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 09:48 on 24 November 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 the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article

In the summary for tomorrow’s featured article, the word “rating” in “1.9 average household rating” should, in my opinion, be wikilinked to Ratings (broadcast)#Rating (or Ratings (broadcast)). Some change needs to be made because it is not clear what a “1.9 average household rating” is, and that’s the best I could come up with. I added a wikilink to Ratings (broadcast) over 20 hours ago and no one has changed it; does that count as consensus? Electrical & computer engineer (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I made the link to Ratings (broadcast), but that section (indeed, that article) is pretty weak for something linked from the main page. Any chance someone who knows the subject could spruce it up a little in the next 35 minutes before it hits the main page? If someone else thinks that article is too poor to be linked from the main page, feel free to revert me, I'm not 100% comfortable with it myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we to assume that this is 1.9% of US audiences? There is nothing in the article to identify where the programme was made or broadcast, and no hints about where this particular ranking system is used in the linked article.

Errors in In the news

Template:ITN-Update

Anna Hazare

• Following changes are suggested:

• Delhi → New Delhi
• police → police
• An image of Anna Hazare instead of the Google HQ.

• Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And corruption → corruption. Maybe linking "police" is a bit overlinking. --Kslotte (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Planet

If we're really going to post this item (which I still oppose), could we at least use a sensible blurb? Change 'sunlight' to 'starlight' - the star in question is not the Sun. The planet is not the 'darkest' known, which refers to the amount of light it receives, it is instead the 'least reflective' or has the 'lowest albedo'. Even then, it is not the lowest albedo of all known planets, but the lowest known planet albedo (i.e. only among those which have been measured). A link to albedo should be worked into the blurb. Finally, 'determine...to be' sounds rather formal. Putting all that together, I suggest the following blurb:

• Astronomers announce that TrES-2b has the lowest known albedo of any planet, reflecting less than 1% of the starlight falling upon it.

Modest Genius ^talk 22:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Strongly support MG's proposed blurb. How the blurb went on the MP as it is now is beyond me – it seems like the posting admin didn't even read the discussion at ITN/C. Please fix this ASAP. Jenks24 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed. Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with MS in making the change, except I was going to say "light" instead of "starlight". First, I thing it's technically more accurate (albedo wouldn't depend on the light source), and second, to my ear "starlight" just sounds a little funny. Any objection? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Both sound equally good IMO, though 'starlight' possibly has a bit more of a wow factor. You are of course correct that it doesn't matter where the light is coming from, but the only source of optical light anywhere near that planet is its star. Modest Genius ^talk 23:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think using the word “starlight”, while true, is misleading; I suggest “reflecting less than 1% of the light falling upon it from its sun” (or “its star”), since that’s the primary source of light, according to MG. Also, I don’t think most people would be familiar with the word “albedo”. (Yes, they could look it up, but should they have to do so?) Would too much meaning be lost if it were changed to “reflectiveness” (wikilink to albedo)? Electrical & computer engineer (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Helium

'(nucleus pictured)'? It will be a truly astounding scientific breakthrough when someone manages to take a picture of a nucleus. I'm not even sure what to call that image; 'schematic artists impression pictured' maybe? 'Representative diagram pictured'? It's certainly nothing like the shape of an actual helium nucleus, nor are there any meaningful colours. Modest Genius ^talk 23:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"(nucleus model pictured)"? "(nucleus diagram pictured)"? To me, picture = drawing ≠ photograph, and thus I am not so critical here. Materialscientist (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

running out the door, so won't do it myself, but maybe "nucleus depicted"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

How about "(schematic representation of nucleus pictured)"? I doubt most people will know that the nucleus is too small to photograph with visible light; the text in parentheses should (in my opinion) be as simple as possible without misleading such people. I think it should contain the word “schematic” or something to that effect, because IIRC the helium nucleus is spherically symmetric. Electrical & computer engineer (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Invincibles

'the first Test cricket match side to play an entire tour of England without losing a match.' -> 'the first cricket team to play an entire tour of England without losing a Test match.' Modest Genius ^talk 23:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

They weren't the first side to avoid defeat in Tests in England though (Australia did it themselves in 1921, for example). Their achievement was not losing ANY games (including any of the 28 non-Test matches they played).ReadingOldBoy (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, ReadingOldBoy is correct. Just one of the many reasons why Australia is so great :) Jenks24 (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

1991 Soviet coup

No need for capital on Ppresident: being used as a common noun, not a personal title or the full, proper-noun, name of the office. Kevin McE (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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.