Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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 05:18 on 9 February 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. (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, determined not to be an error, or the item has 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 the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Today's FA

• Isn't Christ, when used to mean Jesus of Nazareth, both an WP:NPOV and a MOS:HONORIFIC issue? When writing about Christian theology (e.g. Flagellation of Christ), it might be implied that usage of such a term is only quoting Christian doctrine; but here, as a passing usage in a 20th-century biography, using the term in wikivoice implies that we endorse the sentiment that Jesus was the christ (i.e. messiah). "Jesus" is just as understandable or more so, without any added baggage, and is the term used by the linked The Man Born to Be King. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

   Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Errors with "In the news"

• If "President of El Salvador" is capitalized for Bukele, shouldn't "president of Chile" also be capitalized for Piñera? Or should Bukele's be lowercase? The Kip 09:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's probably because of the presence of Former before the title, some schools of thought hold that we should downcase it in that case. I tend to think these are still actual names of job titles though so I've capitalised President of Chile and Prime Minister of Pakistan for the time being. If there's disagreement then bring it here I guess.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think lowercase was correct per MOS:JOBTITLE, exactly because of the "former", which means the term is "preceded by a modifier". I wouldn't care to change the case back, as I try (with limited success) to avoid disputes over JOBTITLE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Capitalising them all looks correct to me. MOS:JOBTITLES is surely the most confusing, incoherent and self-contradictory guideline we have, so I wouldn't try to analyse it too closely. Modest Genius ^talk 14:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  In U.S. English usage, titles generally are capped only when they directly precede the person's name, without intervening punctuation -- Wiki's fraught MOS notwithstanding. However, in the digital age this rule is being eroded by unwitting practitioners, for whom anything goes. (In British English, usage has been different.) -- Sca (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  It should be lowercase per MOS:JOBTITLES, because the title is modified with "former". This is shown in one of the MOS examples:

  Theresa May is a former prime minister of the United Kingdom.

  —Bagumba (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. It's very straightforward. Primergrey (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, it's very straightforward that these should be capitalised. It's one thing when talking about presidents in general terms, but these are formal job titles and proper names. We have always capitalised those at ITN, and it's time to stop this silly business of downcasing them just because they have a modifier. He was President of Chile, formerly, so there it is. The OP is correct that such inconsistency is silly and doesn't serve readers well.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Quite clear, no doubt, somehow. -- Sca (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Feel free to establish consensus to modify the MOS. Until then, it seems as if you used your admin privileges to grandstand on the MP when there is no consensus to ignore the guideline here when it seems to say otherwise with a near exact example. —Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It's really not straightforward. Why would proper nouns somehow cease to be proper nouns just because they have a 'the' in front of them? That makes no sense, it's a definite article. Anyway, I think this is clearly a 'no consensus' situation so should be left alone, rather than wasting time arguing about it. Modest Genius ^talk 17:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the definite article. "Former Prime Minister" is not a title. Straightforward. If ITN wants to ignore guidelines then so be it, but this is clearly covered (as Bagumba already pointed out). Primergrey (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No-one has suggested capitalising 'former', that's a straw man. Modest Genius ^talk 17:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I capped it because it started a sentence. Primergrey (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• Typo in the first hook - should be carrying cases not carying. ITBF (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Agree - needs fixing Bahudhara (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

   Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• FYI I have swapped out the picture hook in today's set, as the linked article Universal Time had no mention of the 1879 event mentioned at all. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD

I have just swapped the hooks for this date. I invite editors to check my work and comment below if anything needs to be fixed or swapped.

OTD is very backlogged and needs additional editors to help swap hooks. Any editor can do this task. If you have any questions, feel free to post on WT:OTD. Thanks to everyone who helps. Z1720 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

For the train crash item, I suggest the shorter and clearer:

• Two commuter trains collided head-on at Bad Aibling, Germany, killing 12 passengers and injuring 85 more.

Modest Genius ^talk 19:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Partially done. The direct and brief language seems like an uncontroversial improvement. I was less sure about removing the mention of the train company or the suggestion that all the dead were passengers. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(February 9, today)

Monday's FL

(February 12)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

General discussion

Order of Brothelyngham

This is the only article proposed so far (it's at WP:TFAP) for April Fool's Day. From its Featured Article nomination page: "A bunch of men pretending to be actors? Check. A bunch of men actually indulging in "games, madness [and] obscene debauchery"? Check. Men beaten, goods stolen, a town terrorised? Check. A hapless bishop writing letters but achieving little else? Check. Welcome to 14th-century England". It's been less than a year since it was promoted to WP:FA, and it seems fine to me. Any objections? Other ideas? @Serial Number 54129. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sheila1988. - Dank (push to talk) 02:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)