Wikipedia talk:Main Page/Errors

MOS:JOBTITLES RfC

Since MOS:JOBTITLES interpretation is commonly discussed here, everyone is welcome to chime in at the JOBTITLES change RfC. Surtsicna (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

DYKINT and ERRORS

I'll be completely blunt - why the hell are WP:DYKINT concerns not allowed to be brought up at ERRORS? It is completely stupid to discount genuine DYKINT concerns, but still keep other DYK-related error fix requests up. Last time something INT-related was brought up someone said to just "look at it earlier" (okay then, what about other error reports?). Could this at least be discussed? — ^EF⁵ 13:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I imagine because it would (potentially) result in (possibly multiple) hooks getting pulled on a daily basis? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

If that's the issue, maybe DYK needs to do better at enforcing DYKINT. Policies and guidelines shouldn't be discarded "because this isn't the venue" (ERRORS is indeed the venue); that's just lazy. ^EF⁵ 14:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:DYKINT is neither policy nor a guideline. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, I meant DYK guideline. — ^EF⁵ 14:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, how many project specific policies does DYK have? And while it may not be a formal, community-endorsed guideline, since it's on a page called Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, it must have the same internal relevance as the others listed. Otherwise, hook length, style, formatting etc., could also be ignored (but of course, aren't). Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

None, which is why you only see hooks brought up at ERRORS for issues that violate actual PAGs—I haven't yet seen anyone complain here that two biography image hooks ran consecutively, or that there were more than four American hooks in a set, or even to complain about "hook length, style, formatting, etc." Such criteria (listed on a page which explicitly disavows its authority) are only for DYK's internal regulation and hold no weight elsewhere, including at ERRORS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, there's currently a MOS:OVERLINK (style) report up. That's just from today. I see what you mean, although a DYKSTYLE issue was brought up yesterday and promptly removed with no policy-based reasons, sparking this. — ^EF⁵ 14:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

You mean that a DYKSTYLE objection with no policy-based reasons was brought up and promptly removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Is DYK/G upheld by the community or not? If it's not even worth being cited anywhere or doesn't matter at ERRORs, then why is it a guide? — ^EF⁵ 15:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

To repeat myself: WP:DYKG is only for DYK's internal regulation and hold no weight elsewhere, including at ERRORS. The word "internal" tells you where you can cite it and where you can use it as a guide. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It's a shame, perhaps, that DYK doesn't believe in adhering to its own internal guidelines. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Because screwing around with DYK while it’s on the main page is disruptive. Fixing an actual error is worth the disruption. “Fixing” a hook that isn’t interesting enough for you is not. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and given Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines is upheld by the community (policy or not) WP:DYKINT constitutes an actual error. I guess my question is why we uphold every other DYK guideline outlined, but pointing out hooks not adhering to one specific guideline constitutes "disruptive editing". If you uphold one guideline, you uphold all of them, or else DYK/G is good as moot. — ^EF⁵ 15:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It is impossible to argue with hyperbole. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:DYK/G is literally marked with a big box at the top saying "This former Wikipedia guideline, no longer backed by community consensus, is retained for historical reference". So yes, it is "as good as moot", as you so succinctly put it. On the wider point, DYKINT and other entries listed at Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines are very clearly not project guidelines but DYK-specific niceties. As I said previously, if you care about these things then you can and should raise issues on that basis at WT:DYK before the hook goes live, but to the rest of the project and more specifically the WP:ERRORS page, those guidelines have no relevance, only actual Wikipedia guidelines and policy errors will be actioned. The same goes for tweaks to ITN and OTD hooks that aren't errors; you might sometimes persuade an admin to action them, but in general non-error discussions go on the pages of the projects concerned.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I think everyone should be encouraged to raise DYKINT issues at ERRORS, but they should lower their expectations about immediate action. Unlike a grammar or verifiability issue, I would not feel comfortable, as a single admin, agreeing with an interestingness issue and actioning it immediately. Letting consensus develop is fine, but it's slow—sometimes so slow that the issue becomes moot. Sometimes we only get a couple voices in an ERRORS discussion, and sometimes people fail to ping the editors who were involved in creating and approving the hook. I have to presume that about four editors/admins have considered the hook to be sufficiently interesting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Generally, a boring hook on the Main Page causes no harm. I do not think it is worth our time discussing these at ERRORS, a page that is not archived so it is difficult to learn much from the outcome. General discussion of this type (another example is "there are too many hooks about Taylor Swift / Alxeander McQueen / whatever") is more suited to WT:DYK; ERRORS is for things that demand immediate action. Boredom almost per definition does not require action. —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that a boring hook causes no harm. I agree that ERRORS is a bad place for general discussion, so I'd prefer to see it focused on individual hook issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We don't want to dilute the real issues at ERRORS and wasting editors' time by bringing in things that aren't errors and require subjective thought and discussion. In general, if something is reported here it should be urgent, require admin assistance, and be immediately actionable.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not think we should discuss all boring hooks at ERRORS. 99% of sports hooks are boring, but I manage to ignore them. —Kusma (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I took the liberty of codifying this at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors/header.--Launchballer 00:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The answer I'd give – and I only half believe it – is that ERRORS just isn't a good venue for interestingness challenges. It's designed to be lightweight and fast-paced, whereas challenges over interestingness are subjective and nuanced and could fill bound volumes. If you think a hook is uninteresting, you can't go wrong bringing it to WT:DYK. It's useful feedback for everyone involved in the process and it should be discussed more often. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Where?

I seem to have been slapped down for querying the wording of today's FA ('chunky little seed-eating bird') here. There is evidently disagreement about whether that's appropriate wording for an encyclopedia article as there seems to have been an edit war over it on the article page - I was unaware of this (my bad) so my error report was just that the FA summary used informal language that wasn't present in the article lead at the point that I noticed it. I'd mistakenly assumed that today's FA would be protected, so it didn't occur to me that the lead would be unstable. Anyway, my question is... for 'non-error' issues like wording/tone when the content is already on the main page—and especially where the FA summary doesn't match the article—what is the correct forum to raise the concern without getting rebuked? YFB ¿ 14:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is any such forum. This is not the state of affairs that I'd prefer, but I think it's a fair assessment of the status quo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The article talk page is always good. The thing is, absent an actual error, or a request backed by the FAC nominator, the TFA coordinators tend to back the existing language, which got the article to this point, as what the nominator, who generally wrote much of the article intended. This page is for errors. Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Of course, you can always read ahead. TFA blurbs are usually available 30-60 days in advance and are not protected until the day before. This allows more time for discussion. Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, if I'd spotted it earlier I'd have raised it earlier. Still. Seems like there is a venue gap given the FA nominator might be absent. This was promoted 15 years ago... I'd bet most nominators of FAs that old aren't still here. YFB ¿ 15:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes true, but I check that when I leave notifications of the upcoming TFA, and I had checked this one and seen they are still active before leaving notification. As for many not being here who were here in 2010, true, but "Tho' much is taken, much abides" There are still quite a few active nominators from 2010. "That which we are, we are."--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• I have to say I take a different view from the TFA coordinators on this sort of issue. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and the FA nominators don't have any sort of automatic veto or right to be consulted before changes are made. WP:OWN is a fundamental policy of the project and it's always understood that if improvements can be made anyone has the right to make them, including to Featured Articles and including improving text which talks of "chunky birds". When it comes to content already on the main page it's slightly different, as this has been selected and vetted beforehand, with only admins now having the right to edit it. As such (and as I've commented in some of the sections above this one on this page) the things that should be actionable are things that can be clearly seen as errors. Factual inaccuracies, NPOV issues and a lack of WP:V are obvious ones, and for me WP:MOS concerns should be in scope too, at least if they're fairly clear cut. WP:TONE is a borderline one because it's actually not a formal part of the MOS, being on an essay page, but really for an FA we should be presenting the readers refreshing brilliant prose etc. Anyway, long story short, if today's issue had been raised about DYK, OTD, ITN or POTD I probably would have actioned it straightaway, but for TFA I've learned to keep my distance a bit because the coords tend to slap me on the wrists if I overstep there. I guess it's a case of meeting halfway, wherever that might be. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)