a flux was more-or-less expected from the physics of this belt. What we confirmed was that antimatter was coming from these belts, not that they are made of antimatter. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I went bold and changed it to "confirm that a plasma belt surrounding Earth contains antimatter". Materialscientist (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Contains antimatter" is even a little bit vague. Antimatter is not "contained" in the sense of "containment" in the belt. It is instead the product of various physical processes happening in the belt. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day

As today (August 14) is the 14th of the Hebrew month of Av, Tu B'Av (the 15th of Av) is tomorrow (August 15), not today.

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

Reporters: please first correct today's or tomorrow's regular version.

Any other problems

Please report any other problems on General Discussion part of Talk: Main Page.