Wikipedia talk:Main Page/Errors

Changes for TFL schedule

Per a recent RfC, TFL will run 3 times a week (Monday/Wednesday/Friday) starting in January (see this discussion for some details). The first new TFL date will be January 7. Currently, the headings for TFL errors only work for Monday and Friday options. How should we update the headings to account for the new schedule? RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I've had a look at the code of the main page. That should be easy enough to amend, but we can't do that yet as it's still Wednesday (as far as WP is concerned). I'll have a look at the Errors template now. Schwede66 21:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Errors page is done. Including the admin "clear all errors" utility. Schwede66 21:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we can do the rest of the changes tomorrow (2nd January. server time). It's better that way since yesterday was a Wednesday but did not have a TFL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

When the errors page is clear sometime, could you please reorder that section it to Mon-Wed-Fri? :-) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Schwede66 01:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

TFA blurbs

Starting a thread here in response to UndercoverClassicist who asked, "In general, what process should be followed when an editor believes there is an error in any TFA blurb?". Recently, editors took issue with something in a TFA blurb, and the response was that the blurb matched the Featured Article. I'll also ping the TFA coordinators for input if they are interested in this discussion: Gog the Mild, SchroCat, and Wehwalt.

In my view, the best practice is to first change the Featured Article itself because:

1. The change results in a lasting improvement to the Featured Article.
2. There is some consensus for the Featured Article's lead because editors have already approved it.
3. People familiar with the topic are more likely to watchlist the article than this page.

Also, is it unclear to the editors reporting these that they are allowed to change the Featured Article?

Thoughts? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

This was the discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• I said and say: If something is factually wrong in a blurb, we should be able to remove/omit it from the blurb instantly, without waiting for a content discussion which can follow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
• Perceived factual inaccuracies is what - I had understood - "Errors" is for. Or is "Errors" to go, or be repurposed? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
• (ec) Hmm... I think, if something is unambiguously factually wrong ("this bird is found only in Europe" when its range also extends into northern Egypt and the Sinai, for example), WP:BOLD correct the FA and flag the issue at WT:MP for an admin to fix the blurb. If the issue is one of ambiguity or connotation, I'd say a similar approach, tempered with the expectation that there may be some disagreement and some discussion may be required. It is definitely easier for admins to fix issues on the MP when the fix is already in the article, and it keeps us consistent. So basically I agree with Rjjiii. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. If there's something wrong in the FA, its lead, and that has also made it into the TFA blurb, then it should first be fixed in the article before discussing it at Errors. Schwede66 22:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Any process should include both the TFA coordinators, who wrote the blurb, and the FAC nominator, who wrote the article. I realize there is a desire for instant change but at least half the errors that come here aren't. Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's a judgement call by the admins who watch the ERRORS page and decide whether or not to enact changes. If it's a clear error, then there shouldn't be a requirement to consult, per the usual Wikipedia:Editing policy, in particular WP:OWN. If it's a bit more ambiguous, and not causing instant unambiguous problems with what's being presented, then patching in the people you mention is polite. I know we've had debates about this before over the years, but IMHO while I heartily thank the TFA coords and FA authors for their hard work in this area, I don't think that translates to an absolute right to dictate what does and doesn't happen with articles and main-page content. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• I have no issue with the idea that the article should be corrected too, but if there is an error in the blurb, it should be raised and corrected at WP:ERRORS. As Gog implies, if that's not what ERRORS is for, we may as well do away with it (or at least exempt TFA from it). The whole point of ERRORS is to be able to act more quickly than Talk page discussion usually allows, so saying that consensus needs to be formed there and the article needs to be changed before the main page error can be addressed is backwards, in my book. The other approach would be to adopt the DYK method and pull the blurb until the article can be fixed, but I suspect that would be unpopular. However, would it be useful to add a note on the ERRORS page (in the same spirit as the one on POTD) to say "When raising or correcting an error in the blurb, check to see if it is present in the article as well, and correct it there if necessary"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • We do have a similar note already: "Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here." It's not quite as broad, but it does indicate that reports should be done after article content is corrected.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

    I'm not sure that works if the error can't easily be corrected -- e.g. if it's obvious it's wrong but not obvious what the right text would be, or if first needing to establish whether it is an error (as in the case discussed here, and most grammatical quibbles). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

    True, and and many people don't actually have the ability to edit the article directly – TFAs are always semiprotected these days – or may not feel confident to make a bold change, preferring to get second opinions on what they've reported first. For issues that are simultaneously present in the article and the TFA, I think it's fair to raise them as a query at ERRORS before necessarily enacting any changes to the article...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

    Yes, but again that places review in people who probably know no more about the subject matter than a quick read of the lead gets you, and again, the writer of the article is not consulted, the very person who may be able to cast light on whether or not there is an error. Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

    the writer of the article is not consulted, the very person who may be able to cast light on whether or not there is an error. There seems to be an easy solution to this -- pinging the nominator (much as it's custom to ping the nominator, reviewer and promoter for a DYK hook). This could be another thing worth adding to a hatnote. Nominators of TFAs are also welcome to watchlist ERRORS, and it could be suggested that this is a wise thing to do. Equally, Amakuru's point above about WP:OWN is important: yes, it's useful if the main writer can chime in and say "oops, yes, I got that wrong and the fix is XYZ", but requiring any change to first obtain their approval (or indeed to be run past them) is incompatible with that policy. In particular, No one, whether a subject or an article creator, has a responsibility to maintain an article or can normally be held responsible for its content. WP:OWN also lists "Please do not make any more changes without my/their/our approval." as an example of an unacceptable ownership statement, and ditto "I'm an expert on the subject. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will review them." UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

    Whether in a hatnote or some other means of instruction, routine notification of the FAC nominator seems a good idea, and I don't see that as any means of OWN. If their input is not necessary, the error is obvious to all, things can proceed without them. On the "featured" dispute of yesterday, it strikes me that a lot of grief might have been saved getting their input at an early stage. Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

    I think routine notification is fair, and in-line with the "Respect other editors" point above the ERRORS page as well as our own OWN policy that recommends recognizing the emotional investment of editors into their work. This is especially important where an "error" might be debatable, or where the "error"-ness of something is already being discussed, and the main contributor to the article may be able to provide feedback.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

    A typical announcement of a main page appearence as TFA already includes the recommendation to watch ERRORS from two days before the planned date, compare User talk:Wehwalt#Brass threepence scheduled for TFA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• If there's an obvious factual error in the article and the blurb, then it's simply a case of changing the article and getting an admin to SOFIXIT on the blurb. No-one else needs to be informed, although it would probably be courteous to ping the article creator and mention what you've done at ERRORS (if it hasn't been posted there already). The issue with yesterday's is that the wording wasn't false, more misleading. Having said that, it would not have been difficult to tweak a couple of words to make the article and the blurb completely compliant; I wish I'd seen it earlier and I would have done so. Still, no harm done. Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• Blurb first The main point of WP:ERRORS is to address errors on the main page and so fixing articles is outside of its scope. TFA blurbs are usually not exactly the same as the corresponding article leads and the text in the body of the article may be different again. For clarity, It is therefore best to stick to the main page text in question. Any further action which seems needed can be noted to follow, as appropriate.

The more significant procedural point is that there were repeated restarts of discussions for the same issues -- the usage of apostrophes and the relationship of the song to the movie. This arose because of the bizarre custom of peremptorily clearing postings from WP:ERRORS as rapidly as possible. It would be much more sensible to retain all postings until the end of the day, when most sections cycle, while using annotations such as Y and N to indicate whether they had been actioned and then closing the discussions if they seem to be resolved. Editors who then come with the same issues can more easily see whether they have already been discussed.

At the end of the day, there could then be a standard housekeeping process. This ought to archive the discussions, like most other noticeboards do, so that subsequent discussions, such as those on article talk pages, can refer back to them.

Andrew🐉(talk) 16:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, agreed. The persistent removal of yesterday's discussions with a dismissive "not an error" was somewhat unhelpful (as was the failure to ping the article creator). We sorted it in the end (and the article creator agreed the change was correct) and it should really have been done sooner, and probably would have been had that not happened. Please don't remove discussions if there is an issue, until it has been fixed or there is a good consensus that it can be left as is. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Towards an outcome

I'm not seeing a whole lot of disagreement here on the fundamentals -- could I propose a couple of "motions" and see if we can find agreement on them? Discussion very welcome below each. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

1. If an editor believes they have found an error in a TFA blurb, WP:ERRORS is a legitimate place to report that error.
2. It is courteous when reporting an error in a TFA blurb at WP:ERRORS to ping the article's FAC nominator and the TFA coordinators.
3. Once it is established that an error exists in both a TFA blurb and the article's text, it should be fixed in both the article and the TFA blurb.
4. A hatnote should be added to WP:ERRORS advising those raising errors in TFA blurbs to ping the FAC nominator and the TFA coordinators.
5. Error reports should not be cleared from WP:ERRORS until either a) the error is fixed; b) consensus emerges that no action should be taken; or unless c) the report makes no claim that an error exists (e.g. "this blurb is really boring").
6. If no action is taken, it might be useful to leave error reports until the end of the day, to prevent duplicate reports/double jeopardy.

I think should be more than courteous to ping the FAC nominator. It should be done in every case where the nominator remains active. Also, the TFA coordinators, since we are responsible for the blurb , must be pinged as part of the process. You don't mention that there are such individuals.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, any alteration to the blurb must keep the blurb within the range of not more than 1,025 characters we are limited to.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I figured that the TFA coordinators probably watch ERRORS, but doubt anyone would object to adding that -- I've done so above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• I think "courteous" is fair. It shouldn't be a hard requirement, mostly because the people editing ERRORS might not know how to look that information up (and even worse when looking for the main contributor to the FA). While most of us who have been around the block know, newer editors might not be aware, and might be dissuaded from reporting an error by a firm rule. Other than that, I think that summary above makes sense. I know I personally am not keen on how quickly some things get removed (within minutes at times), and deliberately leave addressed issues posted at ERRORS for at least an hour so that changes can be reviewed by the community and disagreement voiced where needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps "expected" that the FAC nominator be notified? That is less than a hard requirement but lets regulars know they shouldn't cut corners? Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  It might also be useful to put a link to the ERRORS discussion on the article talk page. Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  Also, on number six, I think it would be appropriate to hat extended discussions so if there is something new, it does not get lost. Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  To explain my thinking a bit, the list above was intended to be what I think we all already agree on -- not an exhaustive list of how things should be or of possible suggestions. By necessity it's minimal rather than maximal, but I was hoping we could fairly quickly get to a point where we can say "yup, that's all our common ground", and then put a marker in that while any further improvements/details can be hashed out. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  Well, let's see if anyone objects to there being an expectation that the FAC nominator be notified (I should think there would be none for the TFA coords). After all, it has been pointed out above that a lot of the unpleasant discussion that sparked this thread could have been avoided by earlier consultation of the FAC nominator. Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  "Expected" sounds good to me. It makes it less a hard rule, while still sounding firm. As long as nobody bites the newbies, we should be okay. As previously, the other points seem good to me. I also agree with Wehwalt's concerns about highlighting blurb length and MP balance - back in the day when I wore that hat, MP balance was troublesome enough without considering additions and subtractions. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  I will be glad to add the names of the FAC nominator as a comment when I schedule March in a couple of weeks. Over the longer term, though, it may help to modify the coding.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  We could also explain here that it's rather easy to find the nominator(s) by looking on the article talk for the magic word "identified", - one click shorter than looking in the article history for the FAC nom. I also think that it should not be the poster's responsibility to provide the ping. When some new person makes a report without it, someone watching and knowing where to find the name(s) can do it, - this is a collaborative project, or should be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  I am not greatly concerned with who does it, but rather that it is done. Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Outcome(s)

Based on what seems to be consensus here, I've added the following to WP:ERRORS as a hatnote:

When reporting an error in a Featured Article blurb, please notify the article's FAC nominator and the TFA co-ordinators. The co-ordinators can be notified by using {{@TFA}}; the nominator can be found on the article's Talk page.

. Happy to keep workshopping the wording: the "please..." formulation is taken from the similar hatnote on POTD updates, which is a technical "must-do", so I think it's appropriate to have the same level of bossiness, or at least to be no more bossy here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

thanks! make sure that this persists through the "clear all reports" button? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Ooh -- good shout; I hadn't thought of that! It turns out that that button simply reverts to a defined previous revision, so I've just created a blank revision with the hatnote and changed the version ID to point there. I tested it a moment ago and it seems to work. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I realize I'm late to the party here, but I think requiring a ping to the FAC nominator is absolutely a step in the wrong direction, importing one of the worst trends from the DYK errors section (where pings aren't required, but often added by third parties even when all that does is summon four people who'll defend their mistake), and I don't see myself being willing to make TFA error reports in the future with a rule like this in place. The goal of ERRORS is, as you alluded to above, UC, to move quickly and avoid errors staying on the Main Page. This rule both adds extra work for someone who's found an error (in other words, punishing them for others' mistake) and adds the social disincentive that you're expected to summon a person who may well then try to stonewall things rather than admit they were wrong, a phenomenon we've all seen both with TFA and DYK. There are definitely cases where involving the FAC nominator is worthwhile, and something the error-finder should have the option to do, but if they don't, it can always be done later by a responding admin or TFA coörd. The obligation shouldn't be on the error-finder to turn an error report into a social confrontation, unless our goal here is to make people less willing to report errors. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be pretty clear consensus, here and below, that adding the banner was a step in the wrong direction. I'll remove it from WP:ERRORS. There are certainly strong opinions on the other side, and I note that several of those expressing them are current or emeritus FA coords. Personally, I don't see any objection here to the nominators being notified (by a co-ordinator or another passing editor), or to interested parties like TFA coordinators taking it upon themselves to watchlist ERRORS, but there is a clear view that requesting the error reporter to make that notification will do more harm than good. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's a clear consensus and am restoring. Notifying people harms nothing. I fail to see that notifying the people who by previous RfC are responsible for selecting the article and setting the blurb and the person likely to be most knowledgeable is a "step in the wrong direction".Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Consensus isn't a vote, but I think you're the only person who has positively spoken in favour of the message on this page -- though Chris said it was "fair". I certainly can't see consensus in favour of keeping it! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Tamzin. Definitely not a good step, readers and uninvolved editors shouldn't have to jump through hoops when reporting errors here, the primary goal is to correct issues on the main page. Where there's doubt or extra opinions are required it can be a good idea to involve those people in the discussion, but timeliness is more important IMHO. The same goes for DYK, ITN and OTD hooks. I oppose the new wording and it should be restored to the long-term version. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I will assert that the language has been there long enough to carry consensus, but will withdraw my objection. However, coordinators and the nominators should be notified, as the people responsible for the blurb and most likely to know about the subject matter. Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

If it came to a discussion, I suspect we'd end up determining that there are three co-ordinators and potentially thousands of people who might be making an error report, many as their first interaction with the (T)FA(C) machinery: therefore, that it's more reasonable to expect those three people to subscribe to ERRORS (or similar) than those thousands of people to ping them each time. For nominators it's less clear-cut, but the view here seems to be that the onus shouldn't be on the reporter: equally, it does seem like people would generally welcome it if co-ordinators or other editors were to ping the nominator once a report comes in (and perhaps once it becomes clear that it isn't either obviously itself an error or very easily fixable). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the latter seems like a better use of everyone's time.

• If I say "the blurb says he was born in 1812 but he was born in 1821" and an admin/coörd checks the cited source and sees this is a simple transpositional error, and indeed the body of the article has it right, great! Easy fix. No one's time wasted.
• If they check that and no, the sources verify 1812, ping me and ask what the Hell I'm talking about. No need to bother anyone else when maybe the only issue is I need to go up a half-diopter on my glasses.
• If they check and it turns out to be a confusing mess of sources giving different dates of birth, and there was one talkpage thread about this five years ago that led to the choice to say 1812, but this wasn't discussed at FAC when it clearly should have been, that's a good time to start pinging people involved in the process and discuss if the current approach is sound.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Three people ... who are not here constantly. Most of the people dealing with the process, who would be the ones changing the blurb if not all, can in seconds ping both nominator and coordinators, and should. It worked well today, a quick answer was gotten back from a nominator and the blurb changed. Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Most of the people dealing with the process, who would be the ones changing the blurb if not all, can in seconds ping both nominator and coordinators, and should -- right, but that's different from insisting that the person who does the pinging be the person reporting the error, which is what we previously had. I think Tamzin's workflow is a good way to handle things, and should probably become the de facto standard (assuming that "me" in this context is the nominator), but I'm not sure I can fit it into a hatnote. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah no, "me" here is the reporter. As in, if I report an error but I'm dead wrong, that's a good time to say, "Um, Tamzin, am I missing something here, because it sure looks like the source verifies this", without needing to bother the nominator. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that makes more sense. Easy "yes" -- fix, no pings (though perhaps a courtesy ping wouldn't hurt -- just in case there's something more complicated going on that the reporter/fixer can't see). Easy "no" -- check with reporter before doing anything. Complicated -- ping nominator/TFA coords and start discussing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Although I guess I left out the fourth outcome where the report is so obviously wrong that it can just be dismissed as such, e.g. a supposed misspelling where someone is unaware it's an EngVar thing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

If it is a wrong report it should just be removed ASAP and I agree there is no great need to bother the nominator. Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I would ping in ether case because there is always the chance that the situation has been misjudged. Call it a courtesy ping if you like. It is not an imposition. Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a hatnote if there is is just a routine part of the process, which it should be. Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

When reporting an error in a Featured Article blurb, please notify the article's FAC nominator and the TFA co-ordinators.

There is a new instruction for reporting errors in today's Featured Article. It says "When reporting an error in a Featured Article blurb, please notify the article's FAC nominator and the TFA co-ordinators. The co-ordinators can be notified by using @TFA coordinatorsUser:Wehwalt User:Gog the Mild User:Z1720; the nominator can be found on the article's Talk page." I went to have a look at Talk:Louis Leblanc and I can't see who the "FAC nominator" is. So how do we find out who to inform before we are allowed to report errors? DuncanHill (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

it's at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Louis Leblanc/archive2, you can see it from the {{Article history}} template on the talk page :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

There isn't a link displaying as "archive2". And even if there were, it wouldn't be clear that that was where it was. Is is "archive2" for all FAs? The instructions need to be clearer. It's an obnoxious-enough-already notice without the "locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory" shenanigans. DuncanHill (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The TFA coordinators are planning to fix this by including the nominator's username as a comment in TFA blurbs; once this is implemented, the notice can be changed. In the meantime, suggestions for clear and concise alternatives welcome. We could do via the most recent "Featured Article Candidate" link in the article history on the Talk Page", but that might be a bit wordy? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Until then: the magic word on a FA talk is "identified", a click on it takes to the most recent FAC. Also: the co-ordinators should know, and could perform that ping. We shouldn't place a burden on someone simply noticing a possible error. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

(ec) I would suggest fixing it before issuing the instruction. Or not having the instruction at all. People report errors because they want to help. Don't make it harder for them. DuncanHill (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Its Kaiser matias. It's a few levels down. On the article's talk page go to "Article milestones". Look for the most recent "Featured article candidate" - usually there is only one. Click on it and you will find the archived nomination and subsequent FAC discussion. In this, at the top - probably under the table of contents - you will find the name(s) of the nominator(s). That help and/or work? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Do people think it would be more user-friendly to cut "and the nominator", and leave that job to the co-ords? If so, would the co-ords be content to assume that role, at least until a smoother system (like having the FAC nominator as a comment in the blurb) can be rolled out? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

It may be several hours before a coordinator is reached. In the interim, decisions are made on more limited knowledge than otherwise. It's not very difficult to add the FAC nominator as a comment, and do it gradually staying in front of it. If there's willingness to abide by it. Is there? Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it probably doesn't matter much if an editor leaves a comment without notifying anybody. The solution then is just for someone else who understands how to do so, to {{ping}} the nominator(s) and coordinators. Those pings could even be done separately, if the first editor to come along only pings the coords. Temporary accounts can raise (sometimes valid) issues and it's not realistic to expect a new editor on mobile to find all the details. Here are the plausible (even if not correct) reports from temp accounts in January excluding a few test edits: TFA is the section that will realistically need the fewest urgent fixes as it has the most scrutiny and a single article per day, so there's less rush compared to OTD, ITN, or especially DYK. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Duncan makes good points. Here are some further observations:

1. WP:ERRORS starts with 4 busy boxes and 10 bold bullet points. Per banner blindness and WP:TLDR, most editors will immediately understand that they should get to the point rather than spending an hour reading all those instructions and links. So, per WP:CREEP, adding more complex instructions is making matters worse not better.
2. All main page sections tend to have nominators and regular admins who might be interested in errors in their articles and section. For example, see ITN admins. So, any instructions and process should be general rather than being just for one particular section.
3. If some editors want to be notified then they will be the ones motivated to make an effort. For example, I currently subscribe to the section for FA errors and so automatically get notified of any activity there. This is a standard feature which works across all talk pages and so shouldn't require any special instructions to set up. There can be some technical issues so WP:ERRORS should be structured to facilitate such subscriptions.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I just tested subscribing to OTD using the link from an older version of the page, but didn't receive a notification after the section blanked. That solution sounded good but seems too fragile? I'm not actually sure why TFA has a subscribe link when there are no messages. The other empty sections don't have a subscribe link. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I watchlist WP:ERRORS and suspect that the TFA co-ords do too: the bigger concern would seem to be making sure that the nominators are aware of any supposed errors, since that's a moving target that changes every day. I don't know whether it would be possible to make a {{@TFAnom}} template that automatically finds and pings the nominator of that day's TFA? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

TFA nominators usually get advance notice of the day for their article. See Aesthetics scheduled for TFA, for example. I'd expect them to be more interested in what's done to the article than the blurb. DYK nominators are more likely to be interested in what's done to their hooks – that's my experience. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, when I've tried to skimp on the notification of upcoming TFA to their principal authors, for example by pinging instead, I've gotten rather negative feedback, and gone back to the old way. So I'd say it may be different for FA writers from your experience with DYK nominators. Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

There's a previous discussion of the technicalities at "Subscribing" to WP:ERRORS. Some special code was added to the FA section only. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

There needs to be archiving

WP:TALKCOND is pretty clear that Apart from the exception described in § User talk pages, discussions should be archived, not blanked. However, this page bizarrely states that Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page.
This is not a user talk page, and talk page guidelines apply to "[any space where] editors interact" so the removal flies in the face of TALKCOND.
I understand it is a high-traffic page, so what about a bot that works a bit like at AfD? That is, logs for every new day of the main page with a standard template for each section.
Ideally we should also retrieve old discussions that have been removed instead of the required archival. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 12:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. We often have error reports where it would be useful to refer back to a previous discussion, and a searchable archive is much easier than a non-searchable history page for that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same thing. But then I checked and saw archive bot is configured. But doesn't seem to be executing for some reason.

Sparks19923 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

WT:ERRORS (this page) has archiving; WP:ERRORS doesn't. I can't see that any bots or archives are set up for the latter? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:32, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:RM/TR is also an example of a page where discussions are removed without archiving. JuniperChill (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

That page probably has a better case in that there's rarely any value in referring to an old request -- I imagine that's the logic at work at ERRORS, but there I think it's not correct, since it's often valuable to look back on how a similar issue has been handled before. For example, we've recently had a discussion about whether to call a certain composer "Johann Sebastian Bach" or "J. S. Bach": he won't be the last composer on the main page, and it would be useful for people to be able to point back and say "well, in 2026, we decided X for reasons Y" (admittedly, this particular discussion is a bad example, because we didn't manage to decide very much...) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't even know about this discussion, but I independently started a manual archive process here. Given that's it's using two decades worth of WP:ERRORS history, it's going to take some time, and I would appreciate if folks helped. — Knightoftheswords 03:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)