Wikipedia talk:Main Page/Errors

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Main Page/Errors page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 6 months

Independent sources

Are articles and player pages in the publications of the PGA, NFL, NBA, and Major League Baseball "independent sources", for a Wikipedia article about a player?

An editor has taken the position that such a source is connected to players in the sport. And therefore is not an "independent source" for a Wikipedia article about such an athlete.

Which he says in turn requires that the article not appear on the Main Page. Because WP:RS requires that articles be based on independent sources.

Thoughts?

2603:7000:2101:AA00:F804:C954:1D4C:5D11 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the NFL, NBA, etc. websites are not 'independent' for articles about a player, but that does not mean, as far as I'm aware, that the article is prohibited from being on the main page just for having a source that is 'non-independent' (now, if it is the only source in the article, that could be an issue, but if its one of e.g. 15 references and all the others are independent, it should not be an issue). What is the specific case you are referring to? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It passes WP:V but not WP:N. You'd still need a few independent sources to create an article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Max Greyserman. I've kept on editing it since the editor nixed its appearance on the front page. It's always in addition had many clearly independent refs, and often was paired with one or two other refs that were clearly independent. The article talk page has the discussion. Thanks. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:F804:C954:1D4C:5D11 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS requires that articles be primarily based on independent sources, so i wouldn't use too many non-independent sources – I also wouldn't use a non-independent source for any claim that is likely to be challenged. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Among the issues this raised in my mind, was the difference in the independence of the relationship of an athlete with his/her team (which is his/her employer), vs. the NFL/NBA/PGA etc. I don't quite see the "independence" of the league as being as questionable as that of the team.

Secondly, in articles such as this one, keeping the presumed purpose of the independence rule in mind, the PGA-supported text was blandly factual and not at all questionable; it wasn't subjective or COI or questionable text. It was often simply reflecting statistics and placement in tournaments - the sort of thing that RSs look to (e.g., ESPN) for their reporting of facts. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:F804:C954:1D4C:5D11 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionally see Associated Press articles published on NBA.com, would those be considered independent of the league and player? Alvaldi (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alvaldi, maybe, but it'd be advisable to get the AP article from somewhere else where possible. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think there is a concern that these sources are doctored though, and |agency= can be filled with "AP" on citation templates. —Bagumba (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note a fun fact, MLB has one deliberate false statement in its published stats: it misstates Ty Cobb's batting average, on purpose, and for its own benefit as a business. I mean it's just that one example among millions, but it does show what can happen when you have an interested party as a source. Herostratus (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contested viewpoints might still be notable for mention, but need WP:INTEXT attribution. —Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike

This edit introduced an unverifiable change. For a detailed discussion on the matter, you can see here: Talk:2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions#WP:V_violation. I also started a discussion at Talk:2024_Hezbollah_headquarters_strike#What_happened_on_October_8? where consensus was to use the version in the 2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions article.

The TLDR is: Hezbollah didn't fire on northern Israel on Oct 8. It fired on Golan Heights and Shebaa farms, which are considered Israeli-occupied territories, not Israel itself.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything on the main page that needs to be changed? Or can this be left for individual article talk pages? Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article above is currently on main page in ITN box. But the blurb itself is accurate.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the blurb is fine, then thrashing out the rest is for normal article processes, isn't it? Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm uncertain on whether errors in articles linked from the main page should be reported here or not. WP:ERRORS says "If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here", which implies that if fixing the error in the linked article has been unsuccessful, it ought to be reported here. Or am I misinterpreting that sentence? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would read the first topic on this page for an example of such discussion. My takeaway is that the article talk page is the primary venue for discussion of the article content. If there are errors that cannot be rectified by such discussion, it would be in order here to decide whether to pull the article. However, if the article talk discussion results in no consensus on whether there is in fact an error or errors, I don't think it's our place here to override that. Does that make sense? In other words, we tend to defer to the article talk page. Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt That makes sense. In this case, there is discussion between myself and another user at Talk:2024_Hezbollah_headquarters_strike#What_happened_on_October_8? and we both agree that Hezbollah didn't attack Israel on October 8. The user who added that hasn't taken part in that discussion. So the article's talk page has ... consensus? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no idea. The point is, the main page discussion pages are no longer being used as auxiliary battlefields to discussions better left on article talk pages. Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes something an error?

I see the purpose of this page as correcting factual errors; statements that are demonstrably false, incorrectly summarize sources, or even spelling and grammar mistakes. But I often see things reported which are really just style problems. I don't know how the other sections work, but DYK has a bunch of internal guidelines which get honored to various degrees. They're not a matter of right or wrong, just editorial guidance on what we think DYK should publish. Are violations of these sorts of style issues in scope for WP:ERRORS? RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My take would be that in general, ERRORS is only for factual errors of the sort you mention in your first sentence. What I would say though, is that the more general rules around article quality which apply to TFA, ITN, OTD and DYK - articles not missing major essential information on the topic and being thoroughly cited, should be within scope for ERRORS too, and probably queries around MOS-compliance in main page content too. However, the DYK-specific guidelines such as "interesting to a broad audience" and rules around hook length IMHO shouldn't be within scope, and neither should complaints about blurbs in ITN... those should go to the relevant pages of those specific projects. — Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. It's one thing to say, "Hey, y'all forgot to put (pictured)". It's another to debate the proper target link, or debate semantics. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITN/C says Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors. Those issues seem to be more copy-editing than factual errors.

My main focus here is factual errors but it seems like the best place for other issues because, for most entries, time is of the essence as there's less than a day to make an update which would make a difference. And WP:ERRORS has a sense of urgency and immediacy. The main page has a general talk page too but that seems to be more for structural, long-term issues.

Andrew🐉(talk) 16:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]