Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

To report an error in content currently or imminently to appear on Main Page, use the appropriate section below. Reports should contain:

• Where is the error? An exact quotation using {{!xt }} of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible using {{xt }}.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 04:42 on 3 August 2026) and cannot be 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 taste or interestingness, or failure to divert enough DYK readers to articles that aren't new or recently improved, 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.

... that only five words are known from the extinct Tabancale language of Peru and Ecuador?

Article say that it is an extinct, unclassified language formerly spoken in the village of Aconipa, located along the Chinchipe River in the Department of Cajamarca of Peru. and that Tabancale was reported to be spoken in a single village, Aconipa, located along the Chinchipe River[3]: 261 near the modern-day Ecuador–Peru border, to the north of San Ignacio in Peru and south of Valladolid in Ecuador. From it follows that it was spoken only in modern Peru; Equador likely get there from although connections with the Chicham languages, spoken in Peru and Ecuador, have also been proposed.~2026-42875-09 (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

@~2026-42875-09: I looked up the towns mentioned in the article yesterday while checking this set, since I couldn't find any information about Aconipa. Valladolid and San Ignacio are only about 30 miles (48 km) away from each other, which is why I thought the phrasing of "language of Peru and Ecuador" was reasonable. I'll ping the involved editors Kepler-1229b and Narutolovehinata5 anyway in case they have additional insight. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

I'm not questioning that it was really likely actually spoken in that is now is a modern Ecuador, as the border goes by the river that village was "located along", so they had to only cross the river and say something. I'm only about that article doesn't state that hook does. ~2026-42875-09 (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

@~2026-42875-09 It does seem to have been spoken in Ecuador as well per the sources especially Loukotka's map which puts it within the borders of Ecuador. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

So it's something to fix in the language's article then, "border village"? ~2026-42875-09 (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

@~2026-42875-09 check the article now. I've added the map and some clarification on its location. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Putting it squarely within Ecuador based on that map will contradict the statement about location of that village in Peru then. Also upper reaches of the Chinchipe river put it into Ecuador too. (My personal opinion, that could be definitely discarded is that the provided map is not pretending to be a precise, more likely concern was about general readability of numbers there. While it is undoubtedly that it was possible to put that "3" on Peru side at will they, and they did not.) ~2026-42875-09 (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

@~2026-42875-09 The second map http://www.etnolinguistica.org/local--files/biblio:loukotka-1968-classification/Loukotka_1968_mapaEtnoLingAmerSul_TribesIndex_JPG_BDCN.jpg shows it in both Peru and Ecuador. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

also I did not remove any info about the location in Peru, to clarify 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Could you say from where initial located along the Chinchipe River in the Department of Cajamarca of Peru is sourced from? It sound very precise, but it's not something trivially searchable, and there is no reference for it in article too. If it is about linguistic maps, and not about location of that village, maybe it's overprecision? ~2026-42875-09 (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

@~2026-42875-09 same source as the map https://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/biblio%3Aloukotka-1968-classification/Loukotka_1968_ClassSAIndLang_001_278.pdf. It's in the text at page 261. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Deserve a refnote there I think, because it's not mentioned anywhere further, so it's unclear where to look. ~2026-42875-09 (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

@~2026-42875-09 Actually it's cited in the "geographic distribution" section. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Tabancale was reported to be spoken in a single village, Aconipa, located along the Chinchipe River. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Yes, but I was about Cajamarca, as it's way more precise than a general Chinchipe river's area on its own (as I know for an whooping hour already). I didn't meant it wasn't sourced at all (I see now it could been read as, sorry), I meant it deserve a direct ref near Cajamarca, as Cajamarca is not mentioned further (or maybe just to move that precision to Geographical distribution?). It's already went absolutely off-topic for this place though, as there is no discrepancy with main page already. ~2026-42875-09 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

@~2026-42875-09 Good point. I just added it based on the same source but I do welcome any improvement to articles on the wiki. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

The hook is supported by a quote on the article talk page from The Languages of the Andes (Publisher: Cambridge University Press, Date: 22 September 2009, ISBN: 9780511486852) Another group, the Tabancale, inhabited the village of Aconipa in an elevated area near the upper reaches of the Chinchipe river, approximately in the border area of Ecuador (province of Zamora-Chinchipe) and Peru (province of San Ignacio, Cajamarca). @Kepler-1229b: please could you look into this? TSventon (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

@TSventon how so? The Languages of the Andes map places Tabancale squarely within Ecuadorian borders and Loukotka's map http://www.etnolinguistica.org/local--files/biblio:loukotka-1968-classification/Loukotka_1968_mapaEtnoLingAmerSul_TribesIndex_JPG_BDCN.jpg also has it within Ecuador. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

@Kepler-1229b: thank you, I think you have added the requested detail. TSventon (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• ... that the English Heritage charity stores a third of their architectural salvage at Wrest Park, including items made to impress Elizabeth I?" A couple of points. 1) Just call it English Heritage, not "the English Heritage charity". 2) Confusion about agreement and pronoun. Should say either "that English Heritage store a third of their" (my preferred, notional agreement, British English), or "that English Heritage stores a third of its" (formal agreement, American English). If English Heritage is treated as plural, the pronoun should be too, if as singular, then singular pronoun. DuncanHill (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for reporting! I included the charity detail to contextualize it for readers who might not know what English Heritage is, since DYK prefers to leave these terms unlinked. Point taken on the agreement; switched to "its". —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

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

• Main Page discussions

• Wikipedia move-protected project pages
• Non-talk pages that are automatically signed