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 11:07 on 16 May 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, 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)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Jonny Pelham

... that the comedian Jonny Pelham is one of only 200 people in the UK to suffer from popliteal pterygium syndrome?

This is contrary to the general guidance of WP:DYKBLP that "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided." The condition is a disfiguring mutation and so quite negative.

The fact is also biomedical information per WP:BMI – "Number of people who have a condition" – but does not have a source satisfying WP:MEDRS. The condition is part of a spectrum of genetic mutations which cause a range of disfiguring disorders and so classification would not be so exact. The number 200 is suspiciously round and I suppose that it's a guesstimate from the common statistic for incidence in the literature of 1 per 300,000 which will likewise be a rough approximation. Presenting this as if these 200 people are known individuals is quite misleading.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Nice way to insult and stigmatise people with this condition. Having a condition or disease is not a "negative aspect" of a person. Fram (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Not a hook I would have chosen, but that certainly isn't because I think it's a negative aspect of a living person. There was an ALT0 at Template:Did you know nominations/Jonny Pelham, and I would have chosen that, but can see why it wasn't chosen. Pinging AirshipJungleman29, in case there are non-obvious factors. CMD (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I don't think I spent too much brainpower choosing a hook—both looked fine, so I picked one and promoted it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Seconding the observation that having a physiological condition is not in itself a "negative aspect". Claims that conditions necessarily are negative aspects come across as rather ableist, and I would object to changing the hook on such grounds. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Nighat Arif

... that BBC Breakfast's resident doctor Nighat Arif has advocated for more women to be given vibrators for medical reasons?

This is contrary to the general guidance of WP:DYKBLP that "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided." That's because this is sensational and salacious and so might be considered scandalous in the conservative Punjabi community from which she comes. For comparison, a more respectable fact is that she is one of the deputy lieutenants of Buckinghamshire.

As the hook is also advocating for a fringe medical treatment, there are also WP:MEDRS issues. The source is just an opinion piece in a newspaper which was written by the subject and so is nowhere near MEDRS standards.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Er, what? Nearly everything may be considered "scandalous" somewhere, by that reasoning we may e.g. not post hooks about a Muslim woman doing, well, anything really, as some groups find that scandalous. Well, these groups probably find it just as scandalous for non-Muslim women to do activities outside the house, so let's ban all hooks about women perhaps? Or alternatively, don't raise such silly objections. Fram (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

a Muslim woman doing, well, anything really, as some groups find that scandalous. Well, these groups probably find it just as scandalous for non-Muslim women to do activities outside the house, so let's ban all hooks about women perhaps—I can't help but think there's a less orientalist (in the Edward Said sense) way to disagree with the criticism of the hook than reinforcing stereotypes of Muslim communities as distinctively misogynist contra other parts of the world (i. e. implicitly the global north, since we're on English-language Wikipedia which overrepresents the global north).

To the OP I would say that this concern that Arif's activities might be considered scandalous in her community seems paternalistic. Arif herself hails from her own community; who are you or I to say that what she's proposing is scandalous and inappropriate for a Punjabi woman? Characterizing the view as scandalous implies, whether inadvertently or not, distrusting her judgment and agency. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of the Taliban cs, which is as far as I know about the most women-unfriendly regime in the world. I refered to Muslims because Arif is a Muslim. But perhaps should have said Taliban immediately, instead of using more vague words. Fram (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Would we expect this item to be discounted because her opinion piece in inews fails WP:MEDRS? If it's a fringe treatment, then would MEDRS be expected to cover it anyway? Perhaps it's the word "medical" that's the problem. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Tomorrow's OTD

• 17 May Top line item Sanja Matsuri is orange issue tagged (original research, added Feb 2024) - it is therefore ineligible per No 4 of WP:OTDRULES? JennyOz (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• 1954 In Brown v. Board of Education item, the link for landmark case would be better piped to List of landmark court decisions in the United States (on which Brown appears)? JennyOz (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(May 17, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(May 20)

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.

Today's POTD

"The site is a listed as a", the first "a" should be removed Elspooky (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Schwede66 08:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Any other Main Page errors

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