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 22:17 on 30 June 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"

T20 World Cup

−

In cricket, India win the

+

In cricket, India wins the

174.92.25.207 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

The hook on Brighton Aquarium seems to be contradicted by the article: we have that when Brighton Aquarium (entrance pictured) opened, it had no exhibits? on the main page, but the aquarium was opened by Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn on Easter Monday (1 April) that year—although the building was then in a "very unfinished condition", hosting only one tank of fish. in the article. One tank is not a lot, but it is an exhibit.

The cited source says The whole project was completed in 1872 at a cost of £130,000, and the Aquarium was inaugurated by Prince Arthur at Easter although there were no exhibits at the time. It was formally opened to the public on 10 August 1872 by the mayor, Cordy Burrows., which doesn't explicitly say that it still had no exhibits when formally opened (only that it was inaugurated before it had any exhibits, four months or so before its opening). The cited Nature article confirms that it had "but one tank of fish" on opening.

Courtesy pings: @Lightburst, Hassocks5489, Fork me, and Zanahary: UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Thanks, do you have a suggestion or are you calling for the hook to be pulled? Do we want to modify the hook to say there was one fish tank at the opening? Can "inaugurated before it had any exhibits" mean that the tank of fish was there but it was not an actual exhibit. Lightburst (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This may have been unclear wording on my part. For clarity, it is unambiguously stated in the sources that it was opened (i.e. to the public) at Easter 1872, and that the formal ceremony took place 4 months later. I think I put "inaugurated" to avoid overuse of the word "opening" and to avoid close paraphrasing. I will tweak the article. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

How about when Brighton Aquarium (entrance pictured) opened, it had only a single tank of fish?

I'm not sure that swapping "opened" for "was inaugurated" would solve the problem: it seems a bit cheap if we're hiding from the reader that the building wasn't actually open at the time, so it wasn't particularly remarkable to have nothing to see there. I'm not seeing in the sources that people were definitely allowed in at Easter: if that's the case, could the article reflect that and User:Hassocks5489 provide a source quote to back it? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, on looking at the article (sorry, just got through the door and am checking for the first time), I can see that the article has been changed and a new source (Nature) added. I don't have access to this, so I would need somebody to tell me exactly what it says. All my sources state that although the main tank was in situ at Easter 1872, it had nothing in it. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You can get the Nature article here on TWL: it has Although the Brighton Aquarium has been formally opened· to the public, it is still in a very unfinished condition, owing to a disagreement between the proprietors and the contractor, and the severe illness of the engineer. At the time of its inauguration by Prince Arthur, on Easter Monday, but one tank was supplied with fish. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, it seems to be a situation where two reliable sources disagree. As an alternative can we go for this, which is backed up by Clifford Musgrave's Life in Brighton pp293–294: Did you know that at the opening ceremony of Brighton Aquarium (pictured), naturalist Frank Buckland "produced, apparently from his pocket, a couple of juvenile alligators"? This has been verified as an ALT hook at the DYK template. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

That would also work for me. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done (not that it's got too much more time on the main page) Schwede66 22:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Next DYK

• ... that the extant details about the life of Leontius of Autun can be summed up as "July 1: the burial of Leontius, bishop of Autun (Gaul), 5th century"?. This is not quite supported by the article. The quoted material is a passage from a martyrology (essentially, a calendar): we wouldn't expect such a source, brief by its nature, to say everything that is or was known about a person. Indeed, the succeeding sentence of the article contradicts the hook: The chronotaxis of the bishops of Autun show that he was the eighth bishop, serving after Evantius and before Euphronius.. Courtesy pings @Generalissima, SL93, and Evrik: UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

If this can't be resolved here, I suggest pulling because the nominator is currently banned. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

... that the extant details about the life of Leontius of Autun has been summarized as "July 1: the burial of Leontius, bishop of Autun (Gaul), 5th century"? SL93 (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Two problems: 1) "extant" means "as of now"; the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, which is the quoted source, is nearly two millennia old; 2) there's no good reason to believe that a summary in a martyrology would claim or expect to summarise all the details of someone's life: it's meant to be a brief statement of who is being honoured on that day, not a full-on biography or hagiography. I've had a look at the article, but I'm not really seeing a good alternative: at the moment, suggest pulling unless one appears. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Another problem is that at least two of the sources look unreliable, see Talk:Leontius of Autun#Unreliable sources. TSventon (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

In the second hook, why not put the appropriate quotes around "Lunch"? It would have the added benefit of making the hook funny. Primergrey (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@PSA, Launchballer, Sohom Datta, and Ganesha811: thoughts on this hook suggestion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection if the nominator approves. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Same here :) Sohom (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me.--Launchballer 03:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• 1985 – Ryan White, a poster child for HIV/AIDS in the U.S., was denied re-admission to his school, having developed the disease due to treatment for hemophilia.
  This seem doubly badly worded to me. I have no idea what "poster child for HIV/AIDS in the U.S." means and "due to" sounds like the wrong word choice as well. "Through"? Srnec (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Ryan White, a famous HIV/AIDS patient in the U.S., was denied re-admission to his school as he had contracted the disease from hemophilia treatments"? Does that work? Bremps... 05:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd replaced "as he had" with "after he", but yes, it works. Srnec (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

   Done – Schwede66 05:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Famous is POV, removed that. Stephen 11:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTD

• 1862 entry: it should be "ultimately unsuccessful", not "ultimate unsuccessful". JMCHutchinson (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 5)

Monday's FL

(July 1, tomorrow)

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.