| Revision as of 15:32, 28 June 2008 editMackensen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators125,165 edits →Errors in In the news: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:40, 28 June 2008 edit undoSpencer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators66,577 edits →Errors in In the news: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| <!--To suggest a new news story, see ] and ]. Please don't suggest it here. --> | <!--To suggest a new news story, see ] and ]. Please don't suggest it here. --> | ||
| It seems misleading to state, in re ''DC v. Heller'', that there are "consequences for existing gun laws." The only law affected is the ]'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. ] ] 15:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | It seems misleading to state, in re ''DC v. Heller'', that there are "consequences for existing gun laws." The only law affected is the ]'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. ] ] 15:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :It seems to be fixed, as the wording now says ..."with '''possible''' consequences..." <strong>]</strong><sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 15:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-------------- Do not edit below this line -------------------------------------------------------------------------> | <!-------------- Do not edit below this line -------------------------------------------------------------------------> | ||
| <!--Please do not reset the clock on WP:ERRORS here.--> | <!--Please do not reset the clock on WP:ERRORS here.--> | ||
Revision as of 15:40, 28 June 2008
Error reportsPlease post error reports regarding only what is currently on the Main Page or on Main Page/Tomorrow here.For general main page discussions, go to Talk:Main Page.
Main Page error reports
Shortcut Main Page toolbox- Protected pages
- Commons media protection
- Associated
- It is currently 21:13 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 21:13 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The second version is a much easier read, even if no more correct almost-instinct 11:04, 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)
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.
Category: