User talk:The Rambling Man/ERRORS

What's it for?

So what is this page for? A new way of discussing DYK and other hooks, an underground investigative chamber or a place to marvel in TRM's erudition in discerning faults that others miss (or don't care about}?

There used to be a time when I would create a prep set and not long afterwards, TRM would make the minor alterations he thought fit, changing the wording, adding italics or commas. That was a good system and ensured each hook and article got a further check. But things have changed, he does not appear to make corrections in prep, preferring to wait until the hooks are in a queue or on the main page so that others are needed to make the changes he demands.

I know when he has looked at one of my DYK articles because he has a habit of adding "30em" to the reflist. I prefer the four to six sources I typically use in my articles to be in a single column but I don't particularly object to this practice.

So what is this posting for? I don't know! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I think this ongoing discussion might help explain it. Basically, it's an alternative WP:ERRORS that TRM uses instead because of his discontent with the main one. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Oooh, not to mention that everyone wanted to topic ban me in any case, so either way I'm not welcome at the main ERRORS page, nor do I desire to return there while it's being transformed into a white elephant. Problem being, of course, that I pick up a large number of issues. And for what it's worth, Cwmhiraeth, yes we did have a system that worked, but then Gatoclass chased me off and made me de-prioritise my work on DYK to the bottom of my very busy list. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, this page is for barnstars. I deserve plenty, so I'll allocate a whole section for them... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I made a shortcut by the way, WP:TRM, which I have spotted is beginning to be used by the cooler editors. I hope you find it convenient. Fish+Karate 09:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: who is supposed to fill in the "resolved" column - do we leave it for you, once you're satisfied that the fix has been done satisfactorily, or is it up to the admin doing the fix to fill it in?  — Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind. I trust you all of you contributing here to do the job to the best of your abilities, so feel free to "resolve" them if you think it's job done. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Barnstars

crickets chirping

		The "Did You Know...?" Barnstar
		Thank you for your work in evaluating and improving hooks and articles that are nominated so that they can be mentioned in the DYK section of Wikipedia’s Main Page. You have worked tirelessly over many years to keep things up to scratch and have not allowed others to divert you from your purpose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your tireless flagging up of errors on the main page and making sure it is representative of our best work. I would prefer it if your contributions were made at the main ERRORS board, and hope circumstances allow you to return there soon, but I'm not a member of the drama police so that's out of my hands.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hypothetical

TRM, given your reputation around here (one I find to be ill-deserved to be honest), I think there's a definitive risk of this page being sent to WP:MFD by a drive-by editor who might see this page as a violation of WP:POINT, insinuating that you're refusing to collaborate using established Wikipedia processes. A brief explanation on the page itself of why it exists might help to head this off.--WaltCip (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It's kind of you to care Walt. I think, given that we've now cured the main page of in excess of 120 errors in just 18 days, it's proving its value. And as I explained to a few others, this is entirely optional. I expect nothing from anyone. If someone wants to address the issues I raise, that's fine. I am simply keeping a record of the dismal state of the main page while others prefer me no to contribute at the other place. That some of the more diligent admins want to help maintain the integrity of the main page using my notes for guidance is just serendipity. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Current ITN/C discussions

Hi, sorry this is not really error related but just want your opinion. Is this fishy?

There was a support by an IP here, then it was struck out as a duplicate here but then it appeared again by same IP here... but that 'signature' looks like a copy paste from the Franklin discussion? JennyOz (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

JennyOz Hi, it's funny you should say that, I read the supposed post from Joseph2302 and thought to myself "that's not his usual style", but thought perhaps he was editing on a mobile device... But now you've mentioned the previous edits, it's definitely fishy... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

List truncating

@Northamerica1000:

• Sample gallery
• 
  Without that BR tag in place
• 
  With that BR tag in place

I'm using Chrome 69.0.3497.100. Just leave the BR tag there please, unless there's a cleverer solution. Fish+Karate 10:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it meant to look like this? Aren't we using this page to fix the main page, not to test formatting? Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew calendar dates

Really, why are you going out of your way to make trouble?

• The template is sourced.
• It's a calculation on a well-established base.
• The significant advantage to using templates for this purpose is that one doesn't need to manually update the dates every year.
• It's not BLUE, but it's close: the date can easily be looked up in any number of places, and readers have no reason to challenge.

Critiques like these, which may have a legitimate pedantic source, but don't actually improve anything, are part of the reason that many editors get fed up with contributing here. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Really, why are you going out of your way to bother me? If you don't like it, stay away. If you honestly believe that linking two random Wikipedia templates is serving our readers well, then definitely stay away. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

"not good enough to have passed QPQ... "

Now, you know that QPQ is a meaningless circle-jerk. Honestly, why implement a policy that's very name is synonymous with corruption and expect it to HELP? --Khajidha (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I know that, and yet the DYKers are adamant that it's all just dandy. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Totally, but perhaps it's better than nothing. The system would work better if there was a rule that if you sign something off that later turns out to have obvious errors that you should have spotted, then your own DYK is chopped.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for new system: 1) article is proposed, 2) one week discussion period with notice posted on the article's own talk page, 3) if good to go after a week, it is posted; if there are still problems it FAILS with no redo allowed and no credit given, 4) if at any time while it is on the main page any objections are raised it is IMMEDIATELY PULLED and credit is rescinded. --Khajidha (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

PS- I'm actually not sure why all these nominations aren't handled on a subpage of the article's own talk page (Like Talk:Random Article/nominations) with a notice on the article's main talk page (Like "This article is currently being reviewed for possible Good Article status. Click here to take part in the discussion.) and a link at the main project page. It would seem to make the discussions easier to find and actually bring in readers with more information. --Khajidha (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course, some review is better than "nothing", but QPQ is decidedly biased towards just passing nominations because one has to do so in order to get one's own nomination on the main page. And then you have the various "gates" where basic DYK rules seem to be overlooked in toto, those gates being when prep sets are created, and when preps are promoted to queues. There simply should not be DYK articles getting as close to the main page as a few hours with fundamental issues including basic DYK rule failures. Just a few days ago we had two sets with a hook pulled from each at the last moment. Woeful. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Until the focus changes from "let's get whatever shit we can on the main page" to "is this actually good enough for the main page", we will have huge stacks of these errors. Note to all DYK admins: not everything should pass, some things SHOULD fail. --Khajidha (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That, that, is precisely the problem. Everything at DYK passes, regardless. How many nominations have actually been failed, ever? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

They don't even fail the 573 basically identical articles about South American lichens or Polynesian song birds or whatever. I mean, yes, it's nice that somebody is working on those things, but we don't need to have "the <fill in species here> is a(n) <select conservation status here> <select basic type of organism: bird, lichen, fish, etc> from <select continent here>" on the main page every day from now until doomsday. After the first such blurb, the author should have to come up with something different for the later ones or forfeit the opportunity for DYK status. --Khajidha (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem is that DYK is "run" by a handful of such editors, who continually push such minutiae to the main page, usually with the odd error sprinkled in. The "broad interest" objective is wholesale ignored and then they all wonder why their hooks get less than a 1000 hits from the main page which gets more than 20 MILLION visitors per day. Tragic and misused. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "How many nominations have actually been failed, ever?" Check out Category:Failed DYK nominations and Category:Withdrawn DYK nominations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What's all this?

Date	Section	Article	Notes	Resolved
3 October 2018	DYK	List of international goals scored by Alexis Sánchez	"despite Alexis Sánchez's seven goals in qualification, Chile failed to qualify for the 2018 FIFA World Cup"... but Felipe Caicedo and Stevan Jovetić also scored seven and Arturo Vidal scored six, with none of their teams qualifying, so this is not very unusual. Carlos Ruiz on the CONCACAF side even racked up 10 goals for a nonqualifying side. Shocking! Did anyone even do a QPQ on this?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Hah, you see it was just me testing the QPQ process once again, which in this case has clearly failed. What a tiresome hook. Goodness me. In all honesty, I only really submitted it to DYK for a laugh. The last one of these I did got several thousand hits so it served its purpose. Can't say this one will get so many but we'll see!	Nope, but it's just perfect the way it is

Easter egg

I think the piped link to Alaska is misleading. - Once I'm here, how about some service for your regulars? I'd be interested in the latest day on top, and if at all possible when opening the page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree this would be really useful. Any chance? GoldenRing (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing I think I've reorganised per your suggestion. Cheers for helping out, keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

POTD tomorrow

Just as a heads up, I have switched tomorrow's POTD for a different one after someone complained that the Raven had already been featured with a different pic just a year ago. You can now have a slightly longer lie-in on the 23rd October 2020 if you already checked the entry.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

The table has not yet been expanded to 28 October 2018, so I can't just add this, but how is the dedication of the Statue of Liberty in 1886 a commemoration of the centennial of the Declaration of Independence? The DOI was made in 1776, its centennial would have been in 1876. --Khajidha (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

November 21 DYK Set

I corrected a few of the concerns you listed at User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS for the upcoming DYK set but when looking at the hook for Deccan Chargers in 2009, MOS:NUMERAL seems to say that 1-9 are written out with higher numbers having the option for either numeric or written form. Is there part of MOS:NUM that I am missing or that says otherwise? Best, Mifter (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

MOS:NUMNOTES, particularly "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: five cats and thirty-two dogs, or 5 cats and 32 dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs". Matches won and matches played are "comparable quantities". --Khajidha (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Mifter (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have changed it to fourteen. And thanks for the other fixes, Mifter. Fixing main page errors is very valuable for maintaining the quality and reputation of the encyclopedia so everyone who helps with that is much appreciated  — Amakuru (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

For people who are useless with wikimarkup

Current DYK: I have no idea what ".. that Lyle Wright favored the Follies and minded the Millers?" means, as the term "favored" and "minded" clearly don't mean what they mean in BrEng, don't appear in the article and aren't wikilinked. Moreover, the odd turns of phrase make it seem like a not very obvious pun to this Brit anyway and I'm not sure we should be putting not obvious puns on Main page, with the possible exception of April 1. Or was someone just having a tabloid moment of getting silly with alliteration? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The article also does not use any variant of the word "favor" or "mind" so I am as baffled as you, Dweller. According to the source he was "involved" with both of them. It is unclear whether he actually liked them or not. Looks like a jokey last-item hook that's gone a bit too far.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how this rubbish ends up on Main page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparently it was deliberate alliteration. As it doesn't make any sense in BrEng, I'm pulling it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Makes only slightly more sense in American English. The "favored" part especially is problematic, as he could have hated the ice shows but still promoted them heavily if they were profitable. --Khajidha (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

PS - for anyone confused "minded" here is being used as in "minded the store", that is, it is saying he ran the organization. --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What frustrates me (often) is when DYK regulars say "OH WELL STOP WASTING MY TIME, THIS WAS ALL DISCUSSED AT THE NOMINATION PAGE" like our readers give a flying toss (or even are aware of the existence of that page). Ridiculous. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The "favored" part wasn't even in the nomination. The approved version said "... fond of the Follies ...". It was later tweaked by one of the DYK top brass.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

And neither "fond" nor "favored" was supported by the article. Both words imply a preference for the Follies that may or may not have existed. The man could easily have just looked at them as another money making venture. And even "minded" isn't exactly on point. Usually that is used as in "he minded the store while the main clerk was absent", that is, that the person isn't the real authority. As the teams actual manager, he wasn't just "minding' them. The "discussion" on this was a rubberstamp. The hook was proposed, the reviewer thought it was "fun" and didn't bother to worry about whether it actually made sense. --Khajidha (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This started out as a vanilla error report, so I think Dweller was right to post it on WP:ERRORS2 itself... that is open to all, right? It has rather turned into a lengthy back and forth though. Perhaps that is evidence that the table format leads to more succinct open-and-shut cases than the traditional WP:ERRORS discussion format.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Open to all those open to solving the issues I raise, of course. Some users here just don't get that, ownership problems, admin pig-headedness, whatever, but generally yes. After all, where else do you get a 90% hit rate? Boom. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If you don't count the "boring hook" entries in DYK the figure would be even higher than that. I know you feel those are important though, so 90% it is.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Well either you meet the requirements for main page inclusion or you don't. I do note that some admins are either not commensurate with the rules governing each section of the main page, or refuse to strictly enforce them, every day. We've had three such "boring hooks" in the past four days which have been allowed to run. It's a joke, yet I will continue to bring up such issues, until BU Rob13 and Sandstein get their way. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

November 29 DYKs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On your Errors page for 29 November are these:

• No need to overlink Ivanhorod and probably no need to include Ukraine as that's mentioned in the hook. Concision!
• The hook uses Robin Sparkles which redirects to Robin Scherbatsky#Early life whereas the target article uses Robin Sparkles which is piped to Cobie Smulders. Some consistency would be useful.
• "in Shahdiz fortress" well "Shahdiz" was a fortress, so saying "Shahdiz fortress" is tautological. Or maybe move "fortress" into a piped link. Or "fortress of Shahdiz". Also has no lead.
• "the High Speed 2." to my BritEng ears, this is missing a word at the end, like "project" or "development" or "rail link".
• "which he proceeded to dump" concision people! "which he dumped" is just fine.

Are you really going to add these five examples to your 800+ figure and call them "Errors"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how many TRM is or isn't going to count. Some of them strike me as errors, others not. Either way, it doesn't really bother me, but I am curious about your concern. Do you think TRM's count needs to be audited to ensure quality standards, because that would be extremely ironic, given that the count doesn't appear on main page. Because I can't believe you'd be trying to muddy the waters in a ridiculous attempt to suggest that there aren't piles and piles of dreadful quality issues coming out of projects that are supposed to be producing material suitable for main page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I am interested to know which of these you consider are errors, because they all seem to me to be just concerned with the precise wording of the hooks. In the old days, before ERRORS2, TRM used to tweak hooks in prep in this way, and this was so much more convenient than the present arrangement of not inspecting them until they are in the queue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth honestly, you're coming here to talk to me about this? Really? I don't think so. Why don't you just do us all a favour and stick to whatever it is you do here and leave me alone. I'll do the same, your still un-retracted accusations of lies hardly lends itself to any kind of discussion. Once you've redacted those and apologised, you can address me again, otherwise don't bother me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It was @Dweller: and not you who i was addressing, because he responded to my previous post. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth It was you who came uninvited to my userspace to attempt to undermine (once again) what I'm doing, despite me already having told you that you are unwelcome here until you retract and apologise for your accusations of lies. Now, for the final time, fix your damaging personal attack or go away from me and what I'm doing forever. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Colours

@Northamerica1000 and Anarchyte: Personally, I think there's no harm in a bit of colour (@NA1K) but I also, in perfect fence-sitting, agree (@A) that that was a little urgent on the eyes. How about lighter, or pastel, shade? Something like #85e085 perhaps. ——SerialNumber54129 14:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I added the green for resolved matters to provide more balanced weight toward the editor contributions that have been performed to correct matters, rather than skewing the use of background color on this page for only unresolved entries. It was reverted three minutes later. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

#85e085 is a lot nicer than #7cfc00. There's also the matter of necessity. I come here to fix a couple things, tag them with "Yes" and then continue on with my day. Do we need to add another step of remembering how to colour-code a cell? The reason the red ones are so obvious is that it's the purpose of this page; it drags a visitor's eyes immediately to the outstanding issues, though #ea8181 may be less in-your-face. Anarchyte (talk | work) 14:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobody need tag Yes or No, I'm happy to do that, so please, please, please, spend your valuable time fixing any issues you may be able to and leave the tinkering round the edges bit to me. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to me; it was just an idea. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Would you be able to clarify what the pink colour means? What are the two places? Anarchyte (talk | work)

This error page and the other error page. It's used to indicate that the other errors page finally caught up with this one on occasion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

What is black?

The key for the resolution column mentions green, pink, orange and red, but I keep seeing black boxes. What do they mean? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Black means: WTF? This was identified perhaps even a day ago and yet nothing has been done and it's sitting on the main page causing embarrassment in extremis. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

OK then. Thanks. 🙄  — Amakuru (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi. On your ERRORS page, maybe you could change the far right column from Resolved to Resolution. The way it is now, a No in the column looks like the outcome hasn't been resolved yet and a decision is pending. A Yes looks like it's been decided with no indication of the outcome, i.e. not obvious that the yes means that the complaint was successful. I tried to think of a more appropriate word than Resolution, but couldn't in the two minutes I could spare. Akld guy (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Re [1]

 — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I know. ISN'T IRONY WONDERFUL?! God doesn't give two shits about Wikipedia! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to confirm

It seems that you won't be working on ERRORS2 while the Fram debacle is ongoing. An unfortunate loss, but a necessary sign of protest, I suppose. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

11

Would it be difficult to say DYK 11, OTD 11 ... instead of just 11? Because for me, I'd look at DYK and not at OTD. But if you want to raise views to the page leave as is, of course ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this page still a thing

I came here because of no traction at WP:ERRORS but seems the structure has changed dramatically. Can I add ITN as a section? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

'Test hook'

@The Rambling Man: Is "... that the 2010 Football League Two play-off Final at Wembley Stadium was won by a pub team from Essex?" one of your 'test hooks' to show QPQ failures? I took a look when I promoted it, but I am not at all sporty and might not know what I'm looking for. I don't want to be a laughingstock because someone played a joke on someone who isn't in the relevant field. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No, of course it's not. I would never do that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)