Contents

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Please post error reports regarding only what is currentlyorimminently on the Main Page. For general discussion about the Main Page, please use its talk page.

Most issues relating to national variations of the English language have already been discussed here at length: Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety of English. Although Wikipedia strives for writing common to all varieties of English, some spelling, grammar or terminology it uses may be different or otherwise absent in yours. See the relevant style guide and a comparison of American and British English.

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 10:11 on 23 July 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 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.

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mangaf is not a suburb of Kuwait City. It is located in the Ahmadi governorate. Ruled Paper (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does being located in a different governorate prevent it from being a suburb, Ruled Paper?Schwede66 23:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I've reworded the hook so that it's no longer an issue. Schwede66 23:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66:, how can it be south of Kuwait City, when it's a suburb of Kuwait City? Stephen 23:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong (in fact and suggestion), but it feels like Chilima's been pictured for a week and neither French Open winner at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Drake discovered an ancient Chinese city?

@Generalissima, AryKun, AirshipJungleman29, and Ganesha811: Standard practice at DYK is that hooks that perform this kind of mislead are best reserved for (and, in fact, valuable hooks for) April Fools' Day. Since it's early in the run, I suggest we pull this and save it, as it's not really fit for a non-prank set. Lots of people are going to read the hook, think one thing, and then click away (or think we're lying for no good reason). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be heavily opposed to pulling it. We can have the occasional bit of humor outside of April Fools. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

humor's fine, but we should generally make it a point to not deliberately mislead our readers outside of things like April Fools' Day. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has much of a chance to actually mislead though; would anyone serious believe it applies to Drake (musician) rather than someone else with the fairly common surname? I mean, there's another example just on the front page today. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

truly a rare thing in a given conversation when I'm the person with less faith in our readership... anyways, yes, I think someone could reasonably believe that, as it is theoretically possible. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Frederick Seguier's name wasn't genuinely Drake, I'd be more hesitant, but I don't see the issue. It's not a stretch or a distortion of anything. In this case, I saw no issue. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a double take at this one enough to check the talk page. Actually, I expected it to be Francis Drake, but this isn't even the same person! It appears deliberately misleading, like saying "That M.J. opened an ice cream shop?" when the initials really referred to someone named Max Jacobs. There are better things to come up with than pure clickbait, it was not the right call. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you're not suggesting impure clickbait would have been better? Levivich (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of Drake the musician. Secretlondon (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be the dumb user to step forward and say it misled me. I apologize for believing these facts were generally written in good faith and that a bolded Drake would refer to the famous person who goes by the mononym Drake or at least an important enough Drake to be directly linked to from Drake. TunaFishCrepes (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please reconsider. It doesn't come off as humor. it comes off as misleading. TunaFishCrepes (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to reply to every single comment, people will understand your position the first time. Remsense诉 22:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no error, dude called Drake discovered ancient Chinese city. Make it boring if you want but there isn't an error. AryKun (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If making it clear makes it boring, doesn't that just support it's currently written to mislead people? TunaFishCrepes (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that there's no primary topic for Drake. In the context of exploration, I first thought of Sir Francis Drake.

As the ancient city presumably had inhabitants and visitors back in its day, I reckon it would be better to say "re-discovered" rather than suggesting that Drake was the first person to find this city.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too thought the hook was hinting at Sir Francis Drake. There is a musician named Drake? After Sir Francis, the next one I would tend to think of is Drake Maijstral. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that Francis Drake is also mentioned in the "On This Day", which makes it even easier to assume that it was specifically picked to coincide with it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of disambiguation often arises at ITN where there's a stubborn resistance to the idea of making the subject clear. For example, see the recent death of Simon Cowell. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the clicks count more, apparently. Secretlondon (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm, it is not true that the DYK item was placed to coincide with the OTD item. It actually happened the other way around. AirshipJungleman29 placed "Drake" into the DYK queue with this edit. And PFHLai rearranged the OTD set a whole week later with this edit. I suggest that you should not make baseless allegations. Schwede66 09:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to accuse anyone of purposely placing the two together, just noting how the vagueness contributes to even more confusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't consider this lying or misleading. The guy's name was Drake. What more can you want? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's true that Drake discovered an ancient Chinese city. That there is a famous person alive today named Drake doesn't make that misleading. It makes it hook-y but not misleading. Most readers probably won't know the rapper anyway. Levivich (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hooky and misleading. If it wasn't implying that Aubrey Graham made an archeological discovery, why only the last name? Primergrey (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely deliberately misleading; why else would the subject's full name have been omitted? The musician is certainly quite famous in comparison to the article subject and has been in the news a fair bit recently in the United States, which is presumably what the hook author(s) are trying to take advantage of. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you're so convinced it's not misleading, can't we just change it to Frederick Drake just to be safe.

People almost seem to be getting defensive because they want it to be misleading. TunaFishCrepes (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can want a wording that isn't intentionally done to make people think it's Drake. Just say Frederick Drake. TunaFishCrepes (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could adopt a more lenient convention. Maybe the 1st of every month could be somewhere where we gladly accept humorous hooks? Remsense诉 16:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnson524, BeanieFan11, and Ganesha811:inTwo Roosters Ice Cream, Tripadvisor, PNC Arena, and Discover Durham are not reliable sources (Poole College of Management is also questionable). More controversially, this could be considered a WP:NCORP fail, depending on how narrowly you construe the regionality requirement in WP:AUD. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed one of the Tripadvisor claims where that reference was the only source. Schwede66 01:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider the WP:NCORP issue, but decided that the case was marginal - I wouldn't be a clear vote for deletion, so fine to let the DYK go ahead. Good point on the Tripadvisor source, though. Would we say Discover Durham is unreliable? It's boosterish, of course, but not necessarily inaccurate. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, it'd be WP:USERGENERATED, I'd reckon. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at how it's used in the article, I'd also say it's more WP:NOR. I agree it's an issue and will remove the sentence from the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that making the manganese nitrideMn₂N requires a sponge?

@Bernanke's Crossbow and SL93: I'm iffy about this citing a primary-source paper from 1894; particularly because the next paragraph of the article seems to contradict the "requires" by providing an alternate means of synthesis. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the alternate synthesis is for a different type of manganese nitrate, not Mn2N. I added Mn2N to the hook to account for this. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron, Ganesha811 I think this concern is pretty valid. 1896 is ancient by chemistry standards, or by any natural science standard for that matter.

Also, I made some research and it appears that the claim is false.

This PhD thesis says『Manganese powder was nitrided in flowing ammonia gas and the specimen heated with manganese metal at 600 °C for one week to obtain Mn2N.3 The Mn2N crystals grown were hexagonal platelet or pyramidal.』No mention of sponges either there or in the cited paper. I found another paper where two synthesis paths are mentioned, none with sponges. In fact, it says manganese powder is good enough.

This paper describes a non-stoichiometric Mn2N0.86 which was synthetized without a sponge.

Maybe in 1896 they knew only about the sponges method, but I guess those scientists would beg to differ if told it's impossible to synthetise without sponges. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we fix the issue just by adding 'in 1896' to the hook? —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1962 Lihl paper seems to think the sponge is necessary too. However, it's not clear to me how much of their discussion just regurgitates the 1894 experimental work, which is why I cited both.

Adding "1894" would fix the problem and make for a cleaner phrasing than currently: "...that making a manganese nitride in 1894 required a sponge?" Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another, small, change to the same item: Delete the "the", as there is no previous reference as to what manganese nitride it references. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hmm? the "the" refers to Mn2N, as I understand it... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "the" is fine here, it is effectively saying "the manganese nitride with the formula Mn2N" (as opposed to the other manganese nitrides). Black Kite (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Prep_6. The points I made were actioned. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had nothing to do with this hook. SL93 (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: are you not the promoter? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron I was, but not of that hook. The new hook was workshopped on the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, gotcha, so you had nothing to do with this hook in particular. fair enough :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... how salamanders cross the road (pictured)?

This hook has an unconventional structure which doesn't state a plain fact. The hook is not one of those proposed in the nomination so it's not clear where it came from. One reader thinks it's wonderful though.

(later)

A detailed search turns up an extensive discussion of the salamander hook buried in Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#"First"_hooks. There ought to be a central place where the history of an article is discussed and tracked. Like its talk page...

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYKMOS says The text of most hooks begin with "that". We don't often stray from the "that" form, but it's allowed. RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Zombie Plane cannot take flight from Chuck Norris?

I looked at this hook more closely just now and had trouble parsing it. Just what was it trying to say? Looking at the nomination, someone suggests that it means that "the movie cannot flee/escape from Chuck Norris?" but I still don't really get it or how it constitutes a definite fact. Perhaps it's just a convoluted way of saying that Chuck Norris is in the movie? Or maybe it has some extra significance in Australian English, which the article uses?

As the movie is in a pre-release state and is scheduled for release this year, I'm not convinced that we ought to be helping to promote it. Shouldn't we wait until there are some independent sources such as reviews?

Note also that Chuck Norris is 84 and so is even older than Joe Biden. I wish them both well but we can't be sure that they are going to be around for much longer and so there's a dangerous element of WP:CRYSTAL in such hooks.

Andrew🐉(talk) 14:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what this hook is supposed to mean. Suggest pulling. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Perhaps it's just a convoluted way of saying that Chuck Norris is in the movie? My rationale exactly, just thought I'd utilize Chuck Norris facts format so I could present the fact differently. Further, WP:CRYSTAL is moot, considering the movie wrapped filming last year (Norris' scenes included) and is currently being shopped around in hopes of getting a distributor for a wide release, hence the American Film Market screening; see WP:NFF. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris facts don't have a set format. If this is a joke, how so? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not supposed to be a joke, it just takes the format of such a joke. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I can't see any way to make this hook work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is too cryptic. RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also found it hard to parse, but having looked over the discussion, it seemed that those involved understood the meaning, so I assumed the issue was on my end, and not a problem with the hook. Mea culpa. I have pulled it until it can be modified/clarified. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: Bummer. I provided ALT1, tho. Any chance on that? If none, I could add the fact that the movie serves as a debut horror film for Norris and Vanilla Ice (Source: [1]). Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: Reviewer here, I think you can do that but have to incorporate it into the article first. I am willing to the another quick review. Alternatively, and this is my ad hoc solution, you could write something like ... that Zombie Plane "mercilessly mocks its main stars"?. At the end of the day, Ganesha811 or another admin decides to reinstate or not. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 16:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lol1VNIO: Yep, I know, but I had to ask the admin first on its feasibility before I do so. Wasn't expecting company, btw. :) Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you are agreeable on a new hook that's in the article and comprehensible (i.e. meets all the usual requirements) I'd be happy to reinstate it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: Think I'm fine with lol1VNIO's suggestion. How about it? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't love that it's mostly a quote from somewhere else, but other than that it works fine. Reinstating. Thanks for quick responses, everyone. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unintelligible as a statement of fact, and an unfunny attempt to write a Chuck Norris joke, even by DYK-funny standards. Fram (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I provided ALT1 Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The movie seems to be trying to revive the Snakes on a Plane idea of taking an amusing pitch and turning it into reality. But Snakes on a Plane was reshot and edited to make it better and this movie likewise seems to be struggling to break out and so might also need further work. Perhaps Chuck Norris doesn't make it into the final release. We can't really tell until it happens... Andrew🐉(talk) 16:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is a WP:DYKFICTION-failing hook, but I didn't really have much appetite to bring that up myself. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(July 26)

(July 29)

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