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 05:12 on 24 June 2025) 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.
• Actual errors only. Failures of subjective criteria such as interestingness are not errors.
• 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"

Should probably not say "airstrikes" when referring to United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites since aircraft only struck two of the sites and the other was struck by missiles (not normally considered an airstrike). UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Could you provide some alternatives?

• "missile and airstrikes" - wordy but accurate
• "missile and bombstrikes" - wordy but accurate
• "The United States attacks three nuclear facilities in Iran" - less wordy, more vague, but accurate

Others? - Fuzheado | Talk 22:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I've changed it to just say strikes since that's what the article title is, and it covers both the aorstrikes and other strikes.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added "military strikes" for cross-linguistic clarity, especially useful for machine or human translation. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• The phrase "carries out military strikes" contains a lot of words but conveys very little notable details. It basically sanitizes what is happening verging on bias. I suggest changing to simply "bombs" which at least conveys the mode of attack and is much more economical with words. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• I've restored the previous discussion and pinged everyone via edit summary but overlooked Amakuru. Schwede66 03:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the thoughtful discussion all around. I agree that “airstrikes” is too narrow and potentially misleading given the inclusion of missile attacks. “Strikes” or “military strikes” are accurate and broad, but I also see the concern about vagueness or euphemism. “Bombs” is certainly more direct, though it may oversimplify the variety of delivery methods involved. Perhaps “bombs and missiles” or “missile and air attacks” could work as middle-ground alternatives—more specific than “strikes,” less sanitized than “military action.” Happy to go with consensus, Malikfaisalijaz78 (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The ITN blurb is not supposed to give a full blow-by-blow description of the listed event, it's just a one-line headline indicating what's happened. Given that the article itself is titled "United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites" I fail to see how the current blurb is not specific enough personally. I don't think this is an error. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I also don't see an error. What's being discussed here is the finetuning of a blurb. As no error is involved, this discussion should be had at WP:ITN/C. Schwede66 23:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• "... that a judge on DVD Verdict found Death Race 2 guilty of "running on empty"?

• Not an error, but given that our article says "Death Race 2 received generally positive reviews from critics", should we be concentrating on a negative one? The original hook ("... that the 2008 action film Death Race is followed by a prequel entitled Death Race 2?") is more interesting but could we do more with it ("...that the 2010 film Death Race 2 is actualyl a prequel to the 2008 film Death Race, which itself was a prequel to 1975's Death Race 2000"?). Black Kite (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the article's "Reception" section, the most questionable aspect may be the claim that the reviews were "generally positive". Gatoclass (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this. A movie with 17% on Rottentomatoes did not "receive generally positive reviews from critics." Some of the reviews that are quoted to help support this are cherry-picked details from overall clearly-negative reviews. I don't think Death Race 2 should be featured on the Main Page at all until this is resolved, and am going to add a maintenance tag. -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Two other issues with this hook:

1. It says that the reviewer was a "judge." The site did in fact call its reviewers "judges," but our article simply calls the site "legal-themed" and it's pretty clear this was just a gimmick and they're not real judges (see e.g. their "list of judges"). If this was just meant as an informal way to say "reviewer," it was a confusing choice given the context.
2. DVD Verdict really should not be linked from the main page. It's questionable whether it should exist at all. It has survived two previous deletion attempts, most recently in 2015, but I'm not sure it would under today's standards. The entire notability claim is based on a trivial mention in a column in a Winnipeg arts magazine, a broken instance of "being quoted in" CBS MarketWatch, and some alleged coverage in the Further Reading book (that is primarily about MySpace), which isn't actually used in the article.

I can't find the nomination at Talk:Death Race 2, so I'm not sure if there was a suitable alt, but if there is I'd recommend using it given all these issues with this one. (EDIT: per the objection above about the "reception" section giving a highly misleading overview, I don't think Death Race 2 should be featured at all.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The nom is at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Death_Race_2_(2nd_nomination). Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an error here. There's not really such a thing as "real judges", and "judge" is an accurate description of what the site calls its reviewers. We don't have quality requirements for linked articles that aren't the bold link, but if consensus develops here to remove the link, I'm neutral on that point. Looks like the nom addressed the critical consensus issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Elmer Clark: There are only six reviews for the film sampled on Rotten Tomatoes, whereas I was able to gather a total of 16 reviews both via Google search and The Wikipedia Library. Therefore, a measly sample of six review does not represent the critical consensus for this movie. In fact, per WP:ROTTEN, Review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus; sections about critical reception should also benefit from other reliable sources, such as books and periodicals reporting in retrospect how a film was received by critics. ... if Rotten Tomatoes has a sample of 10 reviews for an independent film, the sample is not large enough for the score to be statistically accurate.. For what it's worth, the ratio between positive and negative reviews is 10:6. Does that translate to a "generally positive"? Probably. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for responding. I just posted in more detail about this at Talk:Death_Race_2#"Generally_positive"_reviews?. IMO this needs attention before this hits the main page, but others may feel differently. -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm done. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• The Animals in War needs a wikilink to the Animals in War Memorial, as the lack of a link is jarring to readers. They will think there is no article, when there is actually a nice one. Abductive (reasoning) 05:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 27)

Monday's FL

(June 30)

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.