Please submit error reports only for content that is currently or will imminently appear on the Main Page. For general discussion about the Main Page, kindly use its talk page.

National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously: Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety of English. While Wikipedia strives to use language common to all English varieties, some spelling, grammar, or terminology may differ or be absent in a reader's preferred variety. Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see 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 00:22 on 1 May 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 a candidate in the 1968 United States House of Representatives election in Delaware took his dog on the campaign trail? So what? In what way is this exceptional or even worth mentioning in the article, never mind the main page? Fram (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the Delaware Morning News thought it worth mentioning on their front page. RoySmith (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I (first - or second - reviewer) would have asked the same question, but had already given up at that point. (There were alternatives.) The current belief in DYK is that a little quirky something is all you want. I wrote Matthew Wild, and I intentionally did not nominate because I'm afraid that - per that belief - they would just want that the opera director made Tannhäuser a homosexual. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Newspapers add little human interest factoids of no consequence. We pretend to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, looking beyond the insignificant detail and instead summarizing what is important, what has lasting impact. Is there any discussion at all of the role of the dog, did it make him especially popular, did it play an actual role in the election, or is it of the same level as "candidate X, wearing a blue suit and tie, took to the stand to deliver his speech" where we would not dream of including that suit unless it somehow was of actual note (e.g. the "tan suit" fake outrage). If I wouldn't get backlash over this because I somehow am not allowed to do good editing while this article is on the front page, I would long have removed the claim of the article, where it really serves no purpose at all. Fram (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Template:Did you know nominations/1968 United States House of Representatives election in Delaware for the recurring issue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that DYK often tends towards trivia (and, yes, anything sexual). In retrospect, this is an article about an unremarkable election. 435 of these happen every other year. Most of them are are individually of little lasting significance so it's not surprising people had to dig deep to find something interesting to say, and we had to go through nine suggested hooks before we got to this one. In my mind, "set the record for most votes cast" was the most interesting, but (rightly) struck on WP:V grounds. Maybe a better decision would have been to just reject the nomination on the grounds that there's nothing interesting to say. To be honest, I wish we would reject more nominations. We have more than we can handle easily, so we can afford to be picky and only publish the best ones. I bring that point up on a regular basis at WT:DYK but I keep losing that argument. I'd be happy to have more support the next time it comes up.

  That being said, I think WP:ERRORS should be about, well, errors. By which I mean fixing things that are factually incorrect or violate policy. Addressing issues concerning editorial discretion are better handled by engaging with the process earlier, at the initial review and prep-building stages. By time time a problem hits a queue, the cost to fix it goes up. By the time it hits the main page, the cost goes up a lot. RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is nothing more interesting to this article, then why bother nominating it for DYK? Not every article you do needs to go to DYK. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The way to "penalize" uninteresting DYK hooks is to not click on the bolded link, thus sending them to the bottom of the monthly DYK stats page. Ironically, sometimes flagging boring hooks at WP:ERRORS backfires and more people click on them then they otherwise would have. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  iiii agree that hook probably shouldn't have made it to press. by convention, we generally don't entertain interestingness challenges at ERRORS, because they're not really urgent. A dud is a dud, we're not actively misleading people or anything. If we wanted to pull it, though, I wouldn't object. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have the seven queues on my watchlist and first brought this up on 20 April: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#1966 United States House of Representatives election in Delaware. The pertinent thing I said then was: There are articles that you just cannot nominate for DYK because there just isn’t an intriguing fact that you could write a hook about. I agree with Roy's notion; there is too little appetite at DYK to reject dud nominations. There's always someone who wants to rescue things / not offend nominators, and approves things accordingly.

  I did see when this appeared in another queue with an equally boring hook, but thought that I had done my part. Schwede66 22:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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