Open main menu

Contents

Main Page error reportsEdit

To report an error on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quote 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 current date and time is displayed in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 20:03 on 15 September 2019), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}}, which will not give you a faster response; it is unnecessary as this page is not protected and in fact causes 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 error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history for any discussion and action taken.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.
  • Can you fix the issue yourself? If the error is in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, consider attempting to fix the problem there rather than reporting it here.

Errors in the summary of the featured articleEdit

Today's FAEdit

Tomorrow's FAEdit

Errors with In the newsEdit

  • The ITN hook currently reads
A stampede during the observance of Ashura in Karbala, Iraq, kills at least thirty-one people and injures more than a hundred others.
but it's not clear that the stampede was a human stampede. Can it be changed to
A human stampede during the observance of Ashura in Karbala, Iraq, kills at least thirty-one people and injures more than a hundred others.
so that it's obvious to those unfamiliar with the celebration or event what animals were stampeding? Wug·a·po·des​ 21:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done --Masem (t) 16:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The drone attacks page has been moved; it now links to a redirect. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done --Masem (t) 16:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Errors in On this dayEdit

Today's OTDEdit

Tomorrow's OTDEdit

Errors in Did you know...Edit

Current DYKEdit

Next DYKEdit

A minor issue...but the word "dirhams" should be linked in the hook, not the image caption. Yoninah (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Note to fixing admin - This is on the main page now. SL93 (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Fixed, sorry, didn't see it until now --valereee (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYKEdit

Errors in the featured pictureEdit

Today's POTDEdit

Tomorrow's POTDEdit

Errors in the summary of the featured listEdit

Monday's FL (tomorrow)Edit

Friday's FLEdit

General discussionEdit

Non-breaking spaces in datesEdit

There are two separate complaints currently in MPE re the lack of non-breaking spaces in dates.

My personal opinion is that non-breaking spaces should be used in all blurbs on the Main Page. However, others may disagree. Please can we discuss whether or not the following instruction should be introduced? Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The use of non-breaking spaces is mandated in blurbs on the main page when used in dates and measurements. [Note: "etc." removed. - Dank (push to talk)]

  • Support Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. As far as I'm concerned they should be mandated on all public-facing parts of Wikipedia, but life's too short to argue with the handful of zealots who act as the self-proclaimed gatekeepers of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. On the Main Page, where the relatively narrow columns makes it more likely that any given piece of text will be at the end of a line, it should be a no-brainer. ‑ Iridescent 15:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I support this too. It just makes sense to keep dates all on the same line, rather than splitting them in twain. — 🦊 00:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency and better style, although I have encountered some opposition in the past from User:Dank regarding this issue in the context of TFA blurbs. I note also that all of the OTD templates would need to be lightly reformatted to nowrap the date at the very top, but this isn't really a major problem as it's highly unlikely to be wrapped anyway. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Question: Is there any objection to leaving TFA blurbs alone (at blurb reviews, WP:TFAR and WP:TFAA) for a week before they're subjected to any non-MOS-compliant edits, so that FAC writers and reviewers will be dealing with text that's familiar to them while they're editing and reviewing the blurbs? If that's acceptable, then I don't need to take a position. (Note: I removed "etc." from the end of what we're voting on ... none of the voters so far seem to be endorsing a blank check on nbsp rules.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as "proposed". I understand why this may be more of a problem on the main page where column width is narrower and thus breaking spaces mid-date etc is more likely to occur, but why isn't this still a problem in every other article across Wikipedia? Surely this should really be discussed as a MOS adjustment which would then naturally flow to main page blurbs, hooks, etc? Are we going to add a specific formatting rule in each of TFA, TFL, TFP, DYK and OTD to mandate this? Where does that instruction live in each case? I don't have a major beef with this but it seems to be the cart leading the horse. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
  • @Dank: Perhaps I'm being dense, but I don't understand what you're asking for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    • You're never being dense, Floq. I'm asking that any non-MOS-compliant edits be deferred until writers and reviewers have a chance to discuss the blurbs. I'm not going to lead any charges here ... I'm not a pro- or anti-anything warrior. I'm almost always happy with the way Main Page discussions turn out. But no one is disputing the facts: neither MOS, nor the usual practices among Good Article and Featured Article writers, support what's being proposed here. I don't want to get dragged into other people's fights. If you guys will just leave us alone for a week while we do blurb reviews before you add nbsps or other cosmetic changes, I don't think this is an issue that my writers are going to care much about one way or the other. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ravenpuff: - if the date is highly unlikely to be split in a header, then it can be left alone. @The Rambling Man: - let's walk before we can run. Yes, this is something that could be mandated at MOS, but this proposal is put forward to address a specific problem in a specific place. @Dank: Early indications are that there will be support. How does an implementation date of 1 October sound to you? Does that give enough time for people to get used to the idea? Mjroots (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    Well no, it's the other way round as far as I'm concerned. Blurbs should follow MOS, not make up their own rules. Are there other rules unique to blurbs which aren't covered by MOS? If so, where are they described? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    I've left a pointer and a note at WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    Doesn't seem to be much interest from the FAC regulars. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I asked a couple of fundamental questions about the logistics of such a mandate, I'm still wondering how this works in practice. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The World War StoryEdit

It is beautiful reading about the 2nd World War and the British straighnt The Masters Click (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Main Page" page.