I seem to have been slapped down for querying the wording of today's FA ('chunky little seed-eating bird') here. There is evidently disagreement about whether that's appropriate wording for an encyclopedia article as there seems to have been an edit war over it on the article page - I was unaware of this (my bad) so my error report was just that the FA summary used informal language that wasn't present in the article lead at the point that I noticed it. I'd mistakenly assumed that today's FA would be protected, so it didn't occur to me that the lead would be unstable. Anyway, my question is... for 'non-error' issues like wording/tone when the content is already on the main page—and especially where the FA summary doesn't match the article—what is the correct forum to raise the concern without getting rebuked? YFB ¿ 14:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any such forum. This is not the state of affairs that I'd prefer, but I think it's a fair assessment of the status quo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is always good. The thing is, absent an actual error, or a request backed by the FAC nominator, the TFA coordinators tend to back the existing language, which got the article to this point, as what the nominator, who generally wrote much of the article intended. This page is for errors. Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you can always read ahead. TFA blurbs are usually available 30-60 days in advance and are not protected until the day before. This allows more time for discussion. Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if I'd spotted it earlier I'd have raised it earlier. Still. Seems like there is a venue gap given the FA nominator might be absent. This was promoted 15 years ago... I'd bet most nominators of FAs that old aren't still here. YFB ¿ 15:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes true, but I check that when I leave notifications of the upcoming TFA, and I had checked this one and seen they are still active before leaving notification. As for many not being here who were here in 2010, true, but "Tho' much is taken, much abides" There are still quite a few active nominators from 2010. "That which we are, we are."--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to say I take a different view from the TFA coordinators on this sort of issue. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and the FA nominators don't have any sort of automatic veto or right to be consulted before changes are made. WP:OWN is a fundamental policy of the project and it's always understood that if improvements can be made anyone has the right to make them, including to Featured Articles and including improving text which talks of "chunky birds". When it comes to content already on the main page it's slightly different, as this has been selected and vetted beforehand, with only admins now having the right to edit it. As such (and as I've commented in some of the sections above this one on this page) the things that should be actionable are things that can be clearly seen as errors. Factual inaccuracies, NPOV issues and a lack of WP:V are obvious ones, and for me WP:MOS concerns should be in scope too, at least if they're fairly clear cut. WP:TONE is a borderline one because it's actually not a formal part of the MOS, being on an essay page, but really for an FA we should be presenting the readers refreshing brilliant prose etc. Anyway, long story short, if today's issue had been raised about DYK, OTD, ITN or POTD I probably would have actioned it straightaway, but for TFA I've learned to keep my distance a bit because the coords tend to slap me on the wrists if I overstep there. I guess it's a case of meeting halfway, wherever that might be. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Admins,

I would like to request an edit on the protected page [Pranshiinfra]. Currently, the information is [incorrect / outdated / missing]. Suggested correction/addition is as follows:

- [Write your correct/update content here clearly] - [If you have reliable sources, add their links here]

Thank you for reviewing this request. Pranshiinfa (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, such requests are left on the talk page of the article in question, using the template displayed to you when you attempt to edit a page requiring greater privileges than you have. Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requester now blocked as spammer. Deb (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]