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 21:02 on 12 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 the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article

"After a ten month trial..."
The actual article correctly hyphenates the compound modifier, "After a ten-month trial...". The summary should do likewise.

Similarly with "sentenced to five year prison terms" . Is that five terms of one year, or a five-year term?
It seems the latter is intended; all ambiguity is removed by "sentenced to five-year prison terms".

If more support is needes, please consult the linked article on compound modifiers.
For further correctness of the summary, one might also check the comma rules for an introductory phrase.

Thank you. Unimaginative Username (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hyphens added (after reviewing English compound, which has some less ambiguous advice.) Thank you. Although I don't know of a good way to distinguish introductory phrases needing a comma, I didn't find a likely example in the summary ("After a ten-month trial" already had a comma.) See you in the morning. Art LaPella (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the hyphens. I believe that whatever I might have seen before that required an intro-phrase comma has since been edited. Agree there isn't a need as the summary now stands.

"Although" is a bright neon sign for an intro phrase needing a comma, as you clearly saw in your reply sentence starting with same. "Because", "In spite of", "In addition too", ... For a more general rule, first determine if the opening phrase is indeed "parenthetical", as defined at the "Introductory phrase" link above:

"parenthetical ... (i.e., information that is not essential to the meaning of the sentence)."

I'd slightly change that to "adds further meaning or clarification, although the sentence grammatically stands on its own without it". Sorry, I can't immediately source that, or what follows, to a known stylebook. Example: "We stopped at a motel". Complete sentence, agreed? Now add more info: "After driving for ten hours, we stopped at a motel." This adds additional, and optional, information to the original. So it's parenthetic. If we begin the sentence with it, we need to set it off with a comma.

Oddly enough, if the introductory phrase is moved to the end of the sentence, often no comma is required. "We stopped at a motel after driving for ten hours." One finds that this test alone is often effective, if the above keywords (although, because, etc.) aren't present: If the phrase can be moved to the end and not require a comma, then moving it to the beginning, before the core sentence, requires the comma. One or two more?

"I had toast and coffee for breakfast". = "For breakfast, I had toast and coffee".

"Nebraska has not seen a drought this bad for the past 75 years" = "For the past 75 years, Nebraska hasn't seen a drought this bad." (pardon the numerals -- it's late here, too).

WP articles are so rife with introductory phrases lacking needed commas that boldness would consume my entire life. :smile:
One hopes that contributors would become more aware of this, given the dearth of good copy-editors and the sheer volume of articles in need of it.

Hoped you slept well. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Errors in In the news

Template:ITN-Update

Assange

This has been pointed out at ITN/C. The blurb should clarify that Assange is currently in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK, not in Ecuador.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The word grants in the blurb links to a section “Request for political asylum” in “Julian Assange”; however, the link ends up at the top of the article, as the section apparently intended is now titled “Request for political asylum in Ecuador” (emphasis mine).—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Pussy Riot

I don't see why scare quotes are needed for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred" – it's akin to posting Barack Obama is "elected" President of the United States. That they were convicted is not in dispute – the debate is over whether they should have been convicted, but it is not for Wikipedia to make that determination. —WFC— 22:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Justification in the edit note is need to use quotes here to specifiy that "motivated by religious hatred" is part of the name of the crime, not their actual motivation according to Wikipedia editors, but because of the likelihood of the interpretation offered by WFC, which is at least as likely, suggest a rephrasing: Three members of Pussy Riot (Nadezhda Tolokonnikova pictured), a Russian feminist punk-rock collective, are jailed for two years on a charge of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred or Three members of Pussy Riot (Nadezhda Tolokonnikova pictured), a Russian feminist punk-rock collective, are found guilty of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.

Can something be done about the Easter egg quadruple linking of Russian feminist punk-rock collective. Kevin McE (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

On Kevin's latter point, I'd say "Russian" could definitely be unlinked, inserted something between "feminist" and "punk-rock collective" might also be useful. GRAPPLE X 23:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And of course, because I'm an idiot, "Russian feminist" is actually the linked phrase and it seems pretty useful. Drop "punk-rock" perhaps? GRAPPLE X 23:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How does it look now? --BorgQueen (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks BorgQueen. —WFC— 23:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It would help if we actually used underlines in our links. —howcheng {chat} 10:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the act committed was not motivated by religious hatred. It's one thing for the Putin regime to suggest the act was "motivated by religious hatred", it's another thing for the main page of Wikipedia to regurgitate the same rhetoric. This must be re-worded immediately to exclude assertions the act was motivated by religious hatred as facts to the contrary demonstrate, the act was motivated by discontent with the Putin regime. Additionally, whilst Pussy Riot can be described as punk rock and it's members may hold feminist ideals, it is correctly a riot grrrl band. Nick carson (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's why it's in quotes; that is the reason the courts gave when they were convicted. — foxj 13:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see it's no longer in quotes, but the fact remains: that was the reason they were sentenced. — foxj 13:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Can I just point out that the act committed was not motivated by religious hatred": you may think that, the court didn't. Kevin McE (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither did these nuns. GRAPPLE X 00:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the way it's worded implies that was why they did what they did. It should differentiate between the act and the charges/conviction. Nick carson (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It states explicitly (as explicitly as translation allows) what they were found guilty of: the charge included the allegation of motivation. To differentiate between a charge and an action is either to take the POV that the court's decision was wrong, or to go into a degree of commentary that is not appropriate for INT. Kevin McE (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

pussy riot image

pretty sad that the main page image being used is only of 1 out of 7 members of the band and (somehow) its an image of the most attractive member of the band (how encyclopedic...?) 208.100.189.155 (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Any other problems

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