Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

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 20:41 on 24 September 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 articleEdit

Today's FAEdit

"Because of hot and arid conditions in the area, the fire spread rapidly and forced the closure of Arizona State Route 89 and Interstate 10 and the evacuation of 100 people." The source clearly states it was Arizona State Route 83 that was closed, and I have corrected this sentence in the source article. Springeragh (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done Sam Walton (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:CAPS, and its main article, Tannerite is a brand name; please capitalize it in the blurb on the front page. (Sawmill Fire article has been corrected.) Elizium23 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    This was raised on my talk page yesterday, as it happens. It was not an accident that I rendered "Tannerite" as "tannerite"; a lot of the sources I used to that too. No big deal to render it as "Tannerite", but I'd suggest that might be OR since we don't actually know if it was Tannerite tannerite in that target. Not that it ultimately matters, though, as I said. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "No buildings were destroyed by the fire, though the historic Empire Ranch was as little as 50 feet (15 m) from the flames at times." – seems a bit backwards as presumably the ranch held its position whilst the flames moved, and the current wording makes for a bit of an awkward read. I'd respectfully suggest that this is easier: "No buildings were destroyed by the fire, though the flames were as little as 50 feet (15 m) from the historic Empire Ranch at times." ... or similar. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
      Done  — Amakuru (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The blurb states that it "began in ... the Coronado National Forest". But that is Federal land and it actually started on state-owned range land, specifically a "a privately run cattle ranch" on the Santa Rita Experimental Range. So, it was state-regulated not federal and range not forest.
And there's a big lacuna – why was it called the Sawmill Fire? Was there actually a sawmill or what? The article doesn't say so why was it passed as complete?
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Excellent point. That was my instant first reaction to the title. -- Sca (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not clear from the article, either. Can't find much online outside of this video, which definitely doesn't have a sawmill in it. Anarchyte (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Tomorrow's FAEdit

Day-after-tomorrow's FAEdit

Errors with "In the news"Edit

Errors in "Did you know ..."Edit

Current DYKEdit

Firstly, the granting of minor basilica status is done by means of a papal bull, which is an order coming directly from the Pope, so it is entirely correct to say "Pope Francis" rather than "The Vatican". (This source confirms it in relation to this specific church, if required.) Secondly, when reviewing this I interpreted it as the order being made on 7th July to take effect from 14th August; but on looking back now this seems not to be the case. I am happy with the revised hook, and can only apologise again for falling short in my normal standards of reviewing: however if I had been able to see my Watchlist and receive "pings" when on holiday and only having access to my mobile phone, I may have been able to resolve this earlier. Sorry again. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Attributing it to "The Vatican" which is a city-state would be inaccurate; it was from the authority of the Holy See which is the corresponding ecclesiastical body. The primary source includes a verbatim quote of the letter, which very clearly is signed by the Prefect (Arthur Roche) and Secretary of the CDWDS and not signed by Pope Francis; the letter also very clearly indicates that Roche and the CDWDS have bestowed the title by authority of faculties delegated to them by the Roman Pontiff, Francis.
I did search fruitlessly on and for a corresponding Papal Bull, but if any are promulgated for minor basilicae, they are not archived anywhere I can see. If @Hassocks5489 has a link to a bull signed by Francis I'd be glad to entertain the idea that he did so, but what we currently have is a letter he didn't sign.
So yes, in a roundabout way, it was Pope Francis who conferred the title, and this was all done with his knowledge and approval, but it was, AFAICT, a delegated act, and so we should perhaps be careful of attributing it directly to the stroke of his pen, and instead we can most accurately describe it as an act of the Holy See. Elizium23 (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, but I have to go out now and I will not be back for the rest of today, with no access to computers, so I am unable to provide any more assistance with this today. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Next DYKEdit

Next-but-one DYKEdit

Errors in "On this day"Edit

Today's OTDEdit

Tomorrow's OTDEdit

Day-after-tomorrow's OTDEdit

Errors in the summary of the featured listEdit

Friday's FLEdit

(September 30)

Monday's FLEdit

(September 26)

Errors in the summary of the featured pictureEdit

Today's POTDEdit

Tomorrow's POTDEdit

Any other Main Page errorsEdit

Please report any such problems or suggestions for improvement at the General discussion section of Talk:Main Page.