Wikipedia talk:Main Page/Errors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 new page 2 when to clear items 3 this is instruction creep 4 What happens to stuff with no response? 5 Whether error report should be removed 6 Shadowbot2 7 Who's watching? 8 fix errors, no matter what? 9 Why can't Wiki Admin consider the world beyond the Untidy States?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)