Wikipedia talk:Main Page/Errors#When WP:ERRORS is unmonitored

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since MOS:JOBTITLES interpretation is commonly discussed here, everyone is welcome to chime in at the JOBTITLES change RfC. Surtsicna (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll be completely blunt - why the hell are WP:DYKINT concerns not allowed to be brought up at ERRORS? It is completely stupid to discount genuine DYKINT concerns, but still keep other DYK-related error fix requests up. Last time something INT-related was brought up someone said to just "look at it earlier" (okay then, what about other error reports?). Could this at least be discussed? — ^EF⁵ 13:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I imagine because it would (potentially) result in (possibly multiple) hooks getting pulled on a daily basis? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::If that's the issue, maybe DYK needs to do better at enforcing DYKINT. Policies and guidelines shouldn't be discarded "because this isn't the venue" (ERRORS is indeed the venue); that's just lazy. ^EF⁵ 14:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:DYKINT is neither policy nor a guideline. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::AirshipJungleman29, I meant DYK guideline. — ^EF⁵ 14:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, how many project specific policies does DYK have? And while it may not be a formal, community-endorsed guideline, since it's on a page called Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, it must have the same internal relevance as the others listed. Otherwise, hook length, style, formatting etc., could also be ignored (but of course, aren't). Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::None, which is why you only see hooks brought up at ERRORS for issues that violate actual PAGs—I haven't yet seen anyone complain here that two biography image hooks ran consecutively, or that there were more than four American hooks in a set, or even to complain about "hook length, style, formatting, etc." Such criteria (listed on a page which explicitly disavows its authority) are only for DYK's internal regulation and hold no weight elsewhere, including at ERRORS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::AirshipJungleman29, there's currently a MOS:OVERLINK (style) report up. That's just from today. I see what you mean, although a DYKSTYLE issue was brought up yesterday and promptly removed with no policy-based reasons, sparking this. — ^EF⁵ 14:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You mean that a DYKSTYLE objection with no policy-based reasons was brought up and promptly removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Is DYK/G upheld by the community or not? If it's not even worth being cited anywhere or doesn't matter at ERRORs, then why is it a guide? — ^EF⁵ 15:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::To repeat myself: WP:DYKG is {{green|only for DYK's internal regulation and hold no weight elsewhere, including at ERRORS}}. The word "internal" tells you where you can cite it and where you can use it as a guide. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's a shame, perhaps, that DYK doesn't believe in adhering to its own internal guidelines. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Because screwing around with DYK while it’s on the main page is disruptive. Fixing an actual error is worth the disruption. “Fixing” a hook that isn’t interesting enough for you is not. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, and given Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines is upheld by the community (policy or not) WP:DYKINT constitutes an {{tq|actual error}}. I guess my question is why we uphold every other DYK guideline outlined, but pointing out hooks not adhering to one specific guideline constitutes "disruptive editing". If you uphold one guideline, you uphold all of them, or else DYK/G is good as moot. — ^EF⁵ 15:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It is impossible to argue with hyperbole. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:DYK/G is literally marked with a big box at the top saying {{xt|"This former Wikipedia guideline, no longer backed by community consensus, is retained for historical reference"}}. So yes, it is "as good as moot", as you so succinctly put it. On the wider point, DYKINT and other entries listed at Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines are very clearly not project guidelines but DYK-specific niceties. As I said previously, if you care about these things then you can and should raise issues on that basis at WT:DYK before the hook goes live, but to the rest of the project and more specifically the WP:ERRORS page, those guidelines have no relevance, only actual Wikipedia guidelines and policy errors will be actioned. The same goes for tweaks to ITN and OTD hooks that aren't errors; you might sometimes persuade an admin to action them, but in general non-error discussions go on the pages of the projects concerned.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I think everyone should be encouraged to raise DYKINT issues at ERRORS, but they should lower their expectations about immediate action. Unlike a grammar or verifiability issue, I would not feel comfortable, as a single admin, agreeing with an interestingness issue and actioning it immediately. Letting consensus develop is fine, but it's slow—sometimes so slow that the issue becomes moot. Sometimes we only get a couple voices in an ERRORS discussion, and sometimes people fail to ping the editors who were involved in creating and approving the hook. I have to presume that about four editors/admins have considered the hook to be sufficiently interesting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Generally, a boring hook on the Main Page causes no harm. I do not think it is worth our time discussing these at ERRORS, a page that is not archived so it is difficult to learn much from the outcome. General discussion of this type (another example is "there are too many hooks about Taylor Swift / Alxeander McQueen / whatever") is more suited to WT:DYK; ERRORS is for things that demand immediate action. Boredom almost per definition does not require action. —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::I disagree that a boring hook causes no harm. I agree that ERRORS is a bad place for general discussion, so I'd prefer to see it focused on individual hook issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Absolutely not. We don't want to dilute the real issues at ERRORS and wasting editors' time by bringing in things that aren't errors and require subjective thought and discussion. In general, if something is reported here it should be urgent, require admin assistance, and be immediately actionable.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I do not think we should discuss all boring hooks at ERRORS. 99% of sports hooks are boring, but I manage to ignore them. —Kusma (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I took the liberty of codifying this at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors/header.--Launchballer 00:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:The answer I'd give – and I only half believe it – is that ERRORS just isn't a good venue for interestingness challenges. It's designed to be lightweight and fast-paced, whereas challenges over interestingness are subjective and nuanced and could fill bound volumes. If you think a hook is uninteresting, you can't go wrong bringing it to WT:DYK. It's useful feedback for everyone involved in the process and it should be discussed more often. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)