Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Main Page/Errors/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

JOBTITLES

Raising WP:JOBTITLES again because the discussion was never allowed to proceed. WP:JOBTITLES says that any job title preceded by a modifier, "including a definite or indefinite article", should be lower case. It also says that "formality (officialness)" is not a reason to capitalize a job title. Therefore, it should be "the state counsellor of Myanmar" and "the first female prime minister of Estonia", as both job titles are preceded by "the". According to which style guide should these job titles be capitalized? And why should the Main Page of Wikipedia not follow Wikipedia's style guide? Pinging Amakuru. Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

My reason for objecting to this change is that virtually every source in the world capitalises this because guess what, it is a job title. See [1][2][3] Our article is called State Counsellor of Myanmar too, because it's a job title. Don't get me wrong, I'm generally in favour of applying the MOS everywhere, including on the main page. But my honest opinion is that MOS:JOBTITLES is not fit for purpose it's simply going against real life in cases like this, and I don't think I'm the only person to think that. So am I going to make the change you suggested? Absolutely not. If someone else makes it, then so be it; but judging by the fact that the discussion keeps getting removed (and not by me), I predict that others are unlikely to make it either. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
But you did change "the first female prime minister of Estonia" to "the first female Prime Minister of Estonia", despite the consensus reached here that it should be lower case. Doing so unilaterally after a discussion was hardly proper, so I hope you are less determined not to reverse that. It is not true that "virtually every source" capitalizes these job titles. The Guardian[4], The New York Times[5], The Washington Post[6], Voice of America[7], and the local Myanmar Times[8] are among those that use lower case. All of this has been discussed at great length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography and WP:JOBTITLES is the consensus reached there. Surtsicna (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:JOBTITLES goes too far, when it forces lower-casing on article titles & article content 'sections, sub-sections, etc.' GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I struggle to imagine where you think it should apply. Also, you know where the place for a general discussion is, so let us please not spill it over here. Surtsicna (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
MOS:JOBTITLES is a barely-understandable mess, with unclear instructions, lists of counter-intuitive examples that don't directly correspond with our phrasing, and no explanation of the logic behind them. It needs a complete rewrite. It also applies to the body text of articles, not ITN blurbs, where space is much more limited. Modest Genius talk 12:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree. JOBTITLES is just a total waste of time and energy and another perfect example of where pushing MOS to the extreme is counterproductive and detracts from our actual purpose here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
JOBTITLES seems entirely clear, and has been well explained by Surtsicna above. Those who don't like it would be best served arguing against it in the appropriate place, as Surtsicna also suggests. Can we simply get on here with applying the MoS, rather than rehashing old debates regarding it.? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
It's a guideline, not a policy, like all aspects of MOS. If common sense prevails then MOS takes a back seat. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Completely agree with TRM and Modest Genius above-- P-K3 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC).
Completely agree with TRM, Modest Genius and P-K3 above.... no offence intended. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
It is frankly absurd to suggest that the editors of The Washington Post, The Guardian, and The New York Times lack common sense for not capitalizing job titles. I disagree with the notion that editors should capitalize job titles where they like with no backing in any of the world's most reputable style guides, let alone Wikipedia's own. We are supposed to strive for quality in orthography too. Surtsicna (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
They probably have plenty of common sense but have to work within a rigid, dictatorial, authoritarian house style, with no room for individual judgement? Poor things. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
To have judgement is a chief editor's job. Have you encountered a style guide that says it is okay to capitalize job titles, or do you think that Wikipedia editors should capitalize as they like? Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I thought it was a chief editor's job to make money. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Again, similar comment to my comment in thr TFA section. Meta discussions about how we should handle reports at WP:ERRORS would be better at WT:ERRORS, to declutter what is supposed to be a fairly straight-forward page. Any objection? This page isn't archived, so any discussion here is going to eventually disappear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(end of copy/pasted comments)

Jayron32, AP Stylebook is also in agreement. MOS:JOBTITLES allows for far more capitalization than any of these style guides because it tries to meet pro-capitalization editors half-way. Its chief fault is that it is an attempt at appeasement. It should be as straightforward as the most reputable style guides are, since apparently no concession will ever be enough anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Customer Service Number Needs to be Removed

Resolved. Not an error. Schwede66 02:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

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


Customer Service Number Needs to be Removed. Dominion Energy Knowledge Panel has a "customer service number" appearing that they would like removed. The number is:

Customer service: 1 (866) 366-4357

I am the SEO firm that manages their content both across the web and in the various telco databases.

Noelsnibbor (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC) James W. Robbins

@Noelsnibbor: It's not clear which article you are referring to, but it's definitely not information that's on the Main Page or Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors so you've posted it in the wrong place. I suggest you make this request on the talk page of the article in question. Modest Genius talk 14:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@Noelsnibbor: There is no phone number for the company on Wikipedia. The knowledge panel is from Google search so contact them. You have been told this information multiple times already. SL93 (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Religious misinformation

Wrong page to post about your problem. Schwede66 02:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

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


There is no current caliphate of Islam. Misinformation is being promoted on Wikipedia by saying that mirza masroor is the current caliphate . Shame on the editors of this website. 2400:ADCC:10E:6600:C03E:D069:B234:7388 (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no mention of a caliph or caliphate on the main page; is there an article this is better suited to be raised at? ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

transclusions

Just to throw this idea out there, I'd think we'd promote more scrutiny of catching hooks before the hit the main page if we transcluded (and minified, of course) the next two queues to air. For DYK and OTD and possibly even TFL, I think it could work. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

ah, that is very difficult. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, that might be difficult. And maybe the setup of the DYK queue, and equivalent systems from other parts of the MP, may have to be tweaked. But if we do this, we could have "tomorrow's MP" and "day after tomorrow's MP" drafts. And I certainly think there is a lot of merit working towards that. Schwede66 23:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"Subscribing" to WP:ERRORS

Hi folks, good to be back. Please see the short discussion at User talk:Amakuru#"Subscribing" to WP:ERRORS ... I'd like to make a minor change to the code for the "clear all reports" button so that it preserves a short comment (it doesn't actually matter what the comment says ... any suggestions?) just above "Today's FA", for the purpose of enabling WP:SUBSCRIBE-ing to the TFA section (and of course, other sections too, if you like) without having to re-subscribe every time the section is cleared . Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: it turns out enclosing the comment in "<span style="font-size: 0">" and "</span>" will hide the comment from view, but it will still enable perma-subscribing. If we do this, the page won't look one bit different than it is now (unless you want it to). Thanks to User:Dying for the suggestion. If you want to see what this looks like, I've implemented Dying's solution at an old archive page, WP:Update#Content policy. - Dank (push to talk) 22:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Where is the "clear all reports" button? I looked at the linked discussion, and Amakuru says it's at the top, but I don't see it. Is it only visible to admins? Or is it added by some script that I don't have installed?  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  00:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
It's immediately above "Errors in the summary of the featured article", which means that it's also at the bottom of the transcluded page Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors/header. It actually says "Administrators: clear all reports", so that may answer your question. - Dank (push to talk) 01:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Thanks. I see it's got a <div class="sysop-show" ..., so that explains why it doesn't show for me.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  01:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mandarax: You can view sysop-show with this awesome script from Tamzin, if you'd like :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Better explained at Help:-show classes now, actually. :D -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I have never noticed that clear all errors button before. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

If anyone knows how to get rid of the extra blank line the code creates, that would be an improvement ... otherwise, it's good to go. Comments welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC) (Apparently) fixed by Dying ... thanks again! - Dank (push to talk) 02:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

oh, an unexpected space! hilarious, and admittedly not something i had taken into account. anyway, i fixed the comment's position, which apparently fixed the issue. please let me know if this only worked on my machine. dying (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Works for me too. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't work for me. I get a 'floating' [ reply ] 3/4 down the left side of the page, that doesn't move as I scroll? Stephen 04:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
whoops, sorry, Stephen! thanks for pointing this out. my screen is not very large, so i had not accounted for that. i have now hidden the element. please let me know if that worked for you. dying (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Dying, that's fixed it. Stephen 05:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Automatic talk page notifications of Errors

We are discussing errors on this page and often, it is pagewatchers of the target article (i.e. the article that the error refers to or stems from) who would be best placed to provide meaningful input. There is currently no process in place to notify those page watchers and mostly, notifications don't happen. We've had a related issue at DYK and I wanted to reflect on how that was resolved, with a view of whether something equivalent could be set up for Errors. First up, let me explain how a hook gets onto the main page to see where the problem was:

  1. A nomination containing one or several alternative hooks is created.
  2. A reviewer comes along and approves one or several hooks for promotion; this can be a lengthy process during which some hooks may get rejected and new ones created.
  3. A DYK volunteer promotes one of the approved hooks to the prep area. It is possible that the chosen hook gets changed in this process.
  4. While in prep, any editor can edit a hook.
  5. A DYK admin comes along and promotes a set of hooks from prep to queue; hooks often get copy-edited as part of this.
  6. A bot moves the relevant set to the main page (an automated process without ever any change).
  7. While on the main page, any admin may further tweak the hook, often based on Error reports.

Each hook has a nomination page that nominators can, and are encourage to, put onto their watchlist. But anything that happens from step 3 onwards generally occurs without the nominator knowing about it. To cut out the editor who knows most about a certain topic can be problematic. As such, User:GalliumBot has been set up by Theleekycauldron and under its task 1, it detects hook modifications from step 3 onwards and logs those on the talk page of the nomination form. If the nominator still has it on their watchlist, they see this and can provide input if they see fit. A very elegant solution.

Which makes me wonder – should we have some notification process at Errors? What we'd need to do is to reliably identify the target article that is being discussed and once we've achieved that, a bot could leave a notification on the talk page of the target article, advising that an issue is being discussed at Errors. How could we reliably identify the target article, though? Maybe we have an input form with these components: a) target article b) error or issue c) a list resembling the Error page table of contents, with a radio button determining under which heading the issue is to be posted d) a "save" button that transcludes the item under the relevant heading

If we did the above, this new process would double up on step 7 of what Galiumbot does, but that step can simply be turned off by that bot's owner.

The objective of doing all this is to have those editors with particular expertise onto it as soon as possible, while currently most of them wouldn't be aware of the discussion. This would increase the speed with which Errors are resolved and also the quality of the resolution. Has something like that been discussed before? There might be different ways to achieving these outcomes; this is just a suggestion to get things started. Schwede66 04:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

We could have some kind of {{Errors notification}} template – if you have that with an article and a timestamp as parameters, GalliumBot will look for it and leave a note on the relevant talk page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

NOTOC in header

Is there a rationale for the NOTOC directive in Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors/header? I would like to remove it so that I can actually navigate to the individual sections of ERRORS. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

If the TOC goes near the top of the page (and not after the lengthy rules list), that would indeed be useful. Should be restricted to L2 headings in my view. Schwede66 21:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I tried an edit that would place it there. On Vector2022 it always goes in the left sidebar. In the other skins it would go after the lengthy rules list by default, but instead I tried placing it under the top banners. Different skins have different defaults for whether it appears opened or collapsed. If it is possible to restrict it only to L2 headings, I don't know how. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I’ve restricted it, but that doesn’t work with the new skin. Schwede66 02:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. The limits are less important for Vector2022 because the TOC is more out of the way. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there an archive of these discussions?

I know I have my own opinion, but it's worthwhile to preserve the current discussion about the pigache/pulley shoe hook for DYK at Talk:Pigache for future reference. Is there any place where these discussions are kept? do we literally need to link into the page edit record? or is that eventually purged too and the only way to preserve the discussion is to copy/paste everything to the talk page? — LlywelynII 15:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: No archives of WP:ERRORS are currently kept, so the only way to look at past discussions is by trawling through the page history – you can always create permanent links to specific revisions, which are always preserved, and/or move them to a talk page with {{Moved discussion from}}. I think an archiving system for ERRORS has been floated at various times in the past, but it might prove rather tricky to implement since discussions are primarily organised by day/template rather than topic, and will get moved about as content gets rotated from tomorrow's Main Page to today's, etc. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree that some discussions are worth preserving for future reference and so I keep a personal archive. Note that some topics will tend to recur such as the recent discussion about Good Friday. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Scope of WP:ERRORS

I remember recently we had a discussion around ERRORS about a specific topic where the error wasn't on the mainpage itself per se, but it was in the article. I bring this up as I recently had a second one of these, with this and this being brought up today. I'm thus asking what the scope of ERRORS should be, given this doesn't seem to be going anywhere. The wiki mods seem to be in disagreement over this, specifically @Schwede66: from what I remember opposes putting anything on ERRORS that isn't specifically on the mainpage but the other wiki mod @Amakuru: thinks this is OK. I'm starting a discussion here, is this OK to put errors on ERRORS? Therapyisgood (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

To clarify my response to the two links mentioned (as I think my response might have invited this thread), I think that errors in articles are absolutely the purview of WP:ERRORS – the last bullet in the header ("Can you resolve the problem yourself?") would make no sense otherwise. However, article adherence to the Manual of Style is not in the DYK criteria (although parts of it are incorporated into WP:DYKMOS), and therefore falls outside of what ERRORS should be able to require. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
My view is that article problems that would disqualify the article from whatever main page section it's in are worth bringing up at ERRORS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
If the answer to Can you resolve the problem yourself? is no, especially if it’s impacting eligibility, then it’s worthwhile discussing it at Errors. My preference is a "fix it yourself" approach, but some editors lack the confidence to make bold edits. Schwede66 15:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
ERRORS are for changes to the Main Page, which is fully protected, and can only be edited by admins. If a change is to a page that is not protected, fix the page directly, or make a request at its respective talk page. If the change then requires a corresponding fix on the Main Page, then make a request here.—Bagumba (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, in full agreement with Bagumba here. The only reason ERRORS exists is because only admins have the ability to edit fully protected pages; if it something that doesn't need that ability to fix, why post at ERRORS? Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Main_Page/Errors/Archive_4&oldid=1248456351"