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 08:32 on 19 April 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)

Tomorrow's FA

We've got a disagreement over "The Nicoll Highway collapse occurred" vs. "The Nicoll Highway collapsed". Thoughts? PInging Dying and Ravenpuff. - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

For TFA purposes, I would favour the concision of the latter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with HJ. Z1720 (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The Nicoll Highway collapsed in Singapore on 20 April 2004... wouldn't work: it's only in Singapore, so where else would it collapse? Also, its name is duplicated a few words on, so some more adjustment is needed. I suggest: The Nicoll Highway in Singapore collapsed on 20 April 2004 when a Mass Rapid Transit tunnel construction site caved in, crumpling the highway near the Merdeka Bridge. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

For my part, I thought that it would be preferable to use the article title verbatim, since it's possible to do so here and it would provide maximum WP:LINKCLARITY. If we use the second (verb) form, we shouldn't include "The" at the start to conform with the grammar in the rest of the blurb. I don't have strong feelings about which form we use, but (pace Bazza 7) I wouldn't restrict the bolded link to a single word, as I don't think that would give enough emphasis to the featured article and would be bad link clarity. Also, I seem to remember from editing TFA in the past that not putting the bolded link first might break something somewhere. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Bazza, thanks for pointing out the redundancy of mentioning the highway's name twice in quick succession ... but there's a different fix available for that, we can just change the second Nicoll Highway to the highway (and I'll do that now). On the first point, we've been down this highway, so to speak. The first link has to be bolded and point to the featured article. For some highway TFAs, I've suggested things like "In Singapore, the Nicoll Highway collapsed ..." in the past to try to deal with the problem you're raising, and the vote was almost unanimously against me. I'll dig up the last discussion if you like, it was some Michigan interstate. I have no preference between "The Nicoll Highway collapsed" and "The Nicoll Highway in Singapore collapsed" (and I don't know the rule on whether to bold "The"). - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

On Ravenpuff's point about "Nicoll Highway" vs. "the Nicoll Highway": the article is thoroughly inconsistent. It's a mess. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

As the TFA nominator and the one who contributed most to the article, I prefer the original form (just The Nicoll Highway collapse occurred...) over the latter. I personally believe we can't just be concise for concise sake. And "Nicoll Highway" vs. "the Nicoll Highway", the former is more often used in local context, and there had been a debate in the FAC nomination about it, but eventually decided not to put "the" before Nicoll Highway. Admittedly, I might have missed some instances in the re-edits and so on, or kept some instances to refer to the collapse (i.e. The Nicoll Highway collapse and not just The Nicoll Highway).

But I'm rather open to Bazza's suggestion: "The Nicoll Highway in Singapore collapsed on 20 April 2004..." or Dank's most recent suggestion. Though it might be a bit odd to bold in Singapore" as well.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Another thought: I find the use of "crumpling" a bit odd for a reason. I understand its to prevent repetition but I'm wondering if there's a better wording for it.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Ravenpuff and ZKang on the original question. "The Nicoll Highway collapse occurred..." is best for bold linking and matches the article. On the second issue, also in agreement. "Crumpling" suggests a particular type of collapse that isn't supported by the article or source. The latter describes it as "substantial damage" so we could just say "damaging" or even "destroying" if either of those work.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I made a quick call on this so that we won't be voting on too many issues at once: I changed "crumpling" to "near". Feel free to revert if that doesn't work. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Since opinions are going both ways on every question, I'll need to see I'd welcome more votes here (otherwise any edits that I or anyone else makes will just be a guess). - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dank: Thanks for asking. I'm very happy with this revision. Bazza 7 (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Bazza is on board with "The Nicoll Highway collapse occurred in Singapore". I'm fine with that. (My copyeditor sympathies are with the 3 votes for "collapsed", but there are other factors that make it a 50-50 call for me. I originally went with "collapse", btw.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Possibly not a popular opinion on here ("WP:OWN!!"), but in cases where there are lots of different opinions with no clear consensus, I'd be inclined to just defer on style questions to the nominator. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Just speaking personally, I'm concerned about what's happening in 2024 on Wikipedia and in the world. I worry that copyediting and reviewing is harder than it used to be, and that there's a greater risk of alienating writers. I don't think I'd go as far as "the vote was two to two so you win", I'd just say: I've got a long mental list of things that have pissed off writers over the years, and I try my best to avoid doing those things. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I would go with the Nicoll Highway collapse occurred mainly because the collapse was not only of the highway itself, but as well of the construction site for the train station that's named "Nicoll Highway". Going with "Nicoll Highway collapse occurred" would present this as an event that occurred. By changing to The Nicoll Highway collapsed, it changes the presentation to that of a structure had collapsed, but which structure collapsed, the highway or the construction site? – robertsky (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dank: The current blurb looks fine now.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

i'm the one to blame for the "The Nicoll Highway collapsed" wording, so i apologize to everyone for causing the discussion above. i had initially suggested the phrasing because it felt like a more natural answer to the question "what happened?", while the original wording would be more appropriate for the question "what's the nicoll highway collapse?".

i had reasoned that readers of the article would presumably be aware of the article's title, so the original wording wasn't an issue there, but i thought main page readers might find the original wording awkward, as they will not have been similarly prompted. the opening sentence in a tfa blurb and that in the article lead sometimes differ due to concerns specific to tfa, so i didn't think having them vary on this specific point was going to be an issue. that all being said, as the fac nominator has a preference in this case, i think reverting to the original wording was a good idea. i hadn't realized at the time that the nominator had a preference.

for the record, Dank, if the issue is one of style, you can discount my opinion whenever you like if you think it will help avoid alienating writers and make determining consensus easier. i won't be offended. dying (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You had 3 people agreeing with you! Not a problem. Keep up the good work. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Just a head's-up that I'm staying out of this one. Productive discussions are ongoing at WT:Today's featured article/April 2024#1984 world snooker championship. - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Errors with "In the news"

• "24 people" should be changed to "at least 24 people". We do not yet know if there are more that have died. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

   Done  — Amakuru (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• A reader in the USA may very well read "flooding in the Gulf states" and think of the US states surrounding the Gulf of Mexico, which also go by this moniker. Perhaps it should specify "Arab" or "Persian Gulf"? Kehkou (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agree, and the target article is Arab states of the Persian Gulf. I have updated it to be "Persian Gulf" as "Gulf" on its own is too ambiguous. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(April 19, today)

Monday's FL

(April 22)

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.

Any other Main Page errors

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