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 21:05 on 4 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. (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 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 with "In the news"

The image says missileS being intercepted. There is one intercepted there, many hit and theres both video and satellite imagery to prove that. Highly deceptive to suggest as it does if it doesn't mention what landed.Sportsnut24 (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The image does not depict missiles impacting Israel, which is why the caption doesn't mention that. The caption accurately describes the image, it isn't meant to describe the entire attack. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that the Italian Campaign of 1796–1797 (battle pictured) demonstrated that Napoleon was a "great strategist"?: I was previously involved with this hook at DYK; the nominator requested a second opinion part-way through my review. There are a couple of problems here:

• One, this is a judgement of opinion dressed up as one of fact: we can't WP:VERIFY that someone was a great anything, only that they have been considered/described as etc that thing. Underneath, we have an example of how to handle this kind of statement: ... that Muhammad Khaznadar's museum was said to have "surpassed every other museum in the world" in Phoenician and Carthaginian antiquities?
• Two, it seems to break MOS:QUOTEPOV: the quote marks read as scare quotes.
• Three, the sourcing seems dubious: the website from which it originates (specifically, this page) is not exactly a scholarly source, and is essentially WP:SELFPUB: the page itself is a children's history site, and though the Fondation Napoléon has scholars on its board, I can see no evidence of any sort of editorial or academic peer review on the site itself. More seriously, the Fondation is fundamentally an advocacy group promoting Napoleon and his legacy, which is a problem when using it to "verify" a clearly promotional hook.

@RoySmith: courtesy ping to as the DYK reviewer. Also pinging @AirshipJungleman29 and Sir MemeGod: as promoter and nominator. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to know how to calibrate my RS meter sometimes. Not long ago, I got beat up for suggesting that https://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/local/communities/marco-eagle/2016/08/03/strange-but-true-andrew-jackson-and-cursing-parrot/87926936/ was not a RS. If somebody wants to change this to a "said to be" wording, I have no objection. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Why was the ping directed at AirshipJungleman disguised as a ping to me? ({{yo|AirshipJungleman29|Sir MemeGod}} is in the source editor for some reason). Either way, I think "said to be" would be just fine, I have no objections. SirMemeGod  16:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• ... that Lisa Blatt, the first woman to argue 50 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, "elicits laughs and the occasional sharp response from the justices"?: another one from me on the same day -- the most obvious reading of this statement, as phrased, is that Blatt is viewed negatively: laughed at and occasionally censured. The rest of the quote puts it in quite a different light: who seem to enjoy Blatt's presentations as much as they respect her legal acumen. Given that the article is a BLP and the hook could have reputational (and so professional) consequences for a very real human being, I would advise pulling or a reworking under WP:BLPKIND. @SilverLocust, AirshipJungleman29, and DimensionalFusion: courtesy pings as nominator, reviewer and promoter. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  When I promoted it, it sounded like Blatt is enjoyed by SCOTUS. I'll be honest, I can't really see the negativity here; to me it makes her sound witty and respected DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  The hook that I suggested originally could make it clearer that it isn't meant negatively:

  ... that Lisa Blatt is the first woman to argue 50 cases in the US Supreme Court—over 80% of them wins—and that she "elicits laughs and the occasional sharp response from the justices"?

  But I defer to others' discretion about hook phrasing. SilverLocust 💬 09:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  I concurred with DimensionalFusion that that was too long, and I don't think it really solves UC's point above, but I also can't think of a phrasing that does. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  In that it would be strange to infer that the justices view her negatively if they side with her so often. SilverLocust 💬 10:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  For someone who has argued 50 cases before the Supreme Court, this blurb makes her sound childish and trivial rather than the accomplished attorney she must be. This isn't some county court where a local attorney tries to get a laugh from the judge, this is where life-changing court decisions happen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  If you listen to her oral arguments—and I've listened to a lot of them; I've been a Lisa Blatt fan "since before it was cool"—she really does build a lot of her style around humor. As I noted in an article I wrote a while ago, scripted jokes are strongly discouraged at SCOTUS, and yet Blatt manages to land laugh lines like "I'm pretty sure Chipotle would be okay [as a gratuity for a government service], Inn at Little Washington wouldn't, but ask [the government] about The Cheesecake Factory" (Snyder v. United States), never mind her ability to call out justices in such blunt terms that the audience bursts into laughter. Given the extent to which she's cultivated this reputation, I'd be surprised if she minds being known for getting laughs. That said, I agree that mentioning her win rate would make it clearer. This can be done without adding as many characters as in the original hook:

  ... that Lisa Blatt, who has won over 80% of her 50 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, "elicits laughs and the occasional sharp response from the justices"?

  This drops "first woman", but in this context that's actually the less impressive claim, if anything underselling the fact that she is one of the greatest litigators in SCOTUS history. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think we need to contextualise "elicits laughs and the occasional sharp response" -- perhaps to add "for her witty delivery" or something similar. There's an important missing piece that the laughs are intentional. Also concur with Liz that this is a fairly poor epitaph on an expert legal professional. How about something that makes clearer that she regularly builds humo(u)r into her legal arguments? Alternatively, a few possibles:

  • ...that Lisa Blatt, the first woman to argue 50 cases in the US Supreme Court, has been called "equal parts Sun Tzu and Vince Lombardi"?
  • ...that Lisa Blatt was the first person in the history of the US Supreme Court to make an oral argument from her home?

  UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Done I’ve added "for her witty delivery". Schwede66 20:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Tomorrow's OTD

• 1143 – The Treaty of Zamora - article is a bit short on cites and is a stub? JennyOz (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• I swapped out this hook because it was used last year. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(October 4, today)

Monday's FL

(October 7)

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.

Tomorrow's POTD

• "... advertisement call, which is usually carried out at night". The "carried out" sounds a bit off here; I suggest "delivered" or "emitted" instead. JMCHutchinson (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

   Fixed – Schwede66 21:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)