Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Please submit error reports only for content that is currently or will imminently appear on the Main Page. For general discussion about the Main Page, kindly use its talk page.

National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously: Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety of English. While Wikipedia strives to use language common to all English varieties , some spelling, grammar, or terminology may differ or be absent in a reader's preferred variety. Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see a comparison of American and British English.

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 16:24 on 9 October 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.

Rwanda

Sorry, my second comment, and I'm trying not to be too anal, but "Rwanda is a country in central and eastern Africa ... " also sounds weird to me, like it is in two places, or is a huge country. I think "central" would suffice, but if we want both then should it not be "central eastern Africa"? 86.160.223.189 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many countries have geographic borders running through them (or disputed geographical status), and it is not a matter of size. Thus if our articles are correct in that Rwanda belongs both to Central Africa and Eastern Africa then I see no problem. Materialscientist (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Schellenberg

The sentence "The deliberate devastation of the Elector's lands in Bavaria failed to bring Max Emanuel." seems incomplete. In the article introduction, the sentence reads "The deliberate devastation of the Elector's lands in Bavaria failed to bring Max Emanuel to battle or persuade him back into the Imperial fold." 213.95.68.62 (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there has been no reaction to my original statement. Is it because my assumption that the mentioned sentence is incomplete is wrong? I am not a native speaker, so I'm not completely sure. Or did I not state explicitly enough how I think the sentence should be changed? If this is the case, then let's try that again: Please change the sentence "The deliberate devastation of the Elector's lands in Bavaria failed to bring Max Emanuel." to "The deliberate devastation of the Elector's lands in Bavaria failed to bring Max Emanuel to battle or persuade him back into the Imperial fold."213.95.68.62 (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your first comment was perfectly clear, I just think no one had the time to act on it before now. In any case, I agree with you and have made the change you suggested, along with a few other tweaks. Thanks for the report. Jenks24 (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ITN-Update

Mali

Can we move this to the top as its currently ongoing and Palestine is stalerLihaas (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its ongoing TODAY TOO.Lihaas (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Supreme Court

Shouldn't National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius be at least linked in the blurb, perhaps by "upholds"? After all, that is what the news is, not the law. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was before, so please discuss that edit summary. Art LaPella (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues appear to be resolved. Relinked. —howcheng {chat} 03:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, shouldn't "health insurance in the country" link to Health insurance in the United States? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —howcheng {chat} 03:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Nativity

"the first World Heritage Site for the State of Palestine." WHS status is not a reward given to a nation, it is recognition of the importance of preserving a site. It is not for Palestine, it simply happens to be in Palestine. Kevin McE (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UNESCO describes the site as being in Palestine; we are not following the source if we describe it as being in "State of Palestine". Kevin McE (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "in the State of Palestine" for the moment, as I agree that "for" is wrong. Don't have enough knowledge about Palestine/State of Palestine/etc. issues so I'll leave that to another admin. Jenks24 (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said "State of Palestine" rather than "Palestine" because I didn't think it was a good idea to say "Palestine" when we weren't going to link to the Palestine article. In other words, I didn't want to create an Easter Egg link. Palestine as a target is wrong because that refers to the geographical region that includes Israel (which had a number of World Heritage Sites even before today's inscription). The State of Palestine is the member of UNESCO (just as the State of Israel is a member of UNESCO, but as you see we'd drop "State of" because it redirects to the Israel article).

As for saying "in the State of Palestine" vs. "for the State of Palestine". I really had to tiptoe around this because there are several problematic angles. First, the State of Palestine doesn't actually have sovereignty over any land in practice. They are more a government without land that's actually theirs, so it's a bit difficult to say something is in (the State of) Palestine. I'm not entirely sure UNESCO even said it's in Palestine; yes, they've listed it "under Palestine" (which is the wording that some sources use). However, even if we were to argue that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is the area attributed to the State of Palestine, the Old City of Jerusalem, which is in the West Bank, has been a World Heritage Site for thirty years.

And it's not entirely incorrect that World Heritage Sites aren't for countries or states. A member of UNESCO has to propose a site for inscription. UNESCO doesn't just decide places are World Heritage Sites. There wasn't really anything preventing the Church of the Nativity from becoming a World Heritage Site before, just as there wasn't anything preventing the Old City of Jerusalem from becoming one. Jordan could have proposed it, just as it did with the Old City in 1981 (although it'd be very strange now, as they dropped its claim to the West Bank in 1989). This is why, for example, the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca is not a World Heritage Site (although it seems like an obvious candidate to be one); Saudi Arabia has yet to propose it as a World Heritage Site, and so it has never been up for consideration.

So, I tried my best with "for the State of Palestine". Eloquent? Probably not. But is it the wording that is most accurate based on the complex situation? I think so. Maybe going with "UNESCO inscribes ... listed under the State of Palestine" (another option I considered, and the one that's in the article) would work, but I don't think "in [the State of] Palestine" is satisfactory; I can easily imagine further complaints about that wording. -- tariqabjotu 14:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, we can go with "the State of Palestine's first World Heritage Site" (also considered that, but I hate leaving the 's hanging). I won't be around for the next several hours, so I'm hoping someone will consider one of the options here. The current formulation with in the State of Palestine is just as, if not more, problematic than the original wording for the reasons I stated above. -- tariqabjotu 14:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at ITNC were not stating a pov by wikilinking to State of Palestine yet mentioning Palestine as thats the notable part that UNESCO mentioned

Further, and more importantly, can we change the bold link to Church of the Nativity - World Heritage Site, perhaps with the world lists. It seems more editors wanted it moved as being too long on the page. SO i went ahead and did it as i was against consensusLihaas (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to you there, but your understanding of the news story is incorrect, which is very surprising considering you penned most of the content about this event and the article seems to get it correct. The objections from Israel and the U.S. are over the church's endangered status, not the fact that it was listed in Palestine (I mean, Palestine's admission to UNESCO is in the past now and their objections have already been registered).

There is no pressing reason here to make the text say "Palestine". Without the link, it may be reasonably understood as the region Palestine (which is what's discussed in the Palestine article). This is in contrast to the text of the blurb used after Palestine's admission to UNESCO; from the context ("admitted as a member state"), it was obvious we were talking about the state rather than the region without even clicking the piped link. I mean, you and I may know that "Palestine" in this context here refers to the state, but there's no reason for a reader to know that and no reason why we need to omit the words "State of". -- tariqabjotu 00:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the new article, that title doesn't seem to match our naming conventions. I also don't think there's a reason for that article to exist in the first place; it has a lot of extraneous information that should be condensed out, with the remainder put back in the main Church of the Nativity article. -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page seems to warrant that and i dint want to edit war (which i feared i was doing) so we went ahead with an accomodation. Its got the details of the bid and the reactions which is rightly not appropriate to put on the page about the subbject.Lihaas (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems using "in" is causing a fuss at Talk:Main page. Feel free to change it back to "for" if you want. Jenks24 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libor/Euribor

"Barclays is fined a total of £290 million for attempting to manipulate the Libor and the Euribor."

I understand the apparent logicality of "the Libor" and "the Euribor", but in practice these look wrong to me, like a guess by someone unfamiliar with the terminology. I believe the articles should be deleted, or else it should be "the Libor and Euribor rates", or else "Libor" and "Euribor" should be expanded and written out in full. 86.160.223.189 (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, the word rates should be added. thats the manipulationLihaas (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

crap, just realised its redundant as the "r" on boht words means rates already. Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spain defeats Italy

This invariably crops up every time there is a sporting reference on ITN, but in British English the correct usage is "Spain defeat Italy to win..." As a European competition, I would have thought British English might take precendence? Or if a neutral form can be found that skirts round the issue that would be good too. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Although the need for version neutral English was a main thread of the nomination discussion, we now have "In association football, Spain defeats Italy to win the UEFA European Football Championship." The singular verb in such a construction is very much US English; the plural alternative is equally contrary to ENGVAR. Our usual way of dodging this bullet (given the ongoing reluctance to do the logical thing as report things that have happened in the past tense) is a construction along the lines of The tournament concludes with the winner beating the runner up in the final. Kevin McE (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We now have the ugly but VNE concludes construction, but then break it by using a plural their second consecutive: the principle could be preserved with a second consecutive...' Kevin McE (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone would have noticed, especially since such a formulation is common (even if not technically correct) in AmEng, but I guess we can change it. -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the link to the final point to the featured list? I know the list concerns European Championship finals, but in my opinion the link should go directly to UEFA Euro 2012 Final.--A bit iffy (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an alternative to removing the ITN item until the end of the day. (Normally, we don't include the same event in more than one main page section at the same time.)

Retaining the ITN item with a link to the TFL section until tomorrow (at which point it will automatically begin pointing directly to the article) prevents a glaring omission, avoids encouraging readers interested in the topic to click away from the main page without ever seeing the featured list, and actively promotes the relatively new TFL section. —David Levy 01:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All it did for me was waste my time figuring out what the hell just happened and why didn't the page I expected and wanted come up when I clicked on it. Anything that makes you do something twice to confirm that it wasn't just a mistake on your part but was infact by design, is clearly wrong. Cracker92 (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you were confused. As noted above, this was an alternative to removing the ITN item until the end of the day (as was done last time). Which, in your view, is preferable? (I don't mean to create a false dichotomy, but there's longstanding consensus against simply displaying a redundant item.) —David Levy 22:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012 North American derecho

"...leaving at least 17 people dead..."

This is not in line with the article which states that at least 22 people died. The article has no citations in the lead section, so I am not certain which one is correct. Shirudo talk 02:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK queue status There are currently 4 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC) Current time: 16:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 16 hours ago( verify reset purge )

For tomorrow: "1608 ... Quebec City ..., considered to be the first European-built city in non-Spanish North America" looks inconsistent with the first paragraph of Quebec City#History, which lists several earlier cities, not all of them Spanish. Art LaPella (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because of this previous edit. I'm removing the phrase from On This Day. Art LaPella (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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