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 21:59 on 26 January 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.
• 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.

... that in 1453, a "mystery eruption" cooled the Northern Hemisphere? 1453 states A major volcanic eruption of unknown source likely occurred somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere in late 1452 or early 1453 or some variant multiple times; it is not claimed to have definitively occurred in 1453 over late 1452, so the hook shouldn't imply as such. The wording is right on the edge of being misleading to me as it gives a year that the eruption isn't confirmed to have happened in (even if the cooling itself began that year). Adding "then or the previous year" at the end or begin with "starting 1453" would fix this. Departure– (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... that in 1453 or the previous year, a "mystery eruption" cooled the Northern Hemisphere?

... that in 1452 or 1453, a "mystery eruption" cooled the Northern Hemisphere?

... that in 1453, a "mystery eruption" began to cool the Northern Hemisphere? SL93 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping nominator Generalissima. SL93 (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last of these makes sense to me - I apologize for the poor wording with this hook. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's no biggie; Wikipedia's tendency to prefer for rigid certainty inevitably crashes against the ambiguity of premodern history. Editors unfortunately get caught in the middle. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think an easy fix would be to move "in 1453" to the end of the hook. That just implies that the cooling took place that year. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. SL93 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Schwede66 03:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note for the same quote, why isn't "mystery eruption" linked directly? There's a specific article for it ([[1]]), which is mentioned in the Year 1453 text. Why force readers to search for it? Kelseymh (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, DYK has a preference to wikilink very little other than the target article. As the target article is a list article for a year, though, the relevant incident is indeed hard to find. I shall thus link it. Schwede66 03:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we shouldn't be approving hooks that are "excessively sensational or gratuitous" (WP:DYKGRAT)... Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And she's pretty much only known for that. Secretlondon (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging nominator Launchballer for thoughts. SL93 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's excessively sensational to run that hook when it's ultimately why she's famous.--Launchballer 14:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I thought that it would only be excessively sensational if she was notable for other things. SL93 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been de-emphasized though. Making it the centrepiece of the hook does look a bit tawdry. Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest? SL93 (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like:

• ALT2: ... that Lily Phillips rejected criticism of a video of herself having sex with 101 men in a single day on feminist grounds? Gatoclass (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's much less hooky and not quite accurate.--Launchballer 16:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's inaccurate about it? She rejected feminists' criticism by saying that doing what she wants with her own body is a staple of feminism, so it seems accurate to me.

As for hookiness, well sure, bluntly stating that x had sex 101 times in a day is hooky, but the criticism was that it is also sensationalist, and we are supposed to try and avoid sensationalism in hooks. Changing the emphasis does make the hook less eye-catching but the sensational aspect is still there, just in attenuated form, so it would still get a ton of hits regardless. I might add that what makes the topic notable is not so much the act itself, as the fact that it attracted a lot of commentary and controversy, and that failing to communicate that in the hook in a sense does a disservice to the article.

Anyway, the ALT is there as a response to a complaint, I'm not insisting it be run, although I agree the original hook is too blunt and really should have gotten some more attention before being promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first entry in the OTD states that the Caliphate ended when Ali was assassinated. This is wrong. The Caliphate continued for centuries after that actually. Only the first Caliphate, aka Rashidun Caliphate, ended with his death. See Caliphate. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 02:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the first Caliphate, aka Rashidun Caliphate, ended with his death: That's already what the entry says. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Both places in the blurb: there are ten, not twelve, species. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thanks for checking in with the list article author, Ravenpvff. Good catch. Schwede66 14:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more error: "suborderss" is misspelled. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 20:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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