Wikipedia talk:Main Page/Errors/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

new page

I like this idea so much, I decided to be bold .... I assume we won't be archiving the complaints about typos. Right ? Let erase each error report after fixing the problems. Do we need reminders that this is only for minor errors, such as grammatical and spelling mistakes ? For instance, if a news item is so trivial and should not be on ITN, the complaint really should go to Template talk: In the news, right ? -- PFHLai 04:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if that becomes a problem, a comment on that should be added. joturner 04:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this will really work... I mean, will people actually post things here consistently or will we have to monitor both the main talk page and this page for error reports? I guess time will tell... --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 23:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That was my hope when I created this page, but also see my thread on User talk:Main Page in regards to possibly moving error based threads from there to here as they come up, as is done with many other split style talk pages. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

when to clear items

When is a good time to clear out old, obsolete error reports ? I think error reports should be removed as soon as the error is fixed, or when the item in question is no longer on the MainPage. -- PFHLai 02:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to blank suggestions that are acted upon. I had cleared it out earlier but I see that there is already some buildup of corrected items. - BanyanTree 03:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that this would work as well. We could do it like WP:AIV; once a request has been fixed, clear it and leave the response (i.e. Error fixed) in the edit summary. Unless it requires a long explanation, the fixed requests would be removed immediately. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now removed some of the older fixed reports, and I'll clear out the rest shortly. Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What happens to stuff with no response?

What happens when stuff posted here is not responded to? At the moment it is removed as "old stuff" (when the stuff in question leaves the front page), but shouldn't there be some way to track how successful this page is, and how successful those watching it are at responding to what is posted here? I am referring to this (which shows the item in question, or rather my later addition to that item) and this (the removal of said item). For the record, I was equally unsuccessful at getting any response at the Main Page talk page, despite some support for what I was suggesting. See here. Quoting from that last link: "And a final comment: now that these news items have dropped off the ITN template, I think it is time to end this discussion, but I will just record, again, my disappointment that nothing actually got done about my suggested tweaks to to give geographical context to the ITN items."

I suppose the real lesson is not to drag something back to the Main Page talk, where it will get bogged down in endless discussion! :-) Carcharoth 13:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't possibly see and/or implement every suggestion we get; sometimes, by luck of draw, no admins will be watching this page until the item is off the Main Page, or there is disagreement about the changes. This page is generally not for lengthy discussions, but instead a place to report errors. If admins also disagree with the proposed change, the discussion should, as a rule of thumb, take place on the more appropriate talk page. If your request/suggestion is not acted on and the item will come back late (i.e. selected anniversaries), please feel free to be bold and change it when the page is unprotected; if the item will not be back, I would recommend, if necessary, to raise discussion about the general case/scenario on the appropriate talk page (for instance, in this case a proposal and discussion about giving geographic context to items in "In the news"). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 13:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks for the suggestions. I'll bear all this in mind in future. Carcharoth 14:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And I guess I should comment as you quote me here. I removed the item because of a few reasons. First, you stated that you moved it back to the main talk page. We really don't want to fork discussions, so there was really no need to have it repeated here. Second, it was off the main page, so it really wasn't necessary to have it clutter up ERRORS. That's not really what this page is for. But onto your greater point... if someone sees it, but has no knowledge of the subject, they will rightly not comment. That may have been the case here. Many times things can be addressed easily, but others may not. It just depends. Also, if someone sees it, but disagrees with the report, they may not act on it. I guess it's up to the individual editors if they want to comment. As to the efficiency... I would guess it is preety good. The signal to noise ratio is much better here than on the main talk page, and most items are handled within a couple of hours. Some items are handled even faster (a couple of minutes). Yet still others that require some discussion may take a few days. It all depends on the item at hand. Hope this helps. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing it was fine. I guess I just thought that because nothing had happened it could have gone to an archive or waiting area, instead of just disappearing. Or at least been moved somewhere else for something more to be done, or for some other form of follow-up to be implemented. Carcharoth 16:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've now added a new section to encourage people to follow-up common or widespread or critical errors by noting the concerns and then taking discussion and guideline changes to another page. Carcharoth 16:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A minor suggestion: unless someone has a good reason not to, I'd like to see the last two items (" Other Problems" and "Old Problems") swapped. It makes more sense for the "other" section to come last, especially since it has instructions about possibly taking the discussion back to the main page (which we presumably don't want with old items, that being the thrust of this discussion) which logically belong at the end of the page. 168.12.253.82 16:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Even the "old problems" section should really be nothing more than a collection of links to the various template talk pages, encouraging people to move the items there instead. I'll add those links and do some tidying up later, unless someone else finds time first. Carcharoth 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

How long do we keep things in the "Follow up" section ? I don't see any point to keep the "Miss Universe" bit, for instance. -- PFHLai 13:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Shadowbot2

The newly created Shadowbot2 looks for unprotected templates on the Main Page or Tomorrow's Main Page. In the event that it finds one, it emails admins who have placed themselves on the mailing list. If you are an admin interested in preventing Main Page template vandalism, please place yourself on User:Shadowbot2/Mailing list. Thanks, BanyanTree 17:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

fix errors, no matter what?

As we know, DYK is refreshed rather frequently. In the event that when an editor comes along to refresh it there are still open (un-dealt-with) error reports, I really think that he/she should make the fixes first before updating the content. Even if the corrected version only sits up there for five minutes, it is nice, historically thinking, that we eventually got it right. Absent this, it means that the errors go down in history as final. Doops | talk 17:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Down in what history as final? We have a DYK archive, but I doubt if anybody reads it. We also have edit summaries when clearing old comments out of WP:ERRORS, but if the item is off the Main Page, the tendency is to avoid further arguing about it. Art LaPella 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I meant 'history' in the general sense, not the technical (but of course the state of DYK at any point in time can be found easily by looking through its page history). My point is simply that we should have more pride in our work than to let errors go unfixed. Even if it's only for five minutes, it's a sign that we care. Doops | talk 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My way of caring focuses on the quality of Wikipedia's most noticeable page, and not necessarily on who was right. I was a bit harsh there, but is that what you meant? Art LaPella 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, you seem to be imagining a scenario where people are arguing. I'm mostly just referring to simple, clear-cut fixes which never get made. Cheers, Doops | talk 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixes that should have been made when they were on the Main Page, but now it's too late. Art LaPella 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. :) Doops | talk 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So if it's too late, fixing it won't improve the quality of the Main Page - it will only help decide who was right. Art LaPella 23:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your use of this whole "decide who was right" language -- there's nothing to decide; there's no "who" involved. I guess what you're really trying to say, though, is that I'm making this all about me -- that I'm concerned for my feelings more than for the good of the wikipedia. Hmmm. You may have a point; while I certainly don't feel a need to "prove I'm right" (see above where I explain umpteen times that trivial uncontroversial fixes are the issue), there might perhaps be an element of "I put in my time and effort catching the error and proposing a solution and I don't want that to go to waste." It is rather frustrating. :)

But just because I might be emotionally invested doesn't invalidate other more rational arguments I might make; so I have to reiterate my abstract point: once taken down off the front page it's too late, true. But before it comes down, there's a chance to fix it -- it's not yet too late. That is to say, even if the next set of DYK articles are due to arrive any moment now, we still have one last chance to "get it right" and we should seize that chance! Doops | talk 09:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, the Main Page gets more scrutiny than most pages, and it's easy to misidentify a fix as trivial and uncontroversial. For instance, the person who recently wanted to spell "Cavelier" as "Cavalier" probably thought that was a slam-dunk, but I objected because it was part of the name René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle. For another thing, I don't share the goal of getting it right unless it's a means to a larger end. If it isn't to smooth the spread of knowledge and prosperity to millions of Wikipedia Main Page users, and it isn't for the archives, and it isn't for our egos, then what's the point? From a business management point of view, the way to "get it right" would be to move on. Art LaPella 17:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're free to feel that way; it takes all kinds to make a world. But I do hope that it doesn't lead to various admins looking at proposed fixes and saying "eh, rather than deal with this, I'll just let it die a natural death soon." Because we can all agree that would be tragic. Doops | talk 03:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Section editing

Due to the includeonly section for transclusions, section editing for the main WP:ERRORS page is shot - clicking edit on the ITN errors section (section two on WP:ERRORS) opens up the section edit for FA (section one on WP:ERRORS, but section two on the page as a template). Probably needs some fixing. – Chacor 13:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed this in the past, but I have never really been bothered by it. It doesn't seem that it is the case all the time, but I may be wrong. J Milburn 15:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed it. Turns out the problem went back to an unclosed noinclude tag. Section editing should work right now.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

this is instruction creep

it is straightforward for people with no experience with WP to point out errors on the Main Page on Talk:Main Page. And there's nothing wrong with that. There was no excessive clutter, comments about errors on a page are on topic on that page's talk page (I know most content is in templates, but how is that obvious to first time visitors?) and people were always willing to address them. I don't see a reason to keep this page separate. dab (ᛏ) 08:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a good idea to remove the box from Template:Main Page discussion header without discussion. I've reverted the removal. Getting most of the error reports here seems useful in cutting down the clutter on Talk: Main Page. I come here whenever I see this page on my watchlist, and don't have to hunt for error reports on the always very long 'Talk: Main Page'. We don't bite newbies who post error reports in the wrong place, you know. --PFHLai 10:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There might be nothing wrong with it, but in my view this manner is more efficient. If I'm interested in fixing errors, I can watchlist this page and be guaranteed that there won't be any discussion about the Main Page here. Once the errors are fixed, they can be removed, just like at AIV. This ensures the speed of fixing errors. In addition, we're not prohibiting people from posting requests to fix errors elsewhere - this is just a place more convenient for everyone. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, because I'd rather watchlist this page and fix errors, than deal with the rest of the main page discussion. It has led me to fix a lot more errors that I wouldn't otherwise bother with. I dunno, I don't mind it. And like PFHLai said, we still don't bite people that post error messages on the main talk page. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

yes, I understand the reason for having this. My point is that it isn't user friendly. Talk:Main Page is the first talkpage most people see on Wikipedia. There is enough instruction creep at the top of that page as it is. And it is unintuitive to post errors here (factual errors? typos?), while posting content related objections to the main talkpage. Where do you draw the line between pointing out an error and making a stylistic suggestion? As for "don't remove it without consensus", what do you mean? The thing was added without consensus. As long as nobody objects, being bold is fine. Now you note that I object, so I suggest you seek consensus for adding it. This page just means that there is one more page to monitor, on top of Talk:Main Page. There are more than enough people monitoring Talk:Main and acting on requests. If you can't be bothered to watch Talk:Main, just don't, but do not burden us with yet another page for special reports; nothing was broken, so why fix it? dab (ᛏ) 12:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't around when it was first brought in (I mean, I was with WP, just not paying enough attention to the main page), so I don't know anything about the initial adding of it. All I know is that I like it also, because it gives me the links to the specific pages right with the errors. And like I said before, there is nothing wrong with noting errors on the main talk page. We don't fault people for doing it. You wrote, "If you can't be bothered to watch Talk:Main, just don't, but do not burden us with yet another page for special reports". Well, I would counter, "If you can't be bothered to watch Main Page/Errors, just don't". ;-) I dunno... what do others think? --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how having this page makes the situation any worse. The Main Page is not an "ideal" article; distinguishing errors from discussion will make the whole system more efficient. Of course there will be gray areas, as there's no fine line between "discussion" and "error", but having this page is a benefit. As for being user-friendly, I really don't see how it isn't - people are pointed to this page from the talk page, and we certainly don't mind people who inadvertantly place error reports on the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

<- (unindent) I support this new page as well, it's nice and simple. Error reporting is clearly directed here from the talk page, concentrating them all in one place, easy to watch and no need to separate out the error reports from the general background noise. And, like WP:AIV, once dealt with, clean it out. Beautifully simple and efficient. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that *tips hat* -- drrngrvy ^tlk @ 10:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

*20 foot barge pole tips out of hat* ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 18:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Main Page defers to supporting articles

I made the change here about the main page deferring to facts to main page deferring to whenever threre is a disagreement because from my experience this is what happens. Also, in my opinion, it is better to defer to supporting articles whenever there is disagreement even if it isn't something factual. For example, if there is a wording dispute particularly in the TFA blurb, this same thing would usually be in the article. It is better if we correct/improve the wording in the article first rather then correct it on the main page. For starters, the admin may forget to correct the article. Or the admin may correct the article, only for it to be reverted without the people involved realising the TFA blurb has already been changed. More importantly any disagreement is best discussed in the article talk page and sorted out there first, not here. I think there is general agreement that the error page should only be for simple cases and when there is no need to correct the article either because it has already been corrected, the article doesn't make the same mistake or because the issue is that although that is said is correct it is unnecessary or POV to mention it in the main page (particularly for ITN, DYK and to some degree SA) Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to further clarify this [1] Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

TOC?

Why is there a forced __NOTOC__ on this page? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 07:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Without it, the TOC will automatically show up when it is transcluded onto Talk:Main Page at the Talk:Main Page#Main Page error reports section. Apparently there was consensus, I do not remember where the discussion is archived, where they wanted the TOC to appear on Talk:Main Page#General discussion instead. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, the TOC can be enclosed in <noinclude> tags. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's better. Couldn't see any reason not to have it. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 08:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly do we need one? At the moment it just clutters the page and provides no useful information. Most of the page is visible on one screen anyway for the most part. Woody (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's not needed. J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My "most part" comment is best illustrated by this. Woody (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) - Your example shows an empty page. When the TOC is needed is when it's full, and there's an edit summary such as this, and you have to scroll up and down looking for the section in question - or at least I do. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This page should always be empty. It doesn't take much to scroll does it? Woody (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Stabilising not Stabilizing

It says "The British Government announces details of a financial rescue package aimed at stabilizing and restoring confidence in the British banking sector." Stabilising is spelled in American English as opposed to the British English, if its about the British government, shouldn't we use British English and use a "S" not a "Z". This only makes sense. There are non-American users on wikipedia, therefore we should reflect everyone. Also British English is not Oxford English, thats completely different. We should use British English for British topics, just like we use American English for American topics, only fair. Ijanderson (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As an American I've never heard of "Oxford English", but I found an explanation at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)#British English with Oxford Spelling (-ize). If British English is not Oxford English, then that paragraph needs a new heading. Art LaPella (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Both Oxford English and British English are British, but the British English variety is the one used by the government, the other is used by some in the academia. And yes, it should be with s, not z, because if it's about the government then the government spelling must be used. NSK Nikolaos S. Karastathis (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up holding area

Should Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Follow-up and old items be eliminated to fight WP:Instruction creep? We haven't used it for years, and at the moment we aren't even using it for WP:Main Page/Errors#Protection, which has been there for March 22. It says "This holding area is for items that require follow-up ... ", but when something is no longer on the Main Page, we ordinarily delete it. On those rare occasions when we move a discussion elsewhere, we just move it, without bothering with a holding area. Unused instructions make it less likely that people will read and understand the important instructions, so why is it still there? Art LaPella (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sidebar navbox

Just a minor thing but could the sidebar navbox titles (navigation, search, interaction etc.) start with an upper case letter to match the contents of the boxes? Just looks 'wrong' to me! I posted this earlier on the Main Page talk page and it appears to have got lost so forgive me if this is in hand or I am posting in the wrong place. I did see the edit summary Let's leave it here a few hours before deleting it which was puzzling? The simple English version is the same but other language wikis appear correct. Many thanks for your time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a comment/idea about Wikipedia's appearance in general (rather than the Main Page itself), you may wish to post this thread to the Village Pump. Best, JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 20:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK! I don't usually venture in to these parts! I think the edit summary was aimed at something else, difficult to keep track as the page is so dynamic. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Basic errors in TFA blurbs and elsewhere

Hi. I've been doing "TFA patrol" the past few weeks and am continually astonished at the number of basic errors in the TFA blurb and POTD. Things I've spotted are:

• Incoherent TFA blurb

• unexplained relationships between subjects
• unexplained or unfinished concepts/ideas, as if the subsequent sentences (which would have added explanation/context) have been culled
• jumping straight into unexplained facts (i.e. assuming knowledge that would have been obtained by reading the article itself)
• jarring jumps from one sentence to the next
• inappropriate or inadequate placement of wikilinks (i.e. linked on second or third occurrence instead of first)

• Missing links to some obvious terms (TFA and POTD sometimes)

• especially links to related topics and/or complex concepts
• sometimes it is not even present in the article (this should be an issue for FA)
• sometimes the selective culling of sentences results in unlinked terms

What is the cause of this and can we tighten up the ship? Who does the TFA (and POTD) blurbs? Can we not get the TFA blurb into the process as early as the TFA nomination stage? What about underlinking in the articles themselves? Should proper linking be more enforced as part of the FA process? Zunaid 11:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP:FAQ/Main Page#How can I get something fixed before it appears on the Main Page? Art LaPella (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already started by doing "Tomorrow's Main Page" each day. My query is more directed towards that. Why does it even reach all the way to one day remaining before someone (invariably me, these past 2 weeks) spots these oversights? Are there no other people besides me doing regular "Main Page patrol"? Zunaid 13:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly put myself in the Main Page patrol category [2], and I generally at least skim through Tomorrow's Main Page each day, among other kinds of Main Page-related work. There are other familiar names I see around the Main Page, but I'm not sure anyone else is reading this. I haven't done much advertising for help, although my Wikipedia:Did you know/Proofreading and User:Art LaPella/Is this criticism constructive? could be considered advertising for Main Page and especially Did You Know patrol help. Art LaPella (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive the minor spamming/canvassing, but you might be interested in WT:TFA#Modest proposal, where I proposed that non-admins be able to tweak the article blurbs up until a few days before they appear on the Main Page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiversity discussion closed

On the Wikiversity:Main Page, it is said, at right in the news: 4th April: It has been proposed that Wikiversity be closed: please voice your opinions. However, that discussion is closed. Also, is there a corresponding error reporting page in Wikiversity? Wikiversity:Main Page/Errors doesn't exist. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As separate projects there's nothing anyone at en.wikipedia can do about anything on en.wikiversity (unless they also happen to be admins there). The correct place for this would appear to be Wikiversity talk:News but that hasn't been edited since 2007. Maybe you can find an admin at wikiversity and post to their discussion page? Good luck - Dumelow (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why can't Wiki Admin consider the world beyond the Untidy States?

Yet again, Wikiworld begins and ends at the borders of the USA. Why is it that featured articles are dominated by US-centric stories? Did nothing else happen in the world on this day? Fizzackerly 07:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You're joking right? Most of today's main page is non-US (which is unusual, actually, due to systemic bias --Monotonehell 10:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In my observation as an admin, there is one major factor leading to this systemic bias that you can help us solve. It is based on a common guideline that In the news, On this day, Today's Featured Article, and Did You Know all share: All of the articles featured on the main page (linked in boldtype) must be relatively complete, well-written, updated, cited, and verified. Unfortunately there are hundreds of non-USA articles that do not qualify under this rule. So if you would like to help, please feel free. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Random articles seems to hit upon a lot of soccer/football players.

I wonder if I went to the French or Spanish language pages if the content was central to those areas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.30.126 (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The US has a plurality of English speakers in the world so naturally would have a plurality of Wikipedia users inclined to write on the US. 68.42.250.113 (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing comma

The expression "A landslide in Gansu province, People's Republic of China kills 127 people, with 2,000 more missing." is missing a comma after the second element (People's Republic of China), according to WP:COPYEDIT, Common edits, bullet point 7. Cheers. 91.208.174.15 (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Links to today or tomorrow

The ERRORS page includes links to today's and tomorrow's Main Page sections, to help us find the errors being discussed. It provides two ways to link to those sections: either from the {{Main Page toolbox}}, or from the section headers like WP:ERRORS#Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article. However, if I click the section headers without logging on, sometimes I get the wrong day – sometimes yesterday, and sometimes long ago. I haven't noticed that problem with the "Main Page Toolbox", presumably because it is coded differently (and perhaps because I seldom use the "tomorrow" link):

Main Page Toolbox example

|[[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{yesterday}}|TFA]] |[[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}|TFA]] |[[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{tomorrow|long}}|TFA]]

Section headers example

== Errors in the summary of [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Today|today's]] or [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Tomorrow|tomorrow's]] ''featured article'' ==

The former always works even if I'm not logged on; the latter doesn't. So should I change the latter to match the former (excluding the yesterday links)? Art LaPella (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No response, so I finally made the change. Art LaPella (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture section heading

Please see the default edit summary of this edit. It is Errors in today's or +1 days}}|tomorrow's featured picture. Can the section heading be reformatted so the edit summary goes Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture? --Theurgist (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I used the new format (see above) for the link to today's picture, and the old format for the link to yesterday's picture. I did the same for the featured article, which had the same problem, and for On This Day, just to be consistent. I don't remember finding the problem described above with tomorrow's links, perhaps because they aren't used as often. Anyway, my change to today's links will at least prevent the most common form of the problem I described, without causing the problem you described. Art LaPella (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OTD link to 921 earthquake (apparently wrong article)

The last item in the OTD section is linked to 921 earthquake, which seems not to match the information on the main page.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify what doesn't match? It seems to match to me. Intelligentsium 00:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it matches. I apologize for wasting your time. I hastily read the hatnote about Bhutan, and applied it to the article.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Serial comma

Moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Why's there a serial comma in this blurb?  狐 FOX  20:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there some reason there shouldn't be? It's good either way. Shimgray | talk | 23:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The only valid consideration is whether a particular style is favored in Pakistani English.

When making an unrelated change, I unintentionally removed the serial comma without noticing the difference until I'd saved my edit. To determine whether a self-reversion was called for, I immediately consulted our Serial comma article, which indicates that "it is less often used in British English" (which Pakistani English generally reflects). I also performed a quick Google search, which yielded the same information.

But Tariqabjotu restored the serial comma, claiming that my unrelated change was "just a ploy to remove" it. I'd hoped that this comment was jocular, but Tariqabjotu didn't reply to the explanation that I posted on his talk page.

So anyway, perhaps someone with first-hand knowledge of Pakistani English can provide some insight on whether the serial comma belongs. Otherwise, it's best to avoid the issue (which obviously generates passionate reactions among some). —David Levy 00:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Less common in BrEng, perhaps, but it's a "normal variant" rather than something actively deprecated - it's also the Oxford comma, after all ;-). Shimgray | talk | 00:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that may have contributed to my mistaken recollection that the convention was more common (and possibly even mandatory) in British English. That's why I checked (and was prepared to self-revert if that had been the case).

So unless a particular style is considered more correct in Pakistani English, I agree that there's no sense in switching from one to the other. I had the AP Stylebook drilled into me in college (so I'm conditioned to omit the serial comma), but I always try to be mindful of such matters (and respect whatever style has been used, unless it contradicts the MoS or the appropriate English variety's conventions) when editing Wikipedia. I was taken aback by Tariqabjotu's accusation, and I'll note that he added the serial comma to the text suggested on the candidates page (so he either adjusted it to suit his preference or was as unconscious of the difference as I was). —David Levy 01:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

David, I was and am entirely aware that the serial comma is less often used in British English than American English. And, for that reason, it's probably less often used in Pakistani English than American English. So, yes, I basically adjusted the blurb to my preference. But, I also changed "match-fixing" to "spot-fixing". And you changed the order of names from longest to shortest ban to alphabetical order. While the posting admin is supposed to just be the conduit for transferring the ITN/C blurb to ITN, there is some discretion and it is not unusual for ITN blurbs to differ from what appears on ITN/C in areas where its not wrong in a variant. I assumed these changes, particularly the comma point, would be no big deal. But, clearly, I didn't consider Fox.

That being said, of course I didn't think the whole purpose of your edit was to remove the serial comma. I assumed its removal was unintentional and wouldn't have been done had you noticed you were doing it. That's why I reverted it. I ignored your explanation about the comma because I (a) didn't think you expected a response and (b) don't care. I've posted one there now though.

But, thanks for revealing how stupid you think I am by suggesting twice that my edit summary was a serious "accusation". At least do me a favor by skipping the standard "sarcasm doesn't come across well over the Internet" remark; it's not really applicable here. -- tariqabjotu 04:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm not criticizing you for modifying the blurb. My point was that you appeared to perceive and condemn essentially the same act on my part. (I now know that you neither perceived nor condemned such an act.)

2. As I intended to be clear, I don't regard the serial comma's inclusion/omission as a remotely big deal.

3. I didn't realize that the names were listed in order from longest to shortest ban. (At the time, the blurb conveyed that all three had been banned for five years.)

4. I certainly am not suggesting that you're stupid. As noted above, I hoped that your edit summary was jocular, but I was entirely unsure. As sad as this might sound, I actually stayed awake for a couple of extra hours to wait for a reply (mindful of the fact that you and I share a time zone, so you might already have gone to sleep). When you eventually resumed editing and didn't respond with something along the lines of "no worries, I knew it was accidental," I mistakenly assumed that the accusation was serious. For that, I sincerely apologize. —David Levy 05:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to jump on me, Tariq. I was only curious as to why it was used, as it makes it read rather strangely. For what it's worth, "just a ploy to remove it" seems to suggest you regarded David's edits as deliberately disruptive.  狐 FOX  11:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Scope of this page in relation to DYK

PFHLai is arguing at WT:DYK that errors spotted in the DYK queue should be raised here rather than at WT:DYK. There is a contrary to the instruction at the top of the Queue page ("To report errors in the queue, please post at WT:DYK"), but in keeping (at least for the top two or three queues, depending on the time of day) with the instruction at the top of this page ("Please post error reports regarding only what is currently on today's or tomorrow's main page here.") For obvious reasons, tomorrow's ITN is not linked on WP:ERRORS, but TFA, TFP, OTD and TFL for the following day all are. Tomorrow's DYK is in a rather anomalous situation. So should issues with tomorrow's DYK be raised here or at WT:DYK? Kevin McE (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The current way it is set up is to use WT:DYK. As you mentioned, both the instructions on T:DYK/Q and WT:DYK say to go there. If the idea is to "get more eyes from the outside to look at our hooks", it would probably first be helpful to modify WP:ERRORS and add more obvious links to where, or explain even what, the DYK queue is -- both for non-admins and admins alike. Only one single link to T:DYK/Q in the toolbox template is probably insufficient. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My own take on it is that WP:ERRORS is for anything which is either a) currently on the main page or b) queued in the next batch to hit the MP. Everything else goes to WT:DYK. Whether that's a good system or not I don't know; it certainly seems that many DYK problems raised on WP:ERRORS don't get resolved because the item rotates off before anyone deals with it. Modest Genius ^talk 20:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could add a link to the next pending queue:

[[Template:Did you know/Queue/{{Did you know/Queue/Next}}]]

Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That would certainly be a good start. Modest Genius ^talk 21:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen DYKers say that problems in the queue should be raised at WT:DYK. I don't accept that as an exclusive proposition. I think they can and should be raised here where there is a bit more visibility. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the problem is that, wrt DYK, whether one raises it here, at DYK talk, or an article talk, usually nothing is done. I suspect that the idea behind this proposal is to get more eyes on DYK, since it has so many issues, and even when one raises them in advance at DYK talk, admins typically pass DYK noms with issues to the main page anyway (I don't think they even read DYK talk). Worse is trying to raise something on article talk-- it seems that many folks who submit DYKs never return to the articles to check them, and queries about DYKs either pending or already on the main page are not always addressed no matter where one raises them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Who's watching?

Are enough active admins watching this page? There's been a few complaints on Talk:Main Page that errors posted here are often ignored. How's this experiment running now? Opinions? --Monotonehell 12:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

redirects don't work when there is content below them. Viridae^Talk 08:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? It worked for me? Okay then - that's simple to rectify thank you. --Monotonehell 08:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I expected a rather faster response to my suggested corrections. It does not seem unreasonable to me that the most frequently consulted, most frequently updated reference source in the world should be closely monitored, at all times, for changes, suggested changes, and noted errors – at very least with repect to its main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.1.88 (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Since this site is run entirely by volunteers, I'm afraid action will only be taken when someone notices. Usually it's pretty quick, but since nobody's paid to do this, there may be times when very few people are watching (Friday night US/Saturday morning UK is especially dead). —howcheng {chat} 17:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing discussions of DYK items no longer on main page

Next

• ... that the C-SPAN series American Writers visited a meat processing plant to discuss Upton Sinclair's The Jungle?

Can a series visit a plant? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Defined "the hosts of" — Joseph Fox 04:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, the hook appears to be in violation of DYK rules. The hook fact is not explicitly mentioned at all in the article. There are external links in a table entry about the Upton Sinclair episode, but no mention of it in the article text. Just having a redlinked company, which is not identified as a meat processing plant, in the "Featured place(s)" column of the table is not sufficient. That doesn't necessarily mean that anyone associated with the show actually visited the plant. This hook should be replaced with a properly sourced fact which is mentioned in the article, or it should just be removed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, entire table chock full of external links, and it took me forever to find the one that did (attempt to) verify the hook, since it's not a citation, rather an external link. It looks to me like a full day of DYK entries got no scrutiny for basic grammar, accuracy, compliance with rules ... anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks for watching. You might feel like watching here too. Art LaPella (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Art, I appreciate the helpful tip: those are some pretty astounding errors! Since there is accountability at TFA, have you shared your concern about these glaring omissions with Raul654 or Dabomb87? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that's just my daily routine and I'm sure they know it by now. It's actually slowly improving. Art LaPella (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I may have an indication of the source of the problem :) I am typically (but not always) the only person at FAC enforcing WP:NBSP, and I have never asked for it within wikilinked article names. I thought the software handled that, and I see no mention at WP:NBSP ??? Could you point me to information anywhere about NBSPs within wikilinks? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

nbsp within wikilinked article names are indeed mentioned at WP:NBSP: "It is possible to use non-breaking spaces within wikilinks like World War II (encoded as [[World War II]])." with a reference to this. I've been doing it ever since that discussion with no complaints. I added that to WP:NBSP after someone was enthusiastically grateful for being told that information, and after nobody else objected. The software does not automatically keep wikilinks on the same line, as you can see by un-maximizing the window in which you are reading this text, and adjusting its size to make the "World War II" link above put "World" on one line and "War II" on the other (you can't make it "World War" and "II" because of the nbsp.) Art LaPella (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out when that change occurred at MOS; by April 2010 I had given up on keeping up with the ever-changing and ever-growing number of pages there unless it was something very significant, and I certainly missed that one. I doubt that anyone else was checking for that. Art, when you encounter repeat instances of something like that, it would help to alert WT:FAC. I have never asked for nbsps on linked items, and don't know of anyone who has. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MOS changed July 2011; the first discussion was April 2010. MOS problems and similar simple problems occur in any featured article, so notify whoever you want. I haven't looked lately, but some AWB-aided and non-AWB examples from last year are: [3] and [4]; [5] and [6]; [7] and [8]; [9], [10], and [11]; [12] and [13]. All of them are the result of some kind of automated search (or something I just happened to see); I didn't read the whole article. That should give you an idea how frequently repeated they are. After WP:NBSP, the second most frequent problem is WP:ENDASH, specifically spaced hyphens that should be dashes. User:Art LaPella/AWB explanation lists common errors. It was written for any article, but featured articles have almost as many such errors as other articles. Art LaPella (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing

Copyvio on main page

• Read Musa Muradov
• Then read this.

Copyvio is not only a matter of matching words and phrases: it's also copying the entire structore of the article. When you read the source, then read the article, you know you're reading someone else's work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I compared the Muradov article with the cpj.org source, and I find no copyvio. cpj.org is very clearly and repeatedly cited as the source of the facts. Facts, they tell me, cannot be copyrighted. I recommend that we not start another "close paraphrasing" witch hunt. "Structure?" The structure is chronological, isn't it, and that can't be copyrighted either. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a surprising response. Well then, here's your "witch hunt". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

TSCII

I've noticed that the page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSCII has a broken table. I'd fix it myself but I'm completely unfamiliar with Wiki syntax. Thanks. 178.83.68.69 (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC) (lKj)

Fixed by Crisco, thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

When WP:ERRORS is unmonitored

On Saturday 24 Nov, the TFA slot was occupied by a blurb on RAF Northolt. I posted a message at WP:ERRORS with what I hope I am not immodest in describing as fairly incontestable issues with the extract.

Report of issues with blurb

Horrible inconsistency in use of units in opening sentences of the RAF Northolt blurb. Land measurements in UK are generally given in miles, not a mixture of nautical miles kilometres. Sixteenths of a circle compass points are unnecessary, and given that Uxbridge is not appreciably better known globally than South Ruislip, that distance seems highly superfluous, especially as Heathrow is also given for helping to locate. "West London" is not a political entity, and so "west" should not be capitalised. The suggestion that the tube station and proximity of the A40 are factors making the civil facilities at the airport popular is unsourced and sounds like an extract from promotional literature. Parenthetical commas in last sentence not closed No apparent reason why, if several squadrons are based there, that No 32 is picked out for special mention: what about the Queen's Colour Squadron, 600 (City of London) Squadron, No 1 AIDU, the Air Historical Branch (RAF) and the Central Band of the RAF? I have been bold and changed some of this in the article: suggest RAF Northolt is a Royal Air Force station in South Ruislip, in the west London Borough of Hillingdon, approximately 6 mi (10 km) north of London Heathrow Airport. The station handles a large number of private civil flights.[2] Northolt has one runway in operation, spanning 5,525 ft × 150 ft (1,684 m × 46 m), with a grooved asphalt surface. Originally established for the Royal Flying Corps, and at one time the busiest airport in Europe, it has the longest history of continuous use of any RAF airfield. Before the outbreak of the Second World War, the station was the first to take delivery of the Hawker Hurricane. The station played a key role during the Battle of Britain, when fighters from several of its units, including No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron, engaged enemy aircraft as part of the defence of London. More recently the station has become the hub of British military flying operations in the London area. A number of RAF squadrons are based at RAF Northolt, as is the headquarters of the British Forces Post Office. I have added minor mention of the busiest airport (in 1952 while Heathrow was being built) and the BFPO, which might also be of interest to main page readers and are both sourced in the article, in this blurb to make up for some details removed. Kevin McE (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

14 hours later, with no attention to the blurb, although many of these items had been changed on the article and unchallenged, midnight came, and the blurb was rotated off the main page. In something of a pique, I posted the following, and it received replies, but now moved to here as the errors page is not really intended for aged discussions. Kevin McE (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Either:

• A) There are insufficient admins that regularly visit this page for it to serve its purpose, or
• B) It is thought that unsourced boasts, poor punctuation, bias towards one squadron over another, and breaches of the Manual of Style are all acceptable in what is presented on our highest profile page as our best product.

Which is it? Kevin McE (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• • C) It's time for Kevin McE to become a wiki-admin. --70.31.10.112 (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • In the meantime, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents might be useful. Or perhaps WP:ERRORS should be transcluded there. --70.31.10.112 (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's probably a combination of (A), exacerbated by the Thanksgiving holiday in the States, and (C). I don't know about transcluding WP:ERRORS on ANI (no one looks at the section on RFC's to be closed transcluded there, except for admins that already close RFC's), but a new thread on AN or ANI asking for an admin to come over to WP:ERRORS, if it seems like this page is being neglected, might work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I tend to look in on this page several times a day during the US daytime on weekdays. I was away from WP for the entire long holiday weekend.

If this is now a discussion about the usage of this page, I would think that it should be moved to the talk page of this page. Extended discussions should really be moved elsewhere. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thus moved. Essentially, I suppose the issue is "How do we get a throughflow of admins to monitor notifications here when the trusty regulars are engaged in real life?" Kevin McE (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

One difficulty is that the turnover time of the different sections makes a single policy tricky. DYK turns over approximately every 8 hours. That means that anything left unhandled there for over that length of time is almost certainly stale. ITN, OTOH, has items remain visible for a week or more. Any kind of po0licy that says "If no response in X period of time, take it to AN/I" would need to account for the difference in turnover times.

There's also an issue of relative urgency. We don't want punctuation issues taken to AN/I, even if the issue is lingering. BLP issues, copyright violations, and other high urgency issues maybe should be encouraged to raise a flag at AN/I sooner than other issues. (Assuming a notice here does not get a response soon enough.)

I don't like the idea of transcluding this page somewhere. Familiarity breeds complacency. The idea is that, if an issue is not getting attention here, and it has some urgency, then there needs to be a normal next step. I would think that just transclusing WP:E somewhere would not serve the purpose of getting issues the needed attention.

This is an important discussion, and involves AN and/or AN/I. So I'm thinking of adding a notice to one or both to try to draw some more comment to here from other than the WP:E regulars. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think two things would help:
  1. A request on WP:AN that more admins put WP:ERRORS on their watchlist.
  2. A mechanism for reporters to draw wider admin attention to WP:ERRORS when it appears no one has noticed something important. The obvious (well, to me) solution would be a quick note on WP:AN/WP:ANI saying "could someone take a look at WP:ERRORS, there's an unresolved issue that's been there for a while", the same way we occasionally do if WP:RFPP or WP:AIV is backlogged. Unless it's being abused, leave it to the reporter's judgement how long to wait and whether to do so. A note to this effect could be added to the "Please note the following:" section at the top of WP:ERRORS.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

A request like that a few months back is exactly what got me to start watching WP:E. Maybe we need to plan to regularly ask for people to watch. Once a month or every 2-3 months. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Would transcluding it onto Wikipedia:Dashboard help any? --64.85.221.164 (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why I didn't see this discussion before, but I saw your request when you made it. I didn't fulfill it because it just seemed like way too much work. Sorry, but the likelihood of me fixing an error is inversely proportional to how long the request is. It didn't help either that your requests weren't exactly urgent. I disagree that "West" in "West London" shouldn't be capitalized. I thought the use of nautical miles was bizarre, but fine regardless. I didn't think it really mattered whether north-northwest or whatever precise compass direction was used was in the blurb. It just seemed like a lot of work for little benefit. So I ignored it, as is my prerogative. -- tariqabjotu 10:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

On the basis that prevention is better than cure, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2012 is scheduled until 7th December (cough, modesty prevents me from saying by who) so please check and fix as necessary. Raul has appointed two additional TFA delegates, partly in response I think to comments that scheduling was getting a bit last-minute, so hopefully this will help. And / or join in with discussions and copy-editing at WP:TFAR where at least some of the blurbs are taken from by the schedulers. Bencherlite^Talk 10:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Footy Awards Discussion

Please revert this edit, which is not consistent with Wikipedia's current position on the Ballon d'Or and FIFA Ballon d'Or respectively. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 10:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 12:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? How is that not consistent? This is Lionel Messi's fourth consecutive Ballon d'Or. FIFA awarded this Ballon d'Or. So, FIFA awarded Messi his fourth consecutive Ballon d'Or. Sources are even less evasive and precise about this point, conflating all four awards as being the same, especially since Messi won the 2009 FIFA World Player of the Year along with the 2009 Ballon d'Or), which were the precursors to this award. Most sources call this his "fourth consecutive" Ballon d'Or (with or without "FIFA" appended beforehand), and so the statement appears to be accepted as correct (see [14], [15]). See also the discussion at the bottom of Wikipedia:ITN/C#.5BPosted.5D_Lionel_Messi_wins_FIFA_Ballon_d.27Or. -- tariqabjotu 17:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

They are two different awards, please see the talk pages of the relevant articles. GiantSnowman 22:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion there is about the merging of the Ballon d'Or (1956–2009) and FIFA Ballon d'Or articles, which I agree is probably not appropriate. But that is distinct from arguing that the statement that was on the Main Page -- "FIFA awards Lionel Messi his fourth consecutive Ballon d'Or" -- is not true. As I stated, and as you curtly dismissed, Messi won both 2009 awards (one of which was also called the "Ballon d'Or") that were "merged" to form the FIFA Ballon d'Or in 2010. So, he's won the Ballon d'Or four consecutive times. He's has also won FIFA's award for player of the year four consecutive times. For that reason, for all intents and purposes, it is accurate to say this is his fourth consecutive Ballon d'Or, as is stated in nearly every reliable source covering this story. FIFA itself repeats the same when it says "Lionel Messi speaks to FIFA.com about winning the FIFA Ballon d'Or for a record fourth time." (see [16]).

If you truly want to be pedantic, we can put "Lionel Messi wins the FIFA Ballon d'Or, becoming the first association football player to be named the world's best four times." But it's really a mouthful for ITN, and no one else sees a need to make a distinction when noting the four wins. In the meantime, I've said it's his third consecutive FIFA Ballon d'Or, which is certainly correct (again, even though FIFA says it's his fourth...). -- tariqabjotu 23:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If FIFA says it's his fourth, shouldn't we do that as well? —howcheng {chat} 00:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That made it even worse... KTC (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should either say fourth like FIFA itself and nearly all reliable sources reporting on the award (see for example Google News on Messi fourth), or not mention a number. Saying third based on a technicality that it didn't have the exact same name the first time he won makes us look silly. Lots of football fans reading ITN will know it's his fourth consecutive award. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

He has won an award called the 'Ballon d'Or' 4 times - but they're two different awards. GiantSnowman 09:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have nothing else to say other than repeating "They're two different awards", don't say anything at all. You have been presented with more detailed, well-thought-out points and reliable sources -- including the sponsor of this award -- that deserve more than just regurgitation of the same line. While the current statement on the Main Page -- that Messi simply won this year's award -- is not wrong, I am extremely perplexed as to how both "fourth consecutive" and "third consecutive" can be unacceptable. There's a balance between being informative and pedantic, and I think you're tipping the scale too far in the direction of the latter, in contravention to how every source puts it and in contravention to the pushback to "third consecutive" displayed here; that's not something "they're two different awards" can dismiss. -- tariqabjotu 10:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What a wonderful attitude you have. FIFA - the world governing body of football - clearly differentiates between the two awards. GiantSnowman 10:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Then who wrote "Lionel Messi speaks to FIFA.com about winning the FIFA Ballon d'Or for a record fourth time" here (second time linked and quoted now)? -- tariqabjotu 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No idea. But I'd say the organisation's actual historical record is a better source than a one-off journalism piece, of unknown authorship, published by the same organisation. GiantSnowman 11:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. But even if we were to go with your link, it presents the pre-2010 FIFA awards in the same fashion, but with a rename. In all years, even past 2009, it's presented as an award for player of the year. And it shows Messi as winning four of these awards consecutively. Not to mention the multitude of secondary sources that say the same thing.

But since you think your link is "historical record", but mine is "one-off journalism", I think I'm just going to be continually faced with distinction without a difference arguments that are impossible to counter. So, I won't further attempt to do so. -- tariqabjotu 11:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your official FIFA source [17] doesn't show 2012 yet but says:

FIFA Ballon d'Or 2011. Player of the year: Lionel MESSI (ARG)

FIFA Ballon d'Or 2010. Player of the year: Lionel MESSI (ARG)

FIFA World Player GALA 2009. Player of the year: Lionel MESSI (ARG)

France Football Ballon d'Or winners. 2009 - Lionel Messi

I don't see how that claims that 2012 was only his third consecutive win of a new award instead of the fourth of an award with a name change. The Google search Messi fourth site:http://www.fifa.com finds many different FIFA pages saying Messi won for the fourth time: a record-breaking fourth consecutive title of best player in the world, It is Lionel Messi's fourth consecutive FIFA Ballon d'Or - a new record., Lionel Messi made history when he claimed the FIFA Ballon d’Or for 2012 on Monday evening, becoming the first player to be named the world’s best on four occasions - all of them consecutive., this year's FIFA Ballon d'Or in Zurich which saw Lionel Messi crowned for the fourth time, Lionel Messi's fourth Ballon d'Or, I have absolutely no problem with Messi winning a fourth title. I stop here but you can just see the Google search to find several more. I also tried Messi third site:http://www.fifa.com. It gave many pages talking about his third award but guess what, every one I examined was referring to his 2011 award! PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That source shows that FIFA has a current award called 'FIFA Ballon d'Or' and a previous award called 'France Football Ballon d'Or' - just as Wikipedia has the current award called 'FIFA Ballon d'Or' and a previous award called 'Ballon d'Or (1956–2009).' Two different awards that share a similar name. The likelihood that those pieces were all written by the same sloppy journalist, or group sloppy journalists, is high. GiantSnowman 14:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't see the big deal with the current blurb, but if it is a big deal then perhaps we should look again at how the relevant articles are structured, in preparation for next year. Putting aside my personal opinion (which for disclosure is to keep the current articles as they are), to claim that Messi has won four consecutive awards, and then link to an article which asserts that the thing has only been awarded three times, sends out a very strange message. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 16:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Movement request

Ummm, can this discussion please be moved somewhere else? MP:ERRORS is *really* not the right place for extended discussions, and the above is becoming way beyond what should be discussed here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a difficult one. I would like this to be moved to WT:FOOTY, as the primary issue is the articles themselves. But to a certain extent this discussion is a debate over whether what I reported was indeed an error. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That clarified for me then the main question that was preventing me from just moving it myself. *Where* to move it. If enough of the core thrust of the conversation is now about the use of MP:ERRORS, then the talk of MP:ERRORS is likely the best place to move it, and so here it now is. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion resumes

Academy Award for Best Picture#Award name shows five different names since 1927. Does that mean it was five different awards? Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not original interpretations by editors who just dismiss all official and reliable sources as "sloppy". If I had patience to copy-paste links from simple Google searches, I could give 10+ official FIFA sources saying it's Messi's fourth consecutive and 100+ reliable sources from Google News. Practically nobody outside Wikipedia has ever called it the third. It's not a new award in 2010. It's a continuation of an existing award, or two awards, which were both won by Messi in 2009 (and also had the same winner in the four previous years). I guess the only reason for the new name was to get a name indicating it was a continuation of both the merged awards. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The crucial difference, in relation to the blurb we are discussing, is that Academy Award for Best Picture is one article. By contrast the pre-merge and post-merge awards are covered in three different articles, the latter of which states that the new award has been issued three times. Although this isn't necessarily my view, it may be that you are right and others are wrong about the awards themselves. But given that the previous blurb contradicts the content of FIFA Ballon d'Or, it is better to go with the current (admittedly more bland) blurb, which does not make a judgement call either way. If the articles are wrong, we should sort the articles out first and then change our blurb accordingly – ITN's function is to reflect updated content, not contradict it. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please fix the new galaxy information!

It is 13 not 30 Billion light years. Bearian (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm getting bored of explaining this. Distances in cosmology are complicated. 30 billion ly is the comoving distance, whilst 13 billion ly is the light travel distance. See distance measures in cosmology. It's also clearly explained in the lead of the article z8_GND_5296 itself. Modest Genius ^talk 22:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Kurdî(Kurdish) language

please add Kurdî(Kurdish) language in main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.10.186.61 (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, this is not the right venue; this page is for discussing the errors page itself. Second, the Kurdish WP only has ~20k articles, according to ku:Taybet:Statîstîk, while the minimum number for inclusion on the Main Page is >50k articles. (This applies to both {{Wikipedia languages}} and {{Main Page interwikis}}.) Thanks, /~huesatlum/ 23:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Transphobia

The current front page is transphobic, as it says someone was a crossdresser.—chbarts (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Before you complain about transphobia, you should familiarize yourself with the differences between transgenderism, transvestism, and cross-dressing. Hint: a woman who identifies as female but is wearing culturally-male clothing for the purpose of fooling other people is cross-dressing, not transgendered. --Carnildo (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether error report should be removed

The page states, "Once an error has been fixed, the error report will be removed from this page...". Is it not better to archive the error reports than just to delete them? Previous error reports may be helpful not to do similar errors in the future. Not really a big deal. Just a trivial thought :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the errors are typos or links that need to be fixed. No archive is going to help us avoid them. Also, most of the entries make no sense without the context of the current Main Page, so I don't think an archive will be worth the effort. You're free to prove me wrong, of course :-) Kusma (討論) 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as Kusma said, most errors are minor typos or grammar. If there are other issues, they are moved to the "Follow-up and old items" section, where they are then eventually moved to a suitable location elsewhere. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; archiving wouldn't provide many benefits, and would make taking care of requests a little bit slower. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also agree that archiving is not sensible. —Nightstallion (?) 16:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no "followup and old items" section anymore, apparently

The problem with swift removal is that it makes it very hard to track quality control, unless one obsessively checks ERRORS maybe two to three times per day. (I'm not an admin so I can't do anything about what's reported here, further reducing the incentive to check all the time.)

If the goal is to keep resolved issues from obscuring outstanding ones, why not just collapse the outstanding ones and then archive them after, say, 48 hours or something? (I recognize there are special problems with archiving because the ==-level sections are static.) And wait a second -- is there an archive? If so, where is it?

Please ping me when responding since ERRORS is much too busy to watch. EEng (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Amazing that you responded to a nine-year-old post. Were you expecting anything? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Amazing that you don't see I was trying to revive the question of how to handle resolved issues. I was, and still am, expecting something, but from someone looking to have a useful discussion, not someone intent on trying to make my sensible attempt look like something foolish. EEng (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It was just a simple question. I am so sorry you felt so sensitive about it, or that I upset you in any way. Good luck in your quest for a response. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. this may help you realise why I made my original post, especially considering this. You're better off posting this to your own talkpage. But hey, sorry again for touching a nerve, clearly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No nerve hit but you were not asking a simple question, rather a sarcastic one: "Amazing that you responded to a nine-year-old post. Were you expecting anything?" You linked stats showing that this page gets only base minimum 10 views per day that all pages get (webcrawlers and so on), apparently to suggest no one is likely to respond. That's nonsense. There are no page views because there's been no activity here for two months. The right statistic is the number of watchers, of which there are 700. You presumably saw my post on your watchlist, and others will too. Whether they respond or not remains to be seen.

I posted because, as you've made me realize over at Talk:DYK, there's no convenient way of getting a good feel for how many items run into some kind of trouble once they're on MP, other than to watch ERRORS constantly. I wanted to make it easier for DYKers to learn from their mistakes, just as you -- in your snotty, grumbling, stomp-off-in-high-dudgeon way -- have been demanding for so long. Either you don't see that, or your impulse to snark got the best of you.

Have the last word now, after which I'll wait to hear from people interesting in constructive discussion. EEng (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Your time is much better spent making sure DYK don't sanction crap, unfunny or offensive hooks, sanction crap articles, sanction poorly referenced articles. That will help the DYKers learn from their mistakes. It's obvious, I would have thought even you had got it by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Image display problem

Moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

The image File:Roch Marc Christian Kaboré au FMLF2012.JPG looks elongated and distorted in my browser (Pale Moon). Is this just me, or is it the same everywhere? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Same here. But if I go to the image, it looks correctly proportioned. Sca (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Same in Chrome, Firefox and Safari. It looked okay when I posted it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

David Levy - it appears have gone south after your cropping. As a non-Commons admin, I can't undo your changes to check... would you be able to look into this ASAP? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This happened to me a while ago (maybe an hour ago?), but apparently fixed itself a few minutes later. I had to bypass my browser's cache to see the fix, however. (Warning, not quite knowing what I'm talking about ahead). Just purging Wikipedia servers didn't work. I've just now re-purged and re-bypassed, and the image still looks Ok to me, so you might just have an old, bad image in your cache? Give it a try, and note here if it still looks bad afterward. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Previous thread: [18] --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Nah, it's buggered. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Very weird, it was buggered for me, but then got resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

That worked for me (Firefox). Sca (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: The first time it looks like the problem started after you'd updated the page, TRM. And went away when the next person edited the template. So I've made a null edit just now. Could you bypass and purge again and see if it's different now? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No, still buggered. Talk me through it in baby steps, and do our readers need to do this? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Control panel, internet options, delete temporary files. Sca (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Windows? Nein danke. And I've cleared my temp files from Chrome and Firefox and Safari.... Same problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Going through the edit history and previewing, it's buggered at this version which was way long ago.... It's something to do with the image as far as I can tell. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it looks buggered at Commons seems to indicate that it's down to the image cropping. If anyone knows a Commons admin who can roll it back to the image I linked, that would be a definitive answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hard to do that (talk you through it in baby steps), because I don't really know what I'm talking about. But depending on your browser, follow the instructions at: Wikipedia:Bypass your cache#Bypassing cache. I don't know if our user have to do this or not; they shouldn't have to, obviously, but because of the software they might need to in order to see it normally. The thing is, when the template was refreshed an hour or so ago, I could see the cropped image, unwarped. I still see the thumbnail warped on Commons, but the full size crop isn't warped. I agree reverting to the old image is likely to resolve this case, as an emergency, for now, but it really shouldn't be acting this way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A fresh restart from install on Firefox, same problem. This needs immediate action, I'm sure it's happened before as well.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the previous image until this is completely resolved and explained. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I've asked the admins on commons to help: [19]. No idea if they jump on things there slower, or faster, than we do here, so I think replacing was a good idea. Right now, I *still* see an undeformed thumb on my browser, though. Weird. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

They re-uploaded the image on commons, but... now, it looks stretched too wide (both in thumbnail and in full picture). How does Commons pic look to you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks fine and on main page preview it looks normal so I've restored it. Now we need to know why this has happened, and more importantly, how to avoid it in the fooootoooor. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks fine for me on IE10, but now stretched too wide in Firefox 42.0. I have to run, but I'd be tempted to stick with the other image for now, since our readers are probably using 50 different browsers. At link above, Commons admin says image rendering for some images has been buggy lately, they don't know why. I have to run, but will ask at WP:VPT tonight if no one else has. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Okk, back to Leon for the third or fourth time. We need a proper explanation for this, so until then I suggest we just hold on to what we have, especially as long as Leon is, Leon isn't elongated or unusually lengthy or languid. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I learned of the issue during a bus ride and implemented a technical fix via my phone, noting that I'd post an explanation later.
As discussed above, the problem began at some point after I cropped the photograph. I was aware of a recent MediaWiki image caching bug, which has resulted in the display of old versions. It's affected 120px thumbnails (the size appearing in file histories) in particular, but not exclusively. Upon uploading the cropped image, I immediately confirmed that it was displayed correctly on our main page, not realizing that some users continued to receive the previous version. (This is the first I've heard of such a manifestation, which is extremely unusual.) When the reversion was performed at Commons, this apparently shifted the defect to the opposite set of users (or a subset thereof), for whom the cropped image remained cached.
The solution was to restore the cropped version and move the file to a different name. This generated a brand new cache, thereby eliminating the possibility that it was outdated for anyone.
My apologies for triggering the glitch and the resultant confusion. Needless to say, I won't crop any live main page images (without also using a different filename) until the underlying bug has been resolved. —David Levy 22:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Missing sections

I just loaded the main page and only got the FA and ITN sections. This wasn't the mobile view. What happened to DYK, OTD, &c.? Andrew D. (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• I tried again and it's ok now. Weird. Andrew D. (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of discussion?

@Sca, Jayron32, Bencherlite, The Rambling Man: This removal of discussion wouldn't be acceptable behavior in article space. Why is Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors an exception? - Pointillist (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't article space. WP:ERRORS isn't archived. It's a page for errors to be raised and dealt with. If it's not an error, then further discussion belongs elsewhere. "No chit-chat", say the long-standing instructions at the top of the page. Bencherlite^Talk 00:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt explanation. It would be helpful if the main page cabal would use unambiguous conventions to indicate when a discussion is finished because the error has been addressed or determined to be out-of-scope. Ideally the convention would be an explicit edit (e.g. "OK, I'll clear this now the error has been addressed"). Failing that there should at least be a clearer edit comment. - Pointillist (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think there might be a typo in TRM's edit summary (I think he meant "house style, not an error" rather than "not house style, not an error") but I think the admins who patrol this corner of WP are generally good at leaving decent edit summaries, and normally the reason for removal will be clear from the discussion being removed (e.g. that something has been fixed, or that something is no longer on the main page). Bencherlite^Talk 01:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Pointillist:: This is what we call "what we do with every discussion at WP:ERRORS everytime, since forever". When an item is either a) resolved b) rotated off the main page or c) irrelevant, the discussion is simply removed. If you look through the history of the page, you will see that literally every single discussion that has ever occurred (literally all of them) have been simply removed when the problem is resolved. If you wish to change this practice, start an RFC to create a new procedure. If the discussion in question should continue to occur, feel free to find another venue to have it in, such as WP:VPM. Either way, the "behavior" that you link to in the above diff is called "exactly what we have done with every single item that has ever been posted to WP:ERRORS, ever" If you wish to change that operating procedure, start a discussion and demonstrate widespread consensus among the community to do so. --Jayron32 01:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm OK with there being a local way-of-working: I'm just asking that it be signaled more clearly, in the way that I would elsewhere using shorthand e.g. like WP:N etc. You probably aren't seriously proposing that contributors should have to analyse the history of prior edits in order to infer the local consensus, but if you are, then that's a proposition that should be debated more widely. My perspective of the walled gardens of ITN and DYK is somewhat at odds with the regulars here, but once we get down to detail I rarely disagree with Bencherlite. - Pointillist (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not discouraged you from starting the discussion necessary to change that, if you wish to. On the contrary, I have specifically encouraged you to do so, if that is what you wish to do. --Jayron32 02:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Have I understood you correctly? Do you mean (1) that the main page sections are maintained via undocumented protocols that can only be understood by analyzing the pattern of prior edits/discussions, rather than by reference to agreed policies/guidelines; (2) that this inherently haphazard approach to educating contributors about main page processes is desirable or at least accepted as the norm; and (3) in your opinion any disadvantages of this approach should not be questioned on the talk page but only by escalating to a forum such as the Village Pump? Seriously? - Pointillist (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have only made one statement, expressed only one opinion, and made only one recommendation: If you wish to change anything, start a discussion to do so and then get consensus. I have expressed no other opinions on the matter. --Jayron32 03:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And, if since you also seem to be asking where it the rules for archive the discussions are, they have been written in the explicit documentation of the page, every time you edit WP:ERRORS, for 6 1/2 years. As I noted already, if you wish to changes these written instructions, please do so by starting a discussion somewhere (here is a good place, though VPM would work if you like) and gathering consensus to do so. --Jayron32 03:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And, if you had missed it there, it's been in the header of WP:ERRORS, in some form, for 6 years, 2 months or so. Again, if the instruction as written today "Once an error has been fixed, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history for discussion and action taken." and "Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere." If you wish to change either of these written procedures, you are encouraged to do so by starting a discussion and gathering consensus to do so. --Jayron32 03:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, Bencherlite's correction of my edit summary is fair enough, in my mind I was saying "we're already using house style, this is not an error", indeed even the OP had accepted that this was not an error. As for removing the discussion, please see all the good stuff Jayron has linked to. If anyone would like to change this by pouring more bureaucracy on top of it, I'd open an RfC. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• There's another example today re some discussion of an FP about Jupiter. TRM kept trying to shut down the discussion and shoot the messengers. This seems unsatisfactory. Andrew D. (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Errors in content (as opposed to blurb) of featured picture

So File:Jupiter diagram.svg in Template:POTD/2016-03-04 includes the non-word "liquidier". When I pointed this out, it was closed because "it's an issue with the image itself, not the TFP blurb". I understand and don't disagree with the reasoning (although --side issue-- editsummary "not an error" was unhelpful). However:

• the section heading "Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture" is misleading; by analogy with the heading "Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article" it should really be something like "Errors in the blurb under today's or tomorrow's featured article".
• POTD is different from other featured elements. For TFA etc, if there is an error in the article not on the summary, a reader won't see it at all on the Main Page; they would have to click through to the article, see the error there, and (hopefully) naturally report it on the article's Talk: page rather than Main_Page/Errors. By contrast, if there is a mistake in the picture, you can (depending on eyesight and resolution) see it on the main page without clicking through. Maybe it would be worth instructing (on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors/header or elsewhere on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors) like "to report errors in the content of the image, go to its talk page (or in this case its commons Talk page). An argument against that is that most POTDs have no text and are therefore unlikely to contain an error.

jnestorius^(talk) 13:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful for those concerned by today's issue to take it to WP:FPC where the featured status of this image which contains a purported error (and according to some, WP:OR failing WP:V), as nothing will be actioned here. I understand the concerns over the content of TFP itself rather than the blurb, but that's a failing of the Featured Picture Candidates area of the project, not the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

When I wrote "I understand and don't disagree with the reasoning" I meant "I know there are things that need to be reported at Main Page/Errors and things that need to be reported Somewhere Else; I now understand that liquidier needs to be reported Somewhere Else." I am suggesting that the framework/layout/boilerplate of Main Page/Errors might do a better job of pointing would-be reporters in the direction of Somewhere Else. You may agree or disagree; either is fine. If you agree, I have made two specific suggestions above, repeated hereunder:

• Change a heading to "Errors in the blurb under today's or tomorrow's featured picture" [mistyped as "article" above]
• Adding a message to the "Errors in ... featured picture" section saying "To report errors in the content of the image, go to its commons Talk page." [although apparently Rambling Man thinks WP:FPC

Again, you may agree or disagree. jnestorius^(talk) 00:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Dank (moved from WP:ERRORS)

Just a note that I've got family issues to deal with that are going to distract me for at least a couple of weeks, so I won't be checking here as often. I'll post another note when things are back to normal. - Dank (push to talk) 11:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've moved this here as otherwise it is bound to be deleted. Hope all is well before too long, and there are plenty of people keeping an eye on the place anyway. Bencherlite^Talk 11:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bench. - Dank (push to talk) 12:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Things are back to normal ... for what that's worth :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Featured List and Featured Picture text blurbs

There are often significant copyediting improvements that could be made to the featured list and featured picture elements of the front page, but I am struggling to puzzle out how one might seek to get involved before they reach this point. Any ideas or guidance would be much appreciated. Edwardx (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I have already responded to this point, at the venue you originally posted it. For avoidance of doubt, future TFLs are sitting at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 2016 and TFPs, similarly, are scheduled at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/June 2016. Long in advance. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again for your kind help. I have just been through both lists, and will endeavour to keep an eye on future months. Edwardx (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for keeping an eye out for issues before the get to the main page! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Style at TFA

Since I'd like to hear anything anyone says about style at TFA, but those discussions haven't been productive recently, and since ERRORS commenters generally don't want to see style questions, does anyone mind if I move style questions at ERRORS/TFA to my talk page, leaving a note at ERRORS mentioning the general point of the question? - Dank (push to talk) 10:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I mind not. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems a good idea. If we get any. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thx. We got one today. - Dank (push to talk) 11:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not sure that was a comment about MP blurb style (it was me that archived it!). But happy with your way forward in any case :-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Stephen 23:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Great. I'll take this as consensus until I found out otherwise. - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Back to the Future

As discussed today at WP:ERRORS, the link to tomorrow's FA summary which appears in the heading there has been broken so I have just fixed it. This may improve our ability to look ahead. Andrew D. (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It always worked (for me) after purging the page, but if you've fixed it so that now it works without purging, then thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with purging; it's not something I have ever done. The previous link had some purge logic but maybe that wasn't working. All I know is that the latest version works whereas the previous one was usually days out. But maybe we will have to check that it doesn't become stale too. Andrew D. (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• <a day later> The new link may need purging too. I have a transcluded version of it on a user page and that was getting stale, still showing yesterday's tomorrow – the red rail which is today now. I added a purge clock widget to my user preferences and purged the transcluded version so it was up-to-date. I found that the link here was working but maybe that was because I had purged the other instance. I'll keep checking on this to fully understand the behaviour and my impression is that, so long as someone is purging it, it will keep it fresh for others too. Andrew D. (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• <after some days> The new link seems to work fine without needing purging. Andrew D. (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it's working for me. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You can't beat a good purge now and again, can you? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Our ability to look ahead can be vastly improved by using the links provided, many times, to this month's TFAs. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2016 if you can't find it. This lists each TFA up to (and including) 22 June as I write this. That means you can look at the next 20 TFAs and make suggestions/amendments/improvements before they have been featured on the main page for half a day! Imagine that! And when we run out of June, you'll be able to find the next set of TFAs at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2016. That's empty at the moment, but don't panic!, as you've been told many times, that will be gradually filled a couple of weeks or so in advance of each TFA being posted! Be our guest! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Update the links provided to enable users to see weeks (!) in advance still work! A marvel of modern technology. Right, can we move on to fixing issues before they get to the main page now please? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

WT:FAC#New Featured Article coordinators

Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

In and out

I'm going to be in and out over the next day or two. Play nice. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Article on apple incorporation

In that article it is said that apple is the biggest IT company by revenue.But it is not and has been surpassed by google.

The page was protected so kindly please make this edit if u are convinced.

Thank You Triambak 17 (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK needs a "next" too

Much as we have for OTD and TFL and TFP, I believe we need a "next" for DYK. Usually hooks are queued up in advance enough to always be able to review the next set, and as I'm discovering, the admins who frequent DYK don't seem able or available to action request made over at the project. Therefore I'm proposing we encourage our editors to look ahead at the next set of DYKs before they hit the main page. Just needs someone to code up the markup for "next" as it's in a moving queue.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've made a stab at adding it, using the code from the DYK project's own queuing system. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

¡Arriba, Arriba! ¡Ándale, Ándale! =

I queried some issues with an ITN blurb today – the Puerto Rican debt default. As usual, editors rushed to stifle discussion as quickly as possible and so I see that it is gone now. Following up, I went to look at the original discussion at ITN. I notice that:

1. There was no consensus to post this item in the first place -- 6 opposes and 6 supports
2. Similar points were made during the discussion but were not fully resolved
3. The stated conclusion was that "WP:ERRORS would be the best place to suggest a new blurb and offer further comments on an issue with the wording."

We see that, in fact, WP:ERRORS is a hopeless place to have a proper discussion. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The $123 billion of Puerto Rican liabilities ($71 billion bonds) are only several times less than the $376 billion of mega important Greek debt (with only 3.4 million Puerto Ricans to pay instead of 11 million Greeks) and I've heard 20 cents on the dollar which would be $57 billion of bond default, which would be the 4th biggest sovereign default in history if Puerto Rico was a country. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Roger Moore death not mentioned

Sad that you didn't even mentioned Roger Moore's death in your front page, just added to "Recent deaths", Roger Moore is way more famous than Chris Cornell and you don't even care. The hell with you. Kindoom (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)