Revision as of 16:11, 28 June 2008

Main Page error reports

• WP:ERRORS

• Main Page queue

In the news

candidates

discussion

admin instructions

Did you know

nominations

discussion

queue

BotErrors

Protected pages

Commons media protection

Associated

• Error reports
• General discussion
• FAQ
• Help
• CSS
• Sandbox
  • CSS
• History
• Alternatives
• April Fools'

• It is currently 20:52 UTC.
• Purge the Main Page
• Purge this page

To report an error you have noticed on the current Main Page or tomorrow's Main Page please add it to the appropriate section below. Errors can be fixed faster when a correction is offered, so please be specific. You can do this by pressing the button to the right of the appropriate section's heading. Also, please sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ )

Note that the current date and time are in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which may not coincide with your local time zone. The next day's featured article of the day, picture of the day, and anniversaries update at midnight (00:00) according to UTC. The current time is 20:52 on January 10, 2025 (UTC). (Update)

Once an error has been fixed, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history to verify that the error has been rectified and for any other comments the administrator may have made. Lengthy discussions should not take place here, and should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.

References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error, and a suggested rewording is helpful with a stylistic complaint. The main page usually defers to supporting pages when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first.

Errors in the summary of Today's featured article on the Main Page

'The expedition failed entirely to accomplish this aim' makes it sound like they were close but lost out on a technicality. 'The expedition utterly failed to accomplish this aim' would be a better description of what happened Modest Genius 10:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that it does: the adverb entirely in this sentence qualifies the verb failed, not accomplish. If a change is to be made, it would only be because some readers are not used to this construction, not because the phrasing is inaccurate. Kevin McE (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The second version is a much easier read, even if no more correct almost-instinct 11:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there's a technicality of grammar, but to me 'failed entirely to accomplish' means 'failed to accomplish in its entirety', and I'm sure it does to others too. In fact I can't think of a sentence in that form that would make sense and avoid ambiguity, at least for an adverb which could modify either: went quickly to play? persuaded carefully to follow? Modest Genius 11:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To me 'entirely' could only be qualifying 'failed' and not 'accomplish' in that sentence, but if there are dialects of English (including presumably the one Modest speaks) in which it could mean either then I don't see any harm in swapping the order to 'entirely failed'. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

At first sight, I take the "entirely" to qualify "failed", but it could qualify "accomplish" - without a longer specimen of text it is impossible to say which usage is intended, and so the current wording is, in my opinion, ambiguous and should be amended. DuncanHill (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"an 800 miles (1,300 km) open boat journey in the James Caird, and the first crossing of South Georgia" is incorrect. Because the length of the trip is being used as an adjective here, it should be singular: "an 800 mile open boat journey". It's correct in the article text, but incorrect on the main page. Cheers! Esrever 15:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Errors in In the news

It seems misleading to state, in re DC v. Heller, that there are "consequences for existing gun laws." The only law affected is the District of Columbia's, because under the US constitution DC is under federal law. The decision did not address the crucial question of incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, which would determine whether the Second Amendment applies to states. Now, in the wake of the ruling there are already two suits in federal court (one is McDonald v. Chicago, I don't recall the other) to establish exactly that, but it's unclear what effect, if any, Heller itself has outside of Federal jurisdiction. It would be better to express, somehow, that doubts have been raised about the constitutionality of existing gun laws. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be fixed, as the wording now says ..."with possible consequences..." Spencer 15:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I made it: "In District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court rules that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to bear arms, with possible consequences for existing gun control laws." Hopefully the "possible" makes it more correct. Cheers. --LV 15:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks. Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:In the news/Next update/Time

Errors in Selected anniversaries/On this day

Errors in Picture of the Day/Today's featured picture

Errors in Did you know?

2025-01-10T12:00:00Z

Follow-up and old items

This holding area is for items that require follow-up (for example, a general point that needs to be raised elsewhere), or for items that haven't been dealt with but where the topic under discussion is no longer on the Main Page. The items listed here should eventually be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article
• Template talk:In the news
• Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know
• Misplaced Pages talk:Selected anniversaries
• Misplaced Pages talk:Picture of the day

Any other problems

Please report other problems on Talk:Main Page.

• Main Page