Talk:Main Page/Archive 188

Archive 185

Archive 186

Archive 187

Archive 188

Archive 189

Archive 190

→

Archive 195

New RFC regarding the Main Page

Link correction: Special:Permalink/728676218#RfC: Main page update, whereever the page may end up — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft talk:Main Page#RfC: Main page update. You want an RfC, here it is. Open input welcome. Let's see how serious the community really is. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I've replied to those questions which make sense; I have no idea what statements like "If modernized, everyone can contribute without oversight" are supposed to mean. FWIW I consider the whole thing extremely loaded, since it takes it as a given that "Modernization" is essential despite you being the only person on Wikipedia who appears to actually think this. ‑ Iridescent 16:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop isolating my opinion as unique; it isn't. There are plenty of other editors that feel an update (by whichever word) is in order. Just look over the 2013 RFC. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Edokter is correct in his assertion that many people think the main page needs updating. The problem is that none of the specific proposals (including mine) so far has been shown to be acceptable to the community. Edokter is incorrect in his assumption that attempting to force his particular opinion on others (combined with snarky comments about other editors "whining about process" or "having no interest in change") will work. It will blow up in his face. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thus far, with the exception of a driveby IP with a grand total of four edits, not a single person has supported your attempted coup de main, and your constant evocation of a supposed silent majority waiting for you to arrive on a white horse to rescue Wikipedia from itself is starting to become tiresome. That three years ago you managed to assemble a handful of people who felt that a change would be desirable (and quite a few of the comments at the RFC were of the opposing opinion), doesn't mean that they represent a majority of editors, and certainly doesn't mean that they want your change, about which there appears a fairly strong consensus that it's worse than the status quo. If you really have faith in your creation, get agreement to put your proposal and the existing main page side-by-side and run a well-publicised sitewide "which of these two options do you prefer" vote; I presume the reason you're agitating so noisily about your right to disregard any consensus with which you don't agree is that you know as well as I do what the result of such a vote would be. ‑ Iridescent 17:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Re "driveby IP with a grand total of four edits". Actually, I have been around for over ten years and made thousands of edits. I have followed the debate about the Main Page, on and off, for almost as long, it seems. Please understand that many people get a new IP address every time they connect. I cannot understand why so many people here are still ignorant of this fact. Please retract your insult. 86.185.218.118 (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes - as Iridescent says, the only proper way to do this is to get together a proposal, put it side by side with the existing main page, and have the community decide by consensus if the proposed option is better. Dionysodorus (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I am, of course, biased because I have published a competing proposal, but why just those two choices? Take a look at Wikipedia:Unsolicited redesigns for a list of many other proposals. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

In an ideal world, I'd put the existing version alongside all the rest of Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives and any other credible proposal and use Wikipedia:SecurePoll to run a site-wide poll with "I like it"/"I could live with it"/"It's horrible" buttons for every option. (If you've ever voted in an Arbcom election, you'll grasp the concept.) In the real world, anything with more than five or so options would probably be quite unwieldy to run, and lead to a win for the existing MP by default because people couldn't be fagged to check out all the potential alternatives so would tend to vote "neutral" on most of them. Per my comments on my talkpage, all these proposals are too unambitious, and we should really be looking at more radical alternatives about how the whole page is structured. ‑ Iridescent 18:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Point of clarification: supporting an update isn't necessarily the same as supporting "modernization". The reason I bring it up is that I get the impression that you (Edocktor) have a distinct opinion of what being a "modern" webpage entails (c.f. "a laughing stock for web designers"). There's a risk of equivocation by conflating "update" and "modernize". If you're not careful, the risk is that someone saying "I don't like the current Main Page" is interpreted as "I support "modernization" of the Main Page", which can then equivocate into "I agree with Edocktor's views about what a "modern" website looks like, and the Main Page should be that." - Just because someone agrees the Main Page should change doesn't necessarily mean they agree that it should change for the same reasons you do, and it definitely doesn't mean that they agree that your particular changes are the way it should be done. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with virtually all of these proposals is that they want to do forty-eleven blue million things all at once. You will NEVER get consensus to change everything all at once. Pick ONE thing, and only ONE thing and see if that can be changed. I keep hearing people say we need to get rid of tables on the main page. Come up with a proposal that does that AND ONLY THAT. If that gets done, THEN move on to the next ONE THING. --Khajidha (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• The results of the RFC thus far are obvious proof that there is no consensus to change the main page, despite Edoktor's claims to the contrary.--WaltCip (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I very much agree with both Khajidha's and WaltCip's comments. Dionysodorus (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Haven't you people heard? All those who oppose are a "vocal miniority"[1] while there is a huge majority that support Edokter but for some inexplicable reason have all decided to "stay silent".[2] And thus we see the Law of holes in action. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep playing to the man. Also, the 2135 gadget users seem to think the new page is a good idea. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"Keep playing to the man" is not a free "Edokter can behave as badly as he wants without anyone criticizing him for his behavior" card. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I behave badly in response to someone else behaving badly. Call it a weakness. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, not a theocracy. Being able to collaborate and deal with differing or opposing opinions is a must.--WaltCip (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Dallas shooting in the news

I have created the page 2016 Dallas Protest Shooting. It needs work, but it can be added to the front page later. Coin Collecting John (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Coin Collecting John: It is a duplicate and I have redirect it. Also, this isn't the place. See WP:ITN/C. --Majora (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: Good point, you aren't wrong. Apologies for putting this here and making the page in the first place. Coin Collecting John (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. No apologies needed. --Majora (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem - just considering an alternative way people will be looking for the particular topic, and this talk page is the default for changes to the MP. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Another video game?

Today's featured article: Nights into Dreams.... I am not a regular reviewer for featured articles, and am not claiming to have my finger on the pulse of the process or the subject matter, so please treat the following commentary in that qualified light, but I feel like I am sensing a pattern over the past several years in which video games and their franchises have made their way to becoming featured articles with astonishing regularity (God of War (video game) Final Fantasy, Halo: Reach, Halo Wars, Killer7, Lost Luggage (video game), Flow (video game), Flow (video game), Kingdom Hearts (video game), Flotilla (video game), etc.). I understand that this to a certain extent reflects the pre-existing interests of our editors (technologically competent educated white males under age 50) but want to express concern about that. I do not know that other subject matter is getting discounted in favor of video games, and perhaps I needn't say anything at all, but I suspect that by selecting another video game for the Main Page that Wikipedia may be creating a certain... tone?... that is narrowing and perhaps more introspective than is good for our claimed breadth of scope. According to this discussion, video games encounter a fair amount of opposition when nominated and only end up on the main page through the act of a deciding admin (some of whom I know)— is that really the case? If there simply aren't other articles being nominated then so be it. KDS4444 (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

See this lovely FAQ --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You might also find these links helpful: Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and, best of all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

See also this table showing how many articles in each category ought to run to prevent over/under-representation—the number of videogame TFAs are exactly what they ought to be. ‑ Iridescent 15:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Concern withdrawn, thank you all for clarifying for me. KDS4444 (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I love that table. Brianboulton, you are a genius. And KDS4444 you'd be more than welcome participating in any of the processes that lead articles to appear as Today's Featured Article. Just follow one of the links. We'd love to have you. Or anyone else reading this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Aw, shucks, I know I'd be welcome! It's just that I can't do all the things I want to do as it is and have to limit my Wikipedia time so that it doesn't take over. But thank you, I've never entered a part of Wikipedia where I didn't feel welcome (though as a technologically competent educated white male under age 50, that is usually pretty easy!). KDS4444 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused about how that table answers anything. Who decided that video games have 1/3 the importance of military history? Or 11/3 as much importance as physics and astronomy? Saying "we wanted 11 and got 11" is not an indication that the number is reasonable. It's an indication that Wikipedians should probably work on more important articles. Connor Behan (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

[reset) Can we coopt the monkeys-with-typewriters-aiming-at-Shakespeare to getting WP articles up to MP standards? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's true that we probably have the target number of video game TFAs for the main page, in other words not an excessive number as compared to other potential TFAs. However, I do want to say that I think it is very interesting that there are nonetheless ongoing concerns by both editors and readers with regards to the perception of the number of video game articles that appear on the main page. I think it's also interesting about how it seems to reflect on our demographic that we publish these FAs to begin with. I do not believe that we should stop articles of great quality from ending up on the main page, but I can certainly understand why readers from demographics that would not find these interesting would be made uncomfortable by a perceived saturation of these articles. Again, I'm not saying we need to make policy changes to stop qualified featured articles from being posted. I just think it's interesting.--WaltCip (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I think professional sports are stupid. Is this where I complain about sports TFAs? Oh wait, I can recognize that even though I'm not personally interested in something it might still be a topic with a lot to talk about. News flash: video games have moved beyond Pong. To be sure, this would be different if there were an abnormally large amount of video game TFAs, but as pointed out above there aren't. And I can see that the past two TFAs were about a sports team and a music album. No complaints about either of those topics, which according to that table appear more frequently than video games? --71.110.8.102 (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The thing about video games is that it still bears a subcultural stigma (possibly made even worse through the conversation-ending Gamergate). I was browsing through Iridescent's talk page one day. One of the things I found interesting is this particular section here, and the conversation within. Also check out the PacMan Fever page on TVTropes for more interesting reading about how video games are portrayed even in fictional media.--WaltCip (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Another factor is that the casual reader may not understand that a "featured article" is a distinction of article quality and not just any old article we have decided to "feature" on the main page that day. Many people see the main page and think something along the lines of "they've got over 5 million articles but I keep seeing video games". --Khajidha (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Tea Lizard

Today, a DYK fact from the article Tea Lizard has been featured. Currently however, the article is up for deletion. Per Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines, "articles nominated for deletion must go on hold until they have survived the deletion process." Because of this, should the DYK be removed until the AfD is done, or should it stay? JudgeRM 18:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed this should not be on DYK, especially considering that the consensus is currently heavily in favor of deleting this.--WaltCip (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This kind of feedback, if posted at WP:ERRORS, results in swift action. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It was, it got moved here. ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The OP moved it here. I think s/he did that because it had already finished being featured ("has been", as opposed to "is" implies is no longer). My point, poorly expressed, is that prompt posting at ERRORS will get a change made. If the article was at AFD when nominated, it'd be better to post about this at T:DYK. If the article was nominated while on Main page, WP:ERRORS is the place to get it sorted. Posting here after the fact doesn't seem to help either scenario. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

'Assume person in too much of a hurry/not quite certain enough where in the comments tree to go' (which appears to cover a large number of such postings here). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

One of the problems is that the people who run the main page fall back on detailed instructions about posting preceived errors to various pages about which the casual but well-intentioned editor knows nothing. Old Army adage: Action transferred; action completed.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

First Humans, LOL

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.

---

Armstrong and Aldrin, become the first humans to walk on the moon. You mean as opposed to the first donkeys, or camels, or whatever else? Who, or what, else other than a human would be walking on the moon? Say it for what it is; they were the first men on the moon. 86.149.35.196 (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You will get a faster response if you post to WP:ERRORS(which is transcluded here) 331dot (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure The Clangers were there first, as well as the Soup Dragon and Froglets. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Pull yourself together, man! they are not real. 141.6.11.22 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Would Earthlings be better? freshacconci talk to me 18:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Everyone knows Man in the Moon was first, geeess... Mlpearc (open channel) 18:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No. They were the first MEN on the moon, as far as I know. Incidentally, your man above is wrong about the Clangers. The article says; 'The first episode was broadcast by the BBC1 on 16 November 1969'. 141.6.11.22 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Since nobody mentioned the obvious: "Men" can either mean "humans" or "males". Either way, Armstrong was first, not Valentina Tereshkova or Sally Ride, so there's no point in specifying a gender. Art LaPella (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

So when the first woman sets foot on the moon - no need to ever mention it. She'll just be the 510th person on the moon, or whatever. 141.6.11.22 (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

And I just noticed the next 'On this Day'. Turkish adventurer Erden Eruç became the first "person" in history to complete a solo "human"-powered circumnavigation of the Earth. Political correctness really is funny at times. 141.6.11.22 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The SJWs are ruining everything. 107.77.216.165 (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2016 (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.

Pokemon Go? Why?

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.

---

Why is Pokemon Go an "ongoing event"? It's not ongoing news. It's not even news, it's just a new game. (Of which there are many.) CesarFelipe (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@CesarFelipe: Asked and answered last Friday. If you want to remove it start a new thread there. --Majora (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You're going to have a hard time selling me on Pokemon Go being just another new game among many.--WaltCip (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so here's another question: until when is it gonna be an "ongoing event"? Unlike all other sporting events (under which it's classified in the In The News page), it doesn't have a definite ending. If it keeps being this popular for years to come, are we gonna keep it in the Main Page for years as an "event" (which again, it isn't)? Where's the rationale for that? CesarFelipe (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Listen, it's very simple. There was a consensus at ITNC to post this item. If you wish to nominate it for removal, you are welcome to do so. Other than that, this dialogue isn't going to solve anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"Ongoing" doesn't seem to be the appropriate place for a mobile game. A new heading like "Trending topics" would be apt. 103.194.60.237 (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Per community consensus it was determined that there was sufficient news stories about this to warrant an ongoing listing. See above for advice on the only way ahead if this is such an issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (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.

Should we lose DYK from the Main Page?

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.

---

Besides the obvious problem - that the hooks have, over time, gotten more and more boring, until a trivia section is often nothing more than a collection of mundane facts - I think its system actively violates core policies at times.

Have a look at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Élizabeth_Teissier, where, in order to avoid saying anything negative about someone primarily notable for being controversial, they're proposing pro-astrology hooks, in direct violation of WP:Fringe theories and WP:NPOV. The whole system seems to be broken. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's fix Adam's DYK nom first, before we move on to discuss "Should we lose DYK from the Main Page?" --70.26.61.102 (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Adam, do you have any evidence for the hooks have, over time, gotten more and more boring? The first ever DYK set back when it was created was:

• ...that a pencil sharpener "is a device for sharpening a pencil's point by shaving the end of the pencil"?"
• ...that in 1971, Pakistani writer Eqbal Ahmad was indicted on charges of conspiracy to kidnap Henry Kissinger?
• ...that jumping plant lice and aphids are considered to be the "primitive" group within the Hemiptera order of true bugs?
• ...that the Tokyo Monorail, which travels at speeds of up to 80 kph, was constructed to coincide with the 1964 Summer Olympics?
• ...that the Balkan comic opera Ero the Joker was first performed on November 2, 1935?

There really wasn't ever a golden age when the hooks were all fascinating. I do support the principle of deprecating DYK and ITN, as by drawing reader attention to what are by definition Wikipedia's newest articles they help propagate the idea that Wikipedia is jam-packed with hurriedly written and unstable stubby articles, but "DYK used to be really good" is an argument which doesn't stand up. ‑ Iridescent 09:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• We always want to seem to throw the baby out with the bath water; is it truly that unfixable or otherwise unable to be improved? There should be a way to balance the concerns here with those who do like DYK and find it beneficial. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What could the space currently occupied by DYK better be filled by that provides a means of finding articles you did not know you wished to know more about/develop? Unlike the 'random page' option (or even 'random (category) page') you can select which topics you want to pursue from the group. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Off the top of my head, a "true" Did You Know, with interesting facts chosen from all articles on Wikipedia not just those newly created, which would allow us to highlight to readers the scope and breadth of Wikipedia without the "Did You Care?" factor. Law had a mockup on his userpage at one point. ‑ Iridescent 10:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Adam, your nomination will not make it onto the main page with a pro-astrology hook, that proposal has already been struck and you knew that before even beginning this thread. Iridescent, it is not only new articles, it is substantially expanded articles, expanded and referenced previously unreferenced BLPs, and new GAs. Let's all remember that there are many articles going through DYK which are of high quality. Finally, I suggest that starting a discussion like this without a notification at WT:DYK is poor form. EdChem (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think there's a couple of different issues here, that we should be careful not to conflate. Issue one is that which Adam highlights; there have been problematic hooks and articles posted onto the main page. DYK can certainly tighten up in that regard, and reform proposals to this effect would, I think, be met positively. Issue two is that of making things "interesting," and this is completely separate. You can have an FA on a topic that is dead boring to most people; the issue is, how do you define "interesting" in an even vaguely universal way? I can't think of a good definition that would provide a magic bullet fix. IMHO the best way to fix both these would be the same; propose reforms that would help give each nomination more scrutiny (slow them down, for instance?). Just my two cents; I haven't been there too long. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This seems to be mostly pointy canvassing for a dispute about one particular article, but, to address the supposed issue, my view is that DYK is usually the most interesting part of the main page and that's because some effort is made to make the hooks appealing. The FA, by comparison, is often quite dreary and that's because the topics and their descriptions usually seem to be chosen on a Buggin's turn basis, especially if Buggins was in the RAAF, for which we have had three FAs so far this month! Today, we have the monthly mushroom which is worthy but dull. The current DYK batch seems comparatively interesting, from Beatus vir, through Lydia Kaʻonohiponiponiokalani Aholo to Josi S. Kilpack and her culinary mysteries. The topic in dispute should make a good entry too, when we get to it. DYK that the astrologer in question was used by Mitterrand to advise on matters of state...? Andrew D. (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of DYK. I'm amongst the harsher of critics of DYK, but just because someone didn't get the vindictive hook they wanted posted to the main page, I don't see that as a reason to jettison the whole project. It's in reasonable health, with a couple of hundred hooks in its back pocket ready to go, and while I could write two essays on how it can be improved, it's certainly not time to ditch it altogether. I would recommend that interested individuals spend more time over at WP:DYKQ reviewing the hooks before they go to the main page to call out dull hooks, erroneous hooks or plain vindictive hooks. That way the DYK project's output will improve. But it's certainly not worth destroying altogether based on the views of one disgruntled hook "owner". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose removal of DYK. When I see this (recurring) proposal, I wonder what the nominator has in mind to fill the space left by the absence of DYK. By evidence of the need for Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, there are flaws in all areas of the main page. Otherwise, you could eliminate categories from the Errors page. Yes? Why DYK? I'm a participant in all levels of reviews on Wikipedia, which includes FA, FL and GA (which appears on the main page as a DYK nom). If I were to pick the one with the least flaws, it would be...NONE OF THEM. So why pick on DYK? — Maile (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Not going to bold this "!vote" since this is something of a straw poll, but I am absolutely opposed to binning DYK, a platform for new writers (and those who haven't written in a while) to showcase their work in a relatively pain-free way. DYK may be "boring", but it is certainly a less cumbersome process for a newcomer to get recognition for a new, well-written and sourced article, which is something we should be celebrating, not campaigning to get rid of. — foxj 15:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• No. I think the good outways the bad, others have spoken to why. I will add, the reason the DYK may be "boring" is because the hook exercise is akin to one approaching the headline writing for a tabloid, but needs to be reigned in for very good reasons, and is actually a good learning exercise for encyclopedia writers (walking the line: arguably sensational but definitely not sensationalist). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The thousands of hits that DYK generates for bolded (and unbolded) articles attest to its popularity. Just last week, a non-lead DYK hook logged over 229,000 hits. Even the dullest hook draws several hundred viewers, though most are not dull and attract many more. Yoninah (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose DYK is popular, and encourages article creation & expansion, both of which are great for the encyclopedia. Also, many of the hooks are still interesting, even if some are not. Don't destroy the system just because you don't like a small part of it. Joseph2302 17:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Snow oppose per all the above. Maybe the OP would be better off starting a WP:RFC, although I think that would end up with the same result as this post. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• DYK has its flaws, as does any system, as does Wikipedia itself. Those shouldn't be ignored, but they're not a reason to scrap it altogether. DYK is actually very good at drawing attention to the sheer variety of articles Wikipedia has, and it's one of the few rewards or incentives that contributors have for writing the articles. After all, most of who write articles (which I know is so uncool compared to arguing on this talk page or politicking on ANI) do it because we want them to be read. It's a discussion worth having, but the discussion should be in terms of what could serve its purpose better. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. DYK is an excellent mechanism for incentivizing editors to (1) write new articles and (2) improve existing articles The DYK review process is also a crucial tool for improving and fact-checking new articles. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. For all the reasons above and because I learn stuff by following the DYK links. I can't get over the idea that this is another "let's fix the main page" post.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:49, 24 July 2016 (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.

We have things to learn from the french main page

Hello,

there are several aspects where the french main page does better than ours. Firstly, within the content area of the wikimedia interface, there are only three visible main objects. This is harmonious with the human threshold of four objects that can be identified in an instant. In the English wikipedia however, the titles within the boxes are objects themselves (distinguishing themselves as such by the border lines around them), which is why there are in total five objects. Furthermore, the background colors make readability more difficult.

Thus, I suggest that the french design (once again) be copied and transported to this main page, for better readability and ease of use. Perhaps the authors of the french page would volunteer for such a task if asked. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Most people agree that the Main Page needs to be redesigned, but no one agrees on how to do it. Proposals to do so have been tried and failed many times- if you wish to make a formal proposal, good luck to you. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that you regard this design as simpler and more straightforward than that of our main page? Given the rounded corners, redundant Wikipedia globe logo (directly adjacent to the one appearing on every page) and headings with icons and gradient backgrounds (which you apparently consider less distracting than simple borders), I disagree.

Also note that the right-hand column's background color is identical to ours. (I realize that this falls outside what you've described as "the content area".) —David Levy 21:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with David Levy. While there's disagreement on how we should redesign our main page, there's a general consensus that any redesign should remove clutter and make the page easier to navigate. The fr-wiki main page resembles the menu of a rather tacky restaurant, and is even more cheap-looking and cluttered than our own 2004 relic. ‑ Iridescent 22:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Whatever its age the EnMP works reasonably well #partly because it is familiar# (even if there have been some tweaks and changes - such as moving the 'Search box' - and 'rearrangements not visible to the general user').

And - 'six months after the significantly redesign' there would be discussions on the talk page about how to improve the Main Page. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Look, one of the reasons why the current page looks about 15 years out of date is the pastel boxes. Even given the quite pathetic inability of the Wikipedia community to update the Main Page design over many years, can this ONE issue be addressed? Can we get rid of the pastel boxes? 86.185.218.109 (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • IMO the pastel boxes look a lot cleaner and neater than "modern" web design. Even so, nowadays things are trending back towards flat design anyways. ansh666 02:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    • (angrily waves his cane) If it ain't broken, don't fix it!--WaltCip (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Generally for the MP: Is the text legible? Yes. Are some changes made? Yes (using bold to indicate what item on the list images link to). Do people complain? Yes. Do they all complain about the same thing? No (apart from 'six hooks on topic x, 'not in front of the children/while I am having a worktime coffee break and similar). Should there be some updating? Possibly? Should WP capitalise on its MP continuity of layout? Perhaps.

More generally - did (insert well known company of choice) rebrands work? Cite abject failures/runaway successes to taste.

Will the discussion be continuing as the last humans introduce the latest computer redesign? Almost certainly. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Design by consensus is doomed to fail, as evidenced by the numerous failed attempts at minor variations on the existing outdated theme. Fact is, this is something that's going to have to be decreed by the foundation, and probably standardized across all the projects. --50.160.204.213 (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Hello,

I would like to remark something on general argumentation. If you cite aspects of a certain object in order to prove that the object is bad, you have to prove first that these aspects make the object bad.

Due to this, I percieve your arguments against the french main page as invalid.

To add further things in favour of the french design, note that the main content starts further below on the screen, where users are most likely to look. --Mathmensch (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

BTW I don't mean to be impolite. But it is wise to accept the facts always, for all humans strive to know the truth. --Mathmensch (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: All the positive things which I highlighted from the french page can be adapted without adapting any of the alleged negatives. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I just took the freedom of doing so with the developer tools of my browser, and here is the result:

--Mathmensch (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I should add that given permission, I could make the necessary changes within half an hour. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

In this case, please contact me on my talk page, because for now I have other things to do. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That is quite painful on the eyes. There's also a lot of unused real estate at the top of the page.--WaltCip (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

See Constructive criticism and please read above why the "real estate" is there. And further note that my computer does Font hinting. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Mathmensch, you are not going to be given permission under any conceivable circumstances, since those opposed to change will obviously oppose this and those supporting change certainly don't want our main page to look like as cheap and nasty as fr-wiki's main page. Please, drop this particular stick, and have a good read of what happened last time someone decided they wanted to unilaterally redesign the main page. "Give me permission and I'll change everything" is not how Wikipedia works. ‑ Iridescent 18:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia works when users calm down and participate constructively. It does not work when they are impolite, aggressive, and feel their status offended. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm being neither impolite nor am I offended. I'm expressing my dislike of the redesign. You can provide perfectly good reasons as to why the redesign works for you; that doesn't mean I have to like it.--WaltCip (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

What is going on here? I thought I was talking to Iridescent? We may have a different understanding of how the indentation of this discussion is to be interpreted. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

OK then, I'm being neither impolite nor am I offended. I'm pointing out that the likelihood of an editor with less than 300 edits—less than half of which are to articles—being given carte blanche to redesign the eighth most viewed page on the internet is zero, and strongly suggesting that you drop this now. ‑ Iridescent 19:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday, I wrote a total of 40k at the English wikibooks. But that's not the point. I have an idea, and I think it's a good idea. So therefore I will - politely - ask for it to be implemented, and I even have the knowledge how to do that. This is, in my view, about efficiency, about how well the main page is understood and used. There are guidelines for that which are well tested, and I follow these guidelines. I'm only trying to improve matters. But for now, I have to return to group theory. I wish you a nice evening (or noon, if you are in the US) and hope that perhaps one day, one can improve upon the current design of the main page, which, in my view, can be improved. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mathmensch: - politely asking for your idea to be implemented is not going to get anywhere. Best you can hope for is to poitely ask for your idea to be discussed. I would say that a snowball in hell probably has a better chance though. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps if I get people exposed to the ideas, and they see that they are sensible and based on valid design criteria, then they will see that a change should be made, and eventually make this change, even though it may take a slightly different form from what I did above. At least four people are now thinking.

With best regards, --Mathmensch (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Main page/design of wikipedia

Does anybody know if the foundation are considering an update sometime? We've had the same main page for ten years now and the default Vector design has always looked really bland and amateurish IMO. It is 2016 now, not 2005...♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

There's been multiple discussions here to change it. It isn't a foundation issue; it's a local en.wikipedia issue, which means editors here have to handle it on our own. We've had those discussions about every six months for about 5 years running. You can find them in the archives of this very talk page. Nothing has happened. If you want to fire up a new discussion, feel free, but there's a lot of work already put into this (including concrete designs which have been mooted), but nothing has been done yet. There's a lot of inertia to an organization this large... --Jayron32 17:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of countless proposals to change, but it never does. Perhaps the site developers should take a leap of good faith and trial some different ones for a period and see which prove to be the most popular? The WikiWand design I think is the closest I've seen to the sort of thing I'd expect, though it's certianly not perfect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

We had a discussion just a couple of weeks ago, in which someone threatened to unilaterally impose a new main page on the project before the end of this year, and was rather decisively told that wouldn't be a good way of doing things. The problem is that I have yet to see any page that beats the current one for aesthetics or content. In many ways the main page is fine as it is, so it needs to be something really good to replace it, and nobody's designed that yet.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You're late to the party:

• Discussion started by Edokter;
• RFC started by Edokter (it's in the hatted "Old discussion" section);
• ANI discussion resulting in Edokter's desysop and retirement;
• A new discussion started by Guy Macon.

It peters out after that, the last edit to that page was almost 3 weeks ago. I understand you're coming here with a desire to discuss this in good faith, but I'd say give everybody time to breathe a little before restarting this whole mess. Isa (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I really don't want to reopen this can of worms, I wasn't aware of a discussion three weeks ago but in all honesty I would say that being bold and just enforcing a change in this stalemate would be a good idea. Otherwise it'll be 2050 and we'll still have this design. For starters we could at least change the pastel headers to something a bit classier. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you read any of the links I provided. This is exactly what Edokter said, word for word, about 30 days ago. "Enforcing a change" isn't "a good idea". Isa (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I needn't necessarily be a permanent change, but to test some different skins and pages I think, see how people react to them and then go with the most popular. If somebody isn't bold on this it'll be 2050 and we'll still be stuck with the same jurassic era level of web design.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That is how a real life large business wanting to update its home page would probably do it: list the design features it was looking for, commission 3–5 alternative designs from internal or external service providers, then pick or vote for their preferred new design, with the field of candidates possibly including the existing design. As Dr Blofeld implies, I doubt if an organisation like Wikipedia would be able to reach consensus on a new design so it would come down to a vote. Has something like this ever been considered in lieu of the 2050 ice age option? Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The main page would look a lot better for a start with better headers. The pastel colours do make it looks more amateurish. Why doesn't somebody be bold and try a slight tweak for a change like silver or blue?♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Most people are 'used to the page as is' - and if there was a policy of 'first of the month, new colourway, second of the month new format' etc, there would be more 'don't like this/it disagrees with my computer/tablet/handheld screen display/visual issues' than positives. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and resistance to change is one of the biggest site problems. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of the proposed changes amount to "I think this looks outdated, let's make it look absolutely up to the nanosecond" (forgetting that that new look will be just as dated rather quickly). Is there something that is FUNCTIONALLY flawed? Is there something that can be done to fix this improper function? Esthetics are notoriously subjective and many of the things that you and others have suggested as "looking better" seem absolutely hideous to me and many others. --Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It amazes me how many people step in to defend it as it is. Web design and graphics are an important part of useability and the willingness to actually read content. If the design is uninspiring and bland, then yes, it affects how I function on here, I become bored of it. Do you think the Wikiwand style is "absolutely hideous"? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The most important function of the main page is not to look sexy, or to have fancy animations swooping everywhere, but to convey information. We chose this design in 2006, because it conveys the information well and the aesthetics are nice enough without becoming a distraction. If you don't like it, propose a change and see what the community thinks. But the idea of unilaterally imposing one is an absolute nonstarter. That's completely contrary to the way Wikpedia works.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I experience "willingness to actually read content" by not having extraneous things getting in the way. And this includes most instances of "web design and graphics" I have come across. To my mind, there is too much clutter on the Main Page as is. And I have no idea what "Wikiwand" is. --Khajidha (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

PS-Looking up Wikiwand here, I have to say that, yes, I do find that "absolutely hideous". --Khajidha (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it looks atrocious. Leave the pointless website redesigns to Forbes.--WaltCip (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Let us also not forget; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're not a business that has to answer to shareholders demanding innovation for the sake of innovation. Redesigning the website for no other reason other than "because we should" will alienate readers who have become used to the usual, friendly format we currently have.--WaltCip (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

All websites undergo a redesign over time. It's utter bullshit that a redesign would alienate readers. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If our Main page is so out of date then please explain why the Drudge Report, a site that is repeatedly called one of the best designs on the web,[3][4][5][6] does as well as it does with a design that is a decade older than ours? --Allen3 ^talk 22:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a 'brand image' - which may well involve what some see as slightly old-fashioned layouts.

Perhaps there could be a wiki for 'Wikipedia designs' so that possible variants could be displayed. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

As many people have a different idea of what their "perfect" design is, I think something which allows for editors to customize more on here in their preferences would be the way to go. A way in which you can design skins and main pages to your own preference. Useability is incredibly important here, and editors should be given the opportunity to be able to customize the design to their own specifications. That way you don't force one design down people's throats, and increases the chances that people will be happier with that aspect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Customisation is for advanced users who have already bought in to Wikipedia. It doesn't help the impression that ordinary visitors receive, that Wikipedia is about 15 years out of date. However, if some people (not you; further above) actually like the pastel boxes, and those people have some sort of influence here, then what hope is there? 31.49.181.213 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If your assessment of Wikipedia is that its content is 15 years out of date based on the appearance of the main page and not, you know, the articles themselves, then I'm sorry, but that is utterly delusional.--WaltCip (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

How many people enter "through the front door" (I do) and how many access an article from a Google (or other search) result? It's the articles that count.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I'm more concerned about the "skin" than the main page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Presentation counts, as it is the first thing readers notice, even if subconsciously, when visiting any website. If only content matters, then why not just dump the skin entirely and go back to 1991 and serve a bare text version of Wikipedia? Would save the WMF some serious bandwidth dollars! Anyway, although functional, I disagree with the mentality that we should not at least change the design to adapt to modern web standards. The Main Page and the skin are examples of dated design that may need to be addressed sooner or later, but there are more slient examples as well, such as the state of mathematical typesetting on Wikipedia (i.e., when other websites are showing clean, sharp mathematics using MathJax, we are still showing grainy bitmap images to typeset mathematics). Not only that, MediaWiki and other software Wikipedia runs on is dated, requiring complex procedures just to perform actions that can easily be semi-automated (such as round-robin moves and complex history merging), omitting important features (such as the ability to depatrol pages), or even making simple features not an pain to use (such as undoing moves or writing templates). — Esquivalience (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This topic is discussed so regularly it would make sense to have a separate 'Main Page Redesign Discussion' page.

'For most users' are the key issues 'this site is legible and easy to use' (once the conventions are learnt) and 'information can be found quickly (especially with redirects and 'see also' etc)' or 'this is an old-fashioned website' - and how many are going to be 'poking round the programming'? And as most of us know 'resolving one tiny little annoyance' can lead to much work and redesigning the entire system (with the process promptly repeated for some other issue). Jackiespeel (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Three theses regarding the main page

I already listed these above, and repeat them here.

1. The main content area should not start above 1/3 of the screen from top, since this is where users most often look as it's easiest and they are used to it (this has been analyzed).
2. The current design of the titles of the several sections have the titles as separate objects. This has the consequence that the human threshold of four objects that can be identified in an instant is surpassed. To fix this, the titles should not come in their own separate boxes.
3. The most readable text on the screen is black on white. Thus the background color of the several boxes should be dropped. To compensate for the loss of cohesion of the single boxes, one could think about deploying a larger or double margin.

With best regards, --Mathmensch (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed sections for the Main Page

I have seen discussion about redesigning the Main Page. Let's take a break from that and focus on adding more sections instead. How about "Did you know already..."? About the same as "Did you know...", but that's different. The "DYK already" would allow articles created one year ago or more. We can also allow articles to reappear numerous times in contrast to more strict DYK. I'm not sure about the deadlines of nominations. Also, what about amount of facts and articles? We can reuse the same DYK entries that we did originally for DYK, and/or we can use different ones from an article, regardless of appearance (or not). Maybe another name: "Today's fact(s)", which shall not be confused with "On this day".

I have another proposed section: "Today's word". It's just one word and nothing more, but the quality of the article should be free from issues and be decent. For example, "dog" or "cat", and that's it. --George Ho (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, maybe one person with two or more words. "Today's word" seems too strict and would confuse readers if a person's name is used. Alternatively, maybe "Today's word or phrase or person"?

I have another one section: "Today's..." It's a mysterious section, and we might never know what it is all about. It can be anything. The section header says "Today's...", and the content box shall say the subject and today's topic, like "...pet" and then "Cat..." It can explain just one word... or look almost like FA. It can be loose or strict. Another would be "...science" and then "Atoms...", or "...planet" and then "Mars..." It's just "Today's..." --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose. George, no disrespect but this is an absolutely awful idea. Everyone has their own idea of whether the existing design is problematic and if so, how to fix it, but there's virtual unanimity that the emphasis be on reducing the clutter, not adding even more sections which an ever-decreasing editor base will then have to maintain. ‑ Iridescent 03:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• "Today's word" sounds rather like the Word of the day that the English Wiktionary already does. Smurrayinchester 09:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary also has a 'word of the day' email service.

My impression is - people want the Main Page (or the website in general) tweaked to their taste - rather than there being 'a large number of Wikipedians complaining that Wikipedia is broken.'

There are some improvements - eg linking the pictures to the relevant line of text on the lists. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Lots of people saying "I don't like how it looks", no one saying "This functionality is broken." Even Dr.Blofeld's comment that " If the design is uninspiring and bland, then yes, it affects how I function on here, I become bored of it. " isn't really about how the site functions or doesn't function, but about how he functions. --Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Most people using WP will have limited interest in 'the underlying programming and architecture' of Wikipedia (or any other website) and will let those so interested and involved get on with it.

And - what gets posted here will be the complaints and don't-likes (rather than 'it works better' - the linking I just mentioned - or 'in three days I was used to it' - moving the search box from the side to the top.

Could there be a 'wiki of Wikipedia redesigns and colourways'? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of outside people (i.e. non Wikipedians who read the Wiki) ever complaining about the look, feel or usability or WP? have we lost any readers because of our "dated" interface? Or is this just a navel gazing exercise to fix a perceived problem that doesn't exist?  — Amakuru (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strongest possible no thank you --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Another proposal

Given the number and frequency of discussions on the subject could there be a separate discussion page for 'rearranging/redesigning the Main Page' - so that this talk page can deal with issues relating to the MP as it currently is (whatever that happens to be). Jackiespeel (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clearly for this idea, but certainly not against it. I choose to remain neutral and appreciative should somebody else implement it. --Mathmensch (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support - The string of perennial redesign discussions is cluttering up this page.--WaltCip (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Something like Talk:Main Page/MP redesign? I don't question that the proponents are passionate in their drive, but ht e proposals are a distraction.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - And a bot to transfer new discussions to that page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment on the comment Existing bots can't automatically determine what a discussion is about. "Move it to the redesign page" would become another eternal refrain like "That belongs at WP:ERRORS". Art LaPella (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh, well. <grin>--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
      • But conversations here on the subject are likely to be shorter 'My pet idea is.' 'please [click on link].' When the proposal is 'discussed into submission' it can then be brought back to this page for consideration by the rest of us. (An example might be the 'linking pictures to list entries' discussion a little while back.)

Or would 'somewhere on the Community Portal' be more appropriate? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not against the discussions per se, but suggesting a way to keep the various sides happy (as we are about due the 'too many entries on topic X' and 'topic Y causes coffee to be spilt in the keyboard/the children to ask questions I don't wish to answer' conversations). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, I forgot to complain about the Thorpe affair being on the main page. Think of the children, people, because I don't have time to think about being a responsible parent myself.--WaltCip (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@WaltCip: If I was a parent who would not like to forbid my children to use Wikipedia, I could even envision a scenario where I would ask for keeping very disturbing articles away; this one may be not suitable for small children, because an animal is killed. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Any 'young person old enough to use Wikipedia' is old enough to be told that some 'coffee-and-keyboard topics' will appear on the main page (and the response to not in front of the children is - look at the front covers of newspapers and certain popular magazines).

Shall we say there #may# be a case for a 'coffee-and-keyboard-safe MP' and an 'anything goes MP' (thus enabling twice as many entries in all categories apart from ITN) - and there is a stronger case for separating out the 'Main Page Redesign threads'. Jackiespeel (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There is yet another proposal below. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for a newer design

Good afternoon (or morning for those from the US),

I just created a modified version of a relatively widely accepted (according to its talk page) new design by Mrjulesd. It can be found here. ----Mathmensch (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we move this kind of sandboxing playtime to somewhere that doesn't continually interrupt more relevant posts here please? I think there was a request above a couple of threads ago to create a space for you all to experiment and debate new designs. Flooding this talk page with personal preferences and monotonous design concepts is really not helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Helpful comments are formulated in a friendly manner. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

My suggestions were either 'some talk page/discussion thread or other similar format' or (b) a 'wiki of MP redesigns and other Wikipedia layouts' - there are no doubt other possibilities. Then all that needs to be done here is a note at the top and an occasional posting that 'In the last (x) months there have been (y) postings for redesigns - click (here).' There will be some occasions for having such discussions here - and not just the 'picture/list link.' Jackiespeel (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

My proposal

Suppose we started an open RFC regarding the main page and survey readers and editors regarding any preferences or changes they would like to see made to the main page? I like some of the modified designs shown above. I think we can all agree the main page needs to change nonetheless. 128.227.142.245 (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to try, but I'm fairly sure that has been tried and failed many times before. I think few would disagree that the Main Page should be changed, but people disagree as to what changes need to be made and in what way. Trying to wholesale change the MP will fail for this reason. It is probably best to change one aspect at a time instead of a total revamp. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

So a pair of hypothetical pages - 'designs' and 'what components of the MP should be changed as a priority.' Jackiespeel (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

My sense is that unless you have a mega-RfC with an entry on each single item (e.g position of X, existence of Y and so) probably no changes will be enacted. And in case of such a mega-RfC, expect complaints about too many questions, too abstract questions and so on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The point is to find some compromise whereby 'those interested in rearranging the MP and who are willing to do redesigns (and even discuss the obscure benefits of one line of coding or another)' and 'those who have little or no interest (apart from simple yes-no practical decisions - the example I mention above)' can be mostly satisfied - rather than 'not that topic again and no progress again').

So what possible solutions are there apart from a separate area for discussions on redesigns with occasional cross postings? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jackiespeel: I think you by now have enough support for going ahead and implementing your idea. That would be nice, I have close to no time. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be neat if everyone who thinks the main page should be improved would go work on a page flagged as a stub, as npov, as needing citations, or any other fault.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Could someone who knows the technicalities set up the 'redesign fork' and link (and possibly even a wiki for show). Redesigns can then be mentioned here when fully discussed and developed. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Main Page interwikis

That page has several old unprocessed requests and seems to be only sporadically edited (often omitting the sudo template, meaning that administrators don't see the edit requests). Would it make sense to redirect it here, where requests will be more visible and get more input? Also pinging David Levy as they have done some maintenance there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Better to redirect it to Template talk:Wikipedia languages, which is where changes to the language list are handled (the interwikis just follow that list) and is carefully watched by admins. Modest Genius ^talk 11:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding icons to existing Main Page sections

I think the Main Page is fine as is. Better yet, definitely put icons on every upper-right hand corner of a section while retain the section headers. I am not confident about replacing headers with icons. Having both headers and icons would satisfy everybody. If majority prefer icons over headers, then... I don't know. Here goes: Golden barnstar for Today's Featured Article, newspaper or digital article for In the News, question mark (?) for Did You Know, calendar for On This Day, picture icon for Today's Featured Picture, and list icon for Today's Featured List. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I see icons in Spanish Wikipedia, but they are very small. French Wikipedia does that too. Other languages pages do that as well. Why not English Wikipedia? George Ho (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Because they are useless clutter?--Khajidha (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Calling it clutter is exaggerating greatly; on the Spanish Wikipedia, a wiki that utilizes icons, they are a trifle bigger than the first letter (best way I can explain it). They do not cause any issues for page readability. 73.45.246.229 (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

And that is space that could be better served by just having the text there. They add nothing to my comprehension of the page, therefore, CLUTTER. --Khajidha (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: I would ask you to read my argumentation above regarding the section headers; note I don't argue for their abolishment, but they should not have the character of separate entities IMO. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way we can put a moratorium on any future suggestions to haphazardly modify the main page?--WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Not without making the Main Page the only page that can't ever be changed. Each haphazard suggestion is perceived by its author to be a glorious breakthrough. Art LaPella (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Art LaPella: I'm always surprised at how much people know about what's going on in other people's heads. @WaltCip: I don't see why this should be necessary. If the ideas don't resonate, they will not be implemented anyway. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The best thing one can say about adding icons is that it is completely unnecessary.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Khajidha on this, though I do think he comes from the "Jimbo's shit don't stink" school of wikipedians and thinks the site and Jimbo is absolute perfection as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree that icons are totally unnecessary and just visual clutter. Awien (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not even close to right. --Khajidha (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Moving the Main Page proposals to Idea Lab

Moved to WP:village pump (idea lab) § Main Page redesigning discussion

 – George Ho (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that discussion about the Main Page redesigning is becoming endless. I'm moving this to the Idea lab instead. --George Ho (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions/requests - a link to that page should be maintained from this talk page, and there should be some flagging up of 'notable possible changes' (that have gone beyond the discussion point). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. The discussion there died down already. Maybe add it to WP:perennial proposals? George Ho (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No new suggestions in over a week - how long will it last? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Why's an edit in errors in ITN not showing up?

It shows up here but not the talk page of the main page... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

OK now it is. Takes a while to update??? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Aaadddaaammm: The sections on this page are transcluded from there to here. Like all templates they don't necessarily update automatically and can be cached on an old version. By posting here and saving an edit you updated the cache and therefore updated the transclusion. You can also do this by purging the page without having to edit. --Majora (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

'Termination'

1941 – Adolf Hitler ordered the official termination of the T4 euthanasia program of the mentally ill and disabled, although killings continued in secret for the remainder of the war.

Yikes. Can we get it to say the official cessation or the official discontinuance? I mean really anything but termination when you are talking about Euthanasia lol.El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You can't really use politically correct language when it comes to anything involving the Führer. --WaltCip (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

And the further we are from the Führer, the better. Sca (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Where is the discussion of a past error on the main page?

I tried the archive and it didn't appear to be there.

I'm a couple of days behind on the Help Desk and the person who asked a question was referred to this page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The contents of the section "Main Page error reports" is transcluded from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. There is no archiving. Old discussions can be found in the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I.A. Karimov - deceased

Passed away on the September 2nd, 2016.

Should this be mentioned in the "Recent deaths" sub-section on the Main Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.242.3 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 September 2016 UTC (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page, suggestions for news items should be posted at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Modest Genius ^talk 13:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Change Template:Wikipedia's sister projects

I have recently copied the Template:Wikimedia Projects with Logo from Meta-Wiki, which is more comprehensive. Please change to this one. Wetitpig0 (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

A link to wikimediafoundation.org appears at the bottom of every page. The other additional links are of little interest to Wikipedia's readership (as opposed to that of Meta-Wiki). —David Levy 16:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

No, not if it is going to take that much of the length of the Main page (especially when viewed on a widescreen, high-resolution monitor, with the regular main page sections stretched across the width because of the text formatting). Then I would rather have small icons like on Wikidata. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

oppose VarunFEB2003 14:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Does this belong on the 'Redesign the MP discussion'? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the point in moving it, since it's clearly not going to happen—no credible redesign proposal is actually going to include links to Bugzilla, Tool Labs, Wikitech etc as is being requested here. ‑ Iridescent 20:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, {{Wikipedia's sister projects}} currently displays the same 12 projects as wmf:Template:OurProjects-multi which is on wmf:Home, except wmf includes Wikipedia (not listed as a sister project by us) but excludes Meta-Wiki. 11 projects would give a poor design, and Meta-Wiki seems like the most relevant editor-aimed project to add. wmf:Our projects adds Meta-Wiki, Incubator, Labs and Foundation to the 12 in wmf:Template:OurProjects-multi. Since Meta-Wiki is aimed at editors and not readers, meta:Template:Main Page/Sisterprojects/Code shows many projects aimed at editors. I agree we shouldn't show them on Main Page. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Star Trek

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.

---

Can someone please put a note in an obvious place as to why there is a ton of Star Trek today. It makes no sense to have a theme without having the reason obvious.Correctron (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Correctron: It's the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It does seem that it could be added to OTD section. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well that explains a lot. I was on my way here to ask if there was a reason for an all Star Trek DYK section, now I have my explanation. And it does seem like you could add a note to the "this day in history" section to cover this celebration. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the second sentence of the Featured Article blub makes the relevance of the date clear enough. Adding it to on this day would probably require removing one of the other entries, which would be taking it too far. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, if editors are still inquiring about the significance here, the second sentence of the Featured Article blub is not making the relevance of the date clear enough. That being said, it looks to be too late to add anything to the OTD section, so we will just have to wing it and hope people figure it out. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Could just break with tradition and bold the date in the TFA blurb. --Majora (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If we are going to go radical, why not reword it? "Fifty years ago today, "The Man Trap" was the first..." (Something I think should always be done if a TFA is being displayed on a date of significance) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Now that is a capital idea! If you are going to celebrate Star Trek, we should boldly add something to our TFA that has never been there before. Roddenberry would approve, I'm sure ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I've raised the idea here for future consideration, even if today's is not changed. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Kudos to all involved in the Star Trek-related content! As a fan of many years (my user account name is an homage to the franchise), I'm enjoying this celebration. Imzadi 1979 → 06:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

To have boldy gone where no-one has gone before on Wikipedia! Plus it's a great excuse to get Commander Riker's poor attempt to sell MainView into the public eye! 08:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone involved. While it may have been my deluded plan, a lot more people than I can list or even remember deserve credit for the work on these articles over the years, as well as those that didn't call out my crazy idea when I suggested the first main page takeover in the history of Wikipedia, although I blame Dr. Blofeld's idea for Sinatra last December for it completly. :) Miyagawa (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• For those who are wondering why it is not also on OTD, yes it is not included because the topic is featured on the other main page sections. AFAIK, this issue dates back to at least September 11, 2008, when both the featured article and the featured picture were related to the September 11 attacks. And thus there were complaints on both sides of the issue on whether to also mention it also on the OTD section (see the archived discussions here and here). The current consensus/practice is that repeating an anniversary on OTD puts too much emphasis on that particular event, no matter how much that historical event is notable or significant, and that just mentioning it in TFA and/or TFP is sufficient coverage. Plus, it allows for other events to be posted on OTD that would probably not be seen in most other years. Of course, the main arguments for repeating it on OTD include the fact that some readers will immediately specifically look for it on OTD without looking at the other sections, will be puzzled by the omission, and then post here on this talk page requesting an explanation. As for rewording the TFA blurb as Athomeinkobe suggests, I do not recall that discussed before. Furthermore, I also do not recall when all three (TFA, TFP and DYK) were featuring the same anniversary topic. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In the case of 9/11 though there is some leeway in the appearance of a mention in the OTD section vis-a-vis the holiday notices. 9/11 in the US is also known as Patriot Day, and that link appears in big blue letters in the OTD section without requiring a specific mention in the space proper (look at this year for an example). The same could also be said of Star Wars (yeah, yeah, get it all out of your system) in that in the May 4th is mentioned in the OTD columns for the last several years (most recently 2015) to note its significance as Star Wars day. A mention could therefore be made along the same lines here at no real loss, and such a mention could clear up a lot of this confusion. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, please. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• laugh* I was wondering how many people would not have gotten the date reference in the featured article. And also congratulations to all those involved behind the scenes. I rather figured fans would not let the date slip by, but this is quite entertaining in its compass. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wrong date?

I hate to put a dampener on your celebrations, but aren't you a couple of days late? According to the article, and here, it was first broadcast on 6 September. It was only in the US that it was first broadcast today. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The 8th is the first date gone by for the start of the series, regardless of whether or not Canada broadcast it early. Miyagawa (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it not common practice to date the show from its first release in the domestic market (in this case the U.S.)? Otherwise, there could be a great deal of confusion over web leaks, pirated releases, and so on. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Not really. This was an official release and not illegal or sketchy in any capacity.Correctron (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And if the Canadian release date had been chosen there would have been an equally long discussion in favour of the other date. (As a compromise - perhaps this could be used for the 60th anniversary equivalent.)

(reset)And perhaps there should be more emphasis in the ingenuity of getting the selecting the articles and links for the theme. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If the series had been made IN Canada, then the date of 6 September should be used. But since the series was made IN the USA, then 8 September should be the only date accepted at the anniversary date. 68.231.71.119 (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2016 (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.

Recent deaths

Who decides which recent deaths appear on the main page please? Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Recent Deaths are chosen at the In The News nominations page. Guidelines have recently been changed in that if a deceased person merits an article, they merit posting to RD(assuming they are nominated and the death is indeed in the news); subject to article quality being assessed. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Balance on the MP

One plane, one satellite, one tank: perhaps the MP-activists could arrange a set of transport related entries. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Subjects make the MP as people work on them. If you want to see other subjects, I invite you to participate in any of the relevant sections of the MP so what you want to see will make the page. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

As there was a Star Trek theme and discussion recently :) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

OK I get what you are asking now- the Star Trek theme was tied to a specific date, that of its 50th anniversary. Is there something notable about this date in the history of transportation? 331dot (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Summer Paralympics

Out of curiosity, how come the 2016 Summer Paralympics are not linked to in the ongoing events section? This is the Olympic games for the disabled, it seems odd to link the Summer Olympics and not the Paralympics. Is there a reason, or is it only that no one has thought to do so? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Espresso Addict removed the link, citing noncompliance with ITN's update requirements. —David Levy 01:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the prompt reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Chronological summary of the 2016 Summer Paralympics was briefly added by me to ongoing, when I removed the Paralympics opening ceremony from the main news section, but it was pointed out at the ITN candidates page that the article had not been properly updated since 9 September (which still appears to be the case), so I removed it. I'd be happy to restore it if a group of people were updating it properly (with references). Espresso Addict (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Harlem Heights

Moved to WP:ERRORS Modest Genius ^talk 11:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Archiving

Auto archiving did not kick in because it's configured to leave a minimum of three threads.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Deliberately so; that's a good thing. Modest Genius ^talk 10:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Why? --Jayron32 12:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with leaving some threads. Doing so gives a new user an idea of how to format conversations. Three is a good number, at least for this page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the point. If there is no activity in a thread it just gets annoying seeing it sitting there day after day. If the threads are inactive, then the new user should be starting a new thread which would not need formatting. The "edit" link is all they need. --Khajidha (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Leaving long-expired threads open just invites comments on subjects which don't need any more discussion days or weeks after their usefulness has ceased. That serves no one, except extending the uselessness of the discussions by delaying their archiving. --Jayron32 14:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That is only if they use the visual editor. -- Mentifisto 14:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

That's funny, here I am logged out editing as a simple IP and there is still an edit link. --107.77.233.219 (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC) (Khajidha, making a point)

(reset) That is sometimes why 'bland comments about the MP' get added. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

We don't have any rules against manual archiving, do we? --PFHLai (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The 'bland comment' lets the bot do its work and also avoids people commenting on 'absence of material on the MP talk page.' Jackiespeel (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Free adv

• Camera – Not an error per se, but one must wonder how this piece of free advertising got promoted. Sca (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, it’s an advert. It’s an advert for how good Wikipedia is, as one of the best pictures we have. Just like TFA is an advert for how good our writing and coverage is. And the problem with that is?

If you mean it looks like an advert for the camera, the same charge could be levelled at many of our featured pictures, of objects, of people, even of places. We don’t allow articles to be too complementary or promotional, but a good quality photo of an attractive subject can flatter the subject and so seem like an advert. There is not much we could do, except ban all good quality photos of nice subjects.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Fail to see how a picture where the subject blends into the background is considered "good quality". --Khajidha (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• There's an article for that — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

And the photographer made his rationale perfectly clear during the nomination. I personally go for the "on white" look when I do product photography, but I do admire the aesthstics of this shot. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

See, this is why I find the idea of featured pictures kind of silly. There is too much room for esthetic judgement. To me, a picture like this is simply bad. --Khajidha (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Which is why you are welcome to go to WP:FPC and participate in discussion. Make sure to take a look at the criteria, though; you may be surprised that aesthetics is given less weight than encyclopedic value. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Shimon Peres

Why isn't he on the Main Page?--74.190.109.155 (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, it should be appearing shortly. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 September 2016

Please replace the text on Portal:Wikipedia in its entirety with the following text so that it can follow its WP:RFD nomination:

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Main Page]]
{{Redr|from move|to main namespace|protected}}}}

Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

For those who are as confused by this exchange as I was, it turns out they're talking about Portal:Wikipedia (whose talk page redirects here), not Main Page. The RFD discussion is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 28. Modest Genius ^talk 10:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Clarity added. Steel1943 (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Jose Fernandez more important than Arnold Palmer?

Absolute JOKE Jose Fernandez is on the front page and Arnold Palmer is not. Fernandez' death was tragic, but how many people knew about him outside of Miami other than hard-core MLB fans (which I am)? Say the name Arnold Palmer, and the vast majority of Americans and Canadians, not to mention many around the world, would instantly recognize what sport he played and what he accomplished, even though the last major he played was in 1994, and his last PGA Tour victory was in 1973 (two years before Tiger Woods was born). I would have no problem whatosever with Fernandez on the front page of the Spanish-language Wikipedia. But he shouldn't trump Arnie here. DavidSteinle (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the first 2, I suspect a recency bias at work. That is, AP's mastery of the game was many years ago, so has been forgotten, while JF's major accomplishments are fresh in out minds. StuRat (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@DavidSteinle: It's not an importance issue. Per an RFC earlier this year, any person who dies and has an article is deemed notable enough to be posted to recent deaths. However, in the case of Arnold Palmer, the article is not up to par (forgive the pun) and has been the only reason for opposition at ITN/C. If Palmer's article is improved (mainly referencing issues) within a week of his death, then it will be posted under the recent deaths section. @StuRat: That might be part of the issue, but more than likely it's because Palmer's article is older and a bigger target for vandalism than Fernández's. Palmer's article was created on September 7, 2002, whereas Fernández's was created from a redirect on March 9, 2013. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Arnold Palmer hasn't been posted to the main page because his article is in atrocious condition. That's all.--WaltCip (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Who is Arnold Palmer? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

He has been added to recent deaths now.[7] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Pyst

Someone obviously thinks this is a neat pun (though I believe "pissed" in that sense is purely an Americanism), but I don't think this really merits a mention. The Pyst article is not a great one, and relates to a 10-year-old video game. The Game Revolution page doesn't even mention Pyst, and the Pyst page only mentions it in passing. One review. Ten years ago. And does "pissed" on the front page really communicate the professional impression that Wikipedia is striving for? 132.244.72.6 (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Thought I was somehow on Uncyclopedia for a minute. --Flobberz (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS is the best venue for this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

However, the people involved in the selection of items for the main page and the language used there will tell you that Wikipedia is uncensored and that you should have been participating in the process sooner. Thou shalt not criticize the maintainers of the main page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit of a push to suggest that the DYK project comprises "maintainers of the main page"... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was a bit Uncyclopedic too, but the anon spoils his/her argument by making totally irrelevant points. Game is 10 years old- irrelevant. DYK is for new articles, not new stories, it is not In the News. Review is 10 years old- irrelevant. If notable then, is notable now. Not mentioned in Game Revolution- irrelevant. Review could be more notable for this article than that one. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the main problem was the use of the word "pissed" in Wikipedia's voice (as opposed to a quotation), which was patently unacceptable and downright embarrassing.

Astonishingly, the nomination's original hook avoided this issue, despite containing similar wordplay (and required only minor tweaking). I'm baffled as to why it was replaced.

I've switched to that hook, per the promoter's notation that it would be "the fall-back option" "if the no-fun police [came] knocking". (Yeah, let's throw in an insult for good measure.) —David Levy 19:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I've made a note of this at the DYK project. Nothing will come of it but it's important to record these failings, particularly if they fall outside the WP:ERRORS zone. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is quickly skydiving towards lack of credibility with postings such as these. 107.77.216.65 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Not really, we could post dozens of these and we'd still be lightyears ahead of Google, Twitter, Yahoo and Facebook. No need to worry. --BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

None of the above pretend to be encyclopaedias. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

A 'what is becoming of the Wikipedia Main Page discussion' was about due :)

This probably applies to most encyclopedias. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Current DYK image's license problem

Currently, the DYK portion of the main page is using File:Pygmy-goosefoot-1200.jpg. Despite passing through DYK review and User:Cwmhiraeth claiming "The image is appropriately licensed" during the review, the source website[8] makes no mentioning that the image is licensed under CC-BY-4.0. We should pull the image off the main page as an interim measure until its copyright status is cleared up. (And I can't tag the file on Commons because it's currently protected). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a CC license on the website's copyright page. [9] Did you not notice, or is there a problem with its application? Dragons flight (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

On this day...

Today is the first day of the Jewish year. Worth mentioning, isn't it? Exabyte4 (talk)

It was mentioned, on October 2. The confusion is due to differences in calendars and timekeeping. Under the Hebrew calendar days begin at sunset. Under the Gregorian calendar, which evolved from Roman timekeeping, days begin at midnight. To deal with the difference, Wikipedia is simply following the common practice of listing events on the Hebrew calendar on the date the begin under the Gregorian calendar. --Allen3 ^talk 10:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

But today will still be the first day of the Jewish year until sunset (although I'm not sure which sunset would apply for front page purposes - only where UTC is used?) I realise there may have to be an easy compromise to avoid having to set up special timers for such events. I'm guessing that "common practice" probably represents just such a compromise. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Understandable, although there is a point to the comment above. Thanks. Exabyte4 (talk)

We used to list it on two dates: the Gregorian day that includes the beginning of the Jewish day, then the actual day itself, but it didn't seem particularly fair that Jewish holidays got to be listed twice due to a quirk in the calendar, whereas secular holidays and those of other religions only got to be shown once. I suppose I can take it up with the folks at WikiProject Judaism to see which day they would prefer Jewish holidays to be shown on. —howcheng {chat} 16:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

List of articles?

Can we make a list of articles in reverse chronological order, so that way we can see which ones are newer. It would be pretty helpful when looking for pages that need more info. If something like this already exists, can you let me know? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Is Special:NewPages what you're looking for? Modest Genius ^talk 15:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yea, this is exactly what i meant. Thank you! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Question

First of all: Welcome! This page is for discussing the organization and layout of the main page. It isn't for general questions or for encyclopedic content. Yes, I know that, but nobody tells me WHERE to find the place for questions of encyclopedic content. I know as well, that I can ask on the debate page of the specific article (in this case this one, but nobody's looking there because that's not exactly a very much-frequented article. It would be nice if you could add something like If you have a general question or a question of encyclopedic content please go here.

So, I was wondering if anyone is an expert in Greek football. There are a lot of football clubs that are actually departments of big sports clubs (and the football department having a different name than the original club), and it is always hard to impossible to find information on the history of the names of those departments. Now I stumbled over the football club PAE Aris (Aris FC), which is part of the sports club AS Aris. So far, so good. Now my question: Since I'm working on a football archive I'd like to know since when the football department of AS Aris is called "PAE Aris". The club itself was founded in 1914 as "PS Aris" as a pure football team, with the "P" standing for "football". The next years, many other sports departments (e. g. basketball) evolved, so in 1926 PS Aris renamed to "AS Aris" with the "A" standing for "athletic" to reflect that there are many sports played in that club. Today, the football department is called "PAE Aris" while the sports club itself is still officially named AS Aris. I don't find any information about since when "PAE Aris" is used. I doubt that the club's football team is called that way since 1926.

So my question is: When did the name of the football department of AS Aris change to "PAE Aris"? It would be nice if someone could help me out!--31.16.72.92 (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

We do have something like what you suggest at the top of this page, underneath the text that you copied to here.("For questions about using and contributing to Wikipedia") In your case I would suggest the Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

For specific questions like this head along to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Stephen 22:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

And also see the football project too. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

For help in general to find where might be best to ask questions, first check the talk page of the article on the subject you're asking about; it might be well-trafficked and therefore a good forum. If not, there should be one or more banners for WikiProjects, which are larger projects grouping articles in a certain field; these will have general talk pages for the project as a whole (so, if I'm looking at a film but the film's article is quiet and little-read, I can ask about it at the talk page of WP:FILM). Failing that, if you have a quiet project too, you can try directly asking people who have edited the article or similar articles on their talk pages—maybe I can't find information about Manchester City WFC, but I see that someone has edited a lot of articles on the men's club, so I can ask them if they know what I need to know. GRAPPLE ^X 09:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Nobels

Perhaps a dumb question but...—Arpose (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No question is truly dumb, although it may help if we knew what your question was. If you're implying "Why aren't the Nobel prize winners on the main page?", they are currently being discussed at WP:ITN/C. Hie thee hence to yon page.--WaltCip (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

William

t would be helpful to mention that William the Conqueror and William the Bastard were the same man. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

That's why they're both linked to William I of England but the two are separate contexts. The DYK is about the battle, when he was known as the Bastard before becoming king while the FA focuses on the conquest which led to him being crowned along with the aftermath when he became known as the Conquerer. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Tne article says flatly "He was regularly described as bastardus (bastard) in non-Norman contemporary sources"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Weird redirect

Hey, I'm sure this isn't the place, but I just wanted to let someone know that clicking anywhere on the entire page for The Onion redirects to a YouTube clip. I looked in the source, and couldn't work it out. --27.33.218.250 (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the right place, but the problem arose from vandalism to a template,see WP:ANI#Weird YouTube redirect, source cannot be found in page. The vandal has been blocked, and I've now purged the page The Onion but you may see the same problem elsewhere until the cache is cleared. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

samsung galaxy note 7

should be in the news?

If you've got one, you'll need to call their HOTLINE. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That was an awful pun, Lugnuts. You're fired.--WaltCip (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The Samsung story was rejected at the news candidates page. Art LaPella (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

All burning issues should be listed at WP:ERRORS Optimist on the run (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

And the company does have 'sun' in its name.

If the Wikipedia amusing entries page was still running this exchange would belong there. (Did a 'best of' page survive?) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Many such pages still survive. See Wikipedia:Silly Things which contains some of the choice ones. --Jayron32 17:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a 'Titivillus is currently amused' page for such nonsense and computer mis-corrections with a three-months expiry date. Persons misusing the system would have to deal with 'Titivillus is annoyed and working on [10]' 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

TFA Title template for Oct 19 2016

The TFA Title template for this day doesn't seem to be populated with the page title (it doesn't seem to have been created for this day), whereas it exists for all other days. Would someone mind populating it? I don't have the rights. DBrant (WMF) (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done - please check that it is correct as I'm not familiar with this template. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That ought to do it. DBrant (WMF) (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know about this template, nor do I understand its function. All recent others have the article name, which would be "Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

To clarify a bit, we use this template in the Wikipedia Android app, as part of the content feed in the app's home screen. We simply noticed that it was missing today. (I can't speak to other usages of this template) DBrant (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they're usually created by @AnomieBOT II:, whose task list says that the module ran today, but took six hours. I don't know if that's normal, but it seems excessive for writing one title. Modest Genius ^talk 15:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

(A former TFA coordinator writes): As I understand it, the original purpose of {{TFA title}} was to feed into {{TFA-editnotice}}, which produces the friendly greeting/warning when you edit the TFA. My understanding is that the bot looks for the article title in the daily TFA blurb (which always ought to be the first link in the blurb, in bold, making it easy to find). However, with today's TFA the bot must have been thoroughly confused by '''''{{lang|de|[[Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161|Komm, du süße Todesstunde]]}}''''' at the start of the TFA blurb, and given up. Pinging the current team @TFA coordinators as a pointer not to use templates to wrap the TFA title unless it is really necessary to do so, and if it is, then to sort out the TFA title daily subpage. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 15:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know the details of the bot, but after reverting the {{lang}} template in another spot, I was reverted. Gerda, I wasn't decided for sure at that time but I've decided now: I'd prefer to use only the templates that we can't do without at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 16:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

No template is needed, their intention is to help readers, {{lang}} to assist to make a screenreader not try to pronounce the title as English. Not needed, sure ;) - No more FA from me this year, remind me much later in case I forget, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought about it over a cup of tea: it should be easy to program something looking for the two opening straight brackets and taking as the title what's found from there to the closing brackets, or the separator if piped, no? What Bencherlite - thanks, by the way! - termed "the first link ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I have left a message for Anomie (the bot operator) on the bot's talk page, as that's the best person to say whether any adjustments to the bot's coding are needed. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 17:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, if this saves someone some work, I won't be using the lang template at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Tom Hayden

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.

---

I think Hayden's death is important enough to be on the main page. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, so please go to WP:ITNC where such items are discussed, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You mean things don't happen just because we say they should? I thought this was the encyclopedia anyone could edit! </sarc>--WaltCip (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a little bit troubling that we're clearly not communicating the principles of WP:ITN such that a former admin and editor with such enormous experience as Bearian doesn't understand how the ITN section of the main page works. We need to work on the message folks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2016 (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.

editing

I need tutorial for add a new article and edit

In the left-hand column there's a heading "Interaction", where the top item is "Help". Click that link to get to a page that offers all the help you need. Welcome to Wikipedia! Good luck! Awien (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Video game TFAs

I find it to be interesting that so far this year there have been 12 video-game related TFAs. That's an average of a little over one video-game TFA per month, or an overall representation of video games on the main page 3.28% of the time on TFAs alone. I wonder if this is the sort of proportional representation we want for that particular topic. It's a bit interesting.--WaltCip (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

First: it's fine to talk about TFA here at WT:MAIN, obviously, but some of the people who can give answers to these questions don't watchlist this page (I just happen to be watchlisting the discussion above) ... so for TFA discussions, please either ping us (the template {{@TFA}} works), or say something at WP:ERRORS or WT:TFA to tell us where the discussion is. The answer for how these decisions get made comes from this chart prepared by Brianboulton (who recently stepped down as a coord, btw ... you can see all the nice things people are saying about him at WT:FAC#TFA coordination.) It's a little hard to read, and I've massaged the table a bit, but the line for video games reads "22221222122 ... -4". That means we had 2 in January, 2 in February, etc., and that at the time this table was prepared, we were still 4 video games away from proportional representation of video games for the year, as a percentage of the FAs that are still available to run on the Main Page. That doesn't take into account the fact that there are some FAs that probably aren't ready to run on the Main Page ... because we never know when a not-so-good article will get fixed, and we don't want to set our own judgments in stone (but we do keep track).

Okay, that's the background ... now we can have the discussion. Would you like to see more or fewer video games at TFA? - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the pool of unused FAs that the coordinators have to work with. If we don't have many articles from education or the sciences that reach FA, there's not a whole lot that we can do other than encourage potential nominators of pages in those categories. I face this issue when scheduling TFL. It would be great to see more politics and transportation-related lists become featured, to name two fields, but we don't see many new FLs in those departments either. I have to decide between running older FLs that may have issues, or newer lists from heavily represented categories. It's not easy for the schedulers to force things, and the TFA coordinators have less to work with than TFL does in some ways; FAC is promoting fewer articles than TFA runs, which means conversations may need to be had at some point in the future about re-running FAs if we don't see an increase in promotions. Regardless, if entertainment and military history articles are what the FA pool is composed of, you're going to see a lot of TFAs from them, even if they aren't core articles (which are hard to get to FA). Giants2008 (Talk) 21:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

FAC was promoting a little over half of what TFA needs in the first 7 months of the year, and about 3/4 of what we need since then. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)\

Weren't you complaining about this back in February? Why do you care if videogames get featured on TFA this often? It's an important hobby and subject to a big portion of the population, especially those who work with computers and donate their time to WP, so it would make sense that there is a larger interest in the subject here. If I may ask, what's your endgame in bringing this question here again this year? Valeince (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Curious how the people who insist something needs to be done to improve the quality of Wikipedia's articles always find themselves too busy to write something better to demonstrate the kind of thing they have in mind, isn't it? Just gonna put this here. ‑ Iridescent 20:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

From today's featured article

A couple of recent encounters have revealed that there are still people (reasonably sophisticated readers) who think that what appears on the main page IS the featured article. In other words, the tweaks of a couple of years ago are still not enough to make it clear that it is just the blurb / synopsis, not the article itself.

One possibility would be to expand the link "Full article..." into something more explicit, along the lines of "Read the full article here". We should bear in mind that the majority of our readers are less tech savvy than the WP regulars, and include huge numbers of people whose first language is not English and who are therefore less able to pick up on what is not written out in full.

Or a more fundamental change would be to replace the present truncated version of the article's lead with an intriguing excerpt, changing the title accordingly to something like "Today's featured article: excerpt" or "Excerpt from today's featured article:".

Either way, we could even add a sentence at the beginning of the blurb indicating why the topic is interesting. For today's FA, Jack Parsons (Oct 30), that would be something like "Today's featured article is the biography of Jack Parsons, who was instrumental in founding Nasa's JPL, while at the same time being active in the invented religion of Thelema". (Or a gazillion other ways of saying "encompassed incredible contradictions". This is just an example).

What do people think?

Awien (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd very strongly oppose "Excerpt from", since that's not what a TFA blurb is; the blurb is a 1200-character abstract of the article topic, and while it can on occasion be an excerpt from the lead that's the exception rather than the rule, as the lead of most FAs is far too long to serve as an FA blurb so Dank has to actually write a blurb for each article. If you're proposing abolishing blurbs and just using a particular 1200-character chunk from the article, there's no possible way that would work with most FAs.

Since the section is headlined "From today's featured article", and the concept of "brief summary blurb with a link to click to get to the full text" is absolutely standard website formatting for the landing page of almost every primarily text-based website from BBC News to Facebook to the Republican National Committee to the North Korean government, I really don't see the accessibility issue here. And, if there actually are people who find the word "from" too complicated, and don't click through to the full TFA, so what? We're not a clickbait website and we don't particularly care how many pageviews the TFA gets; provided the blurb isn't actively misleading or unbalanced, nothing is lost if one more reader joins the 99.8% of visitors (a real stat, not hyperbole) to the main page who don't read the TFA; if the topic was of interest to them, they'd already have read it anyway. ‑ Iridescent 16:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the history, but I've always thought that it was very unfortunate that our language seems to muddle the difference between 1. a Featured Article, 2. the article that we happen to be featuring today, and 3. the TFA text. The TFA text is also called the "blurb", which is a perfectly good term for DYK but inaccurate for TFA. An old advertising slogan goes, "You sell the sizzle, not the steak". The word "blurb" already has a meaning in English; it's the sizzle, i.e. the text, often on a book jacket, that gets you interested in the book without summarizing the book. DYK is sizzle (no offense intended; sizzle is what you want at DYK). TFA text is steak. But to answer your question ... I don't have an answer. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So here's a question: what percentage of that 99.8% of people who don't go to the full article are people who fail to realise that what they see on the main page ISN'T the full article? That's what prompted me to raise the issue now: somebody who IS interested in the topic and found the article fascinating when I finally got them there hadn't clued in. When we tweaked the title and link a couple of years ago, people admitted the same thing in the discussion too.

And what I'm saying has nothing to do with click bait. It has to do with user-friendliness. I think we could do better. Awien (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I scanned the history of WT:MAIN, and found this from September. It's mainly about TFP, not TFA, but I think you'll find broad agreement with the point that one of the roles of the TFA text is to serve as a demonstration of our article quality and our writing skills. (No pressure there, eh?) That pushes back against one of your suggestions, Awien (the bit about "encompassed incredible contradictions", which isn't in line with FAC standards). On the other points, I'd like to stay as neutral as possible so that I can make a judgment call if there's a discussion. Also pinging Chris. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Dank, as far as FA is concerned, it seems to me that what appears on the main page IS blurb or sizzle. The steak is the article itself.

And in general what's obvious to us is clearly not obvious to everybody. Awien (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If nothing else, couldn't we at least expand the wording of the link to "Continue to the full article", "Continue reading", "Read the full article", or similar, something less terse than "Full article..."? Awien (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• I personally don't think it's an issue, but I'd appreciate broader feedback before we rule out any possible changes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Personally I don't think it's an issue either and I agree with Iridescent, as usual. As for the 99.8% figure, so what? Many people will load up Wikipedia simply to use the search bar. I do not think we need to rewrite the TFA heading and final link for the benefit of people who fail to realise that "From today's featured article" and "Full article..." signal that there is much more to read than the c.1,200-character summary on our main page. Exactly the same point could be made about every item in DYK, ITN and OTD - the entire story or article is a click away from the main page, not presented in full on the main page. As for changing the blurb to be an excerpt from the article, that won't work (having written a few hundred blurbs in my time as TFA coordinator) - the standard c.1,200-character summary has to be crafted, not just done in a Procrustean way. Nor am I attracted by the idea of a one-sentence summary of the blurb for the benefit of people who don't want to read the whole blurb to find out what the article is about. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 11:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Setting everything else aside and just considering the link to the actual article, at present it's pretty inconspicuous. It's squeezed in at the end of a line, it's in brackets making it seem like an aside, and it's camouflaged among a group of six other links that drown it out. For a much better setup, look at the French WP. There the link Lire la suite stands out: it's in italics, it's a (quasi-)sentence, on a separate line, preceded by a star, not enclosed in brackets. Just following that good example would be a step in the right direction. (Please excuse my brevity - I'm from a generation that didn't learn to type and can't rattle out 100 wpm like some people do). Awien (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• It is titled in big letters "From today's featured article". I fail to see how this is not clear that it is only an excerpt/summary. 109.149.185.65 (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "From" implies an excerpt, but not a summary. I don't know if this is a problem or not, but it's mildly surprised me a couple of times, even though I know better. ApLundell (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    • What wording would you like? - Dank (push to talk) 00:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IP, the bottom line is that people do fail to clue in that the actual article is elsewhere, which is why I raise the issue. Presumably they skip inattentively over the heading and go straight to the text. Speakers of languages other than English may also not be sensitive to the power of prepositions in English (and English WP is, after all, the world's WP). As for the Full article link at the end of the summary, the fact that it's in parentheses reduces its prominence by making it look like an aside, while they serve no useful function at all. Signed Sisyphus, the editor formerly known as Awien (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

How about tweaking the link along the lines I suggested above, if nothing else? Awien (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Me? It would be better if I don't vote. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

We're not getting much input here, and I suspect people will have opinions on at least ApLundell's point; I'll bring it up at WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is that I haven't seen any hard evidence that people are being confused by this, only conjecture or anecdote -- pls point out if I've missed something. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I would also respectfully oppose this, as in my opinion it looks like a solution in search of a problem. There seems little evidence that our readers our confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Where do you propose to get the evidence if you disregard input based on experience? Awien (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Correct me if I'm wrong, and there's a good chance of that, but Wikipedia's main page receives something like 20 to 25 million hits a day. Wikipedia's main page features something like fifty target articles (those in bold) and maybe 250 others (those not in bold). Can you demonstrate with diffs that there's some kind of genuine (and importantly, statistically significant) confusion, backed with statistics, in our readership in this regard? If the "sophisticated" readers don't understand the "(Full article...)" link in bold at the end of the blurb, perhaps they're not the demographic Wikipedia is focused on attracting? After all, you can lead a horse to a featured article.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say anything like "don't understand the "(Full article...)" link", I said miss it because it's terse and (that day) camouflaged among half a dozen links. As for requesting diffs here, that's too absurd to answer. Awien (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Balance on the Main Page

Five chaps (including two for the election), no chapesses and one spider. A bit more randomness perhaps? (I know it will change in a day, but...) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to see a wider variety of subjects on the Main Page, I invite you to participate in the processes that determine what appears there so you can work towards what you would like to see. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's important to realise that not one person or even one group of people control the content across the whole of the main page. Getting involved in DYK, TFA, TFL, TFP, OTD or ITN is your best bet to influence what goes on there from day to day. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the pictures (and the spider is female): and most of us have particular (if not (royal or otherwise) peculiar interests. Given the backlogs (in some cases) deliberate randomness should be encouraged.

Besides, it is time for a 'lopsided Main Page discussion' (possibly combined with 'what is Wikipedia coming to?') 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If YOU want something featured on the main page, we cannot read YOUR mind, so it is incumbent upon YOU to improve articles YOU want to see on the main page so that YOU can see the changes you want. Complaining that people didn't already do what you wanted them to do, when they didn't even know you wanted it is beyond unhelpful. And doubly unhelpful is demanding that other people do work you yourself can't be bothered to do. If you want something featured on the main page, you have to do the work to see it happen. --Jayron32 17:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community agreed the inclusion of the spider after voting in an elimination tournament. That took place across eight legs. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there should have been four men and one (female) spider to even out the legs? The Main Page will have 'statistical anomalies' whatever people do or don't do. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly agree with the OP about the lack of balance on the main page. I often open the main page and scan for something other than a white male or a story about a white male's game/sport/battle or a photograph of a man's building or a photograph taken by a man .... and sigh in despair. This is not a way to encourage more diversity in WP writing or writers, to regularly feature a wall of maleness. It doesn't inspire people to write more about women or about anyone from non-white backgrounds. It shows that WP is predominantly written for, by and about men. As to what to do about it, I encourage you to get involved with Women in Red, a group of editors who work on increasing the number and quality of biographies of women, and/or any of the groups of editors who work on identifying and preparing articles for the main page. All the best, and thanks for raising this important point here. It definitely needs to be raised again and again and new ideas for dealing with it suggested. MurielMary (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Systemic bias § Women are underrepresented

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.48.48 (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

MurielMary are we honestly including "a photograph taken by a man" as a reason to object or claim some kind of sexual bias? As noted above, and as you know, the main page is constructed by a number of independent groups. Sometimes that means that there'll be a randomly yet heavier bias to male-oriented stories. Why do you sigh in despair if you're not contributing to WP:OTD for example? That's an easy win, find historical events that are female-related, rather than get too troubled by "Rontgen's wife" for instance. TFL only appears twice a week but you could see if there are any featured lists which are female-oriented. ITN is tougher, that's just news and if it's all male-related, I guess that's what it is. TFA, well once again you can contribute to voting for the TFAs every day, or even get more female-related content promoted to FA. DYK is crying out for more GAs with women's content, so why not get some articles promoted to GA and then nominate them at DYK? There are many ways of improving the "balance" of the main page, but most of them involved actively editing articles, getting them promoted to GA or FL or FP or FA, and then pursuing their inclusion on the main page. I think it's all too easy to "sigh in despair" when there are so many avenues available to "fix" this perceived bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of how the main page works, I'm quite familiar with this already. However, there are only so many hours in the day and my WP time is quite full with working on Women in Red articles, NZ women articles and some biographies for ITN/recent deaths. It's not really helpful to suggest that one person can single handedly solve a massive problem such as gender bias. There needs to be cultural change (in the WP culture, I mean) and structural and systemic change as well as simply doing more WP writing and promotion. And yes it is worthwhile expressing opposition to "X's wife" and "photographs taken by men" because it is all these little mentions and promotions and inclusions/exclusions which build up the gender bias. Gender bias is a complex picture made up of lots of little actions. Working on the little actions is as important as working on the big picture. MurielMary (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If those women in red turn into women in blue, and the topic is suitable, (ie actually notable, etc) you can nominate the new article at WP:DYK. So this would be an fairly easy path for you to get content linked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump picture

Is there one accessible where he doesn't appear to have smoke coming out of his ear? 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hah. It reminds me of the "halo" photo controversy with AP photos of Barack Obama.--WaltCip (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

As a change from the usual comments on pictures - or is WP expressing a viewpoint? 193.132.104.10 (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What, like "dry straw is highly combustible"? Haploidavey (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably there is. --Jayron32 18:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Only if someone has Photoshopped a photo to remove the smoke. General Ization ^Talk 19:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Unsolicited critique

Yesterday (Nov. 7) I received an email from a friend and former colleague concerning ITN and other Main Page features. I didn't attempt to answer his points – obviously, he's not familiar with inner WP processes, and apparently views ITN as a breaking news roundup. I don't necessarily agree with all his comments, but thought they might be worth sharing, as food for thought:

For the first time, I looked at Wiki’s home page to see what’s in the news.

It’s like a time warp.

Cubs fans might be shocked to know their team finally won the World Series — five days ago. The Pony Express was faster.

The Hiroshima Carp losing to the Fighters is week-old news. Besides, not a great deal of interest around the globe in the Carp (great name, though).

The Quetta police training attack happened a couple weeks ago.

Couldn’t the editors pick up on the presidential election — eg. Comey’s latest?

And on the left, The dreadnought was scrapped a century ago after mostly routine WWI service — why is this featured?

The Pony Express would be a better choice....

If anyone has comments, I suggest avoiding the obvious, such as "not a news ticker."

PS: Said friend, who shall remain nameless, doesn't know I'm posting this here.

Sca (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Breaking news is what – in spite of WP:NOTNEWS – many of our readers think they will find on Wikipedia. Despite the said policy, it's also something that we regularly supply them with. Ideally, and maybe one day it will happen, we will have Wikinews, Wikidata and Main Page work together as something that serves our readers better. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Such misconceptions regarding ITN will never be dispelled until the section's name is changed.

Likewise, a large segment of Wikipedia's readers will interpret "today's featured article" as "article that Wikipedia decided to feature on the main page today, presumably because its subject was deemed especially important or interesting", with no knowledge of the "featured" designation's qualitative nature. —David Levy 16:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You may wish to notify your friend and former colleague that ITN does not function the way he believe it does or should.--WaltCip (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In the past I've tried to explain. Alas, he's a (retired) journalist, which entails a mindset in which news means recent, important, interesting, etc. But that notion isn't limited to journalists. It seems pretty much general.

I agree with David that the name ITN is part of the problem. It's been discussed at length. My thought is, somehow we should get "recent" or "recently" into the name. Similarly, the TFA label should include some clue as to why it's featured. Either that, or importance/interest should be added to TFA criteria. (I rather agree with my friend about the HMS Collingwood FA.) Sca (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's always interesting and instructive to receive feedback from our readers and it's something we should take really seriously. That ITN values quality over immediacy is a perennial issue, but a general theme, i.e. we don't promote garbage (most of the time) to the main page. That ITN isn't bending over backwards to pay homage to the American elections, not a problem, this isn't American Wikipedia, it's English language Wikipedia. "Why is this featured?" because it's a high-quality article from our enclyopedia, and doubtless Britannica is doing the same. Perhaps you could ask your "friend" to peruse Britannica's online content as a comparison. Journalists are always welcome here, both to read and edit, but sometimes journalists need to recall that this is still called "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", not "Wikipedia, the American news ticker". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Understood, and granted. But there's nothing specifically American about this issue/discussion. And TRM, why did you place friend in scare quotes? Do you doubt my description of the source? Sca (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Rambling Man -- your description of the issues did come across as American-centric. The World Series, from five whole days ago, did not instantly make and then leave the headlines around the world, because baseball is simply not that important in 90+% of the world. (I wonder what your friend would have said if one of the stories happened to be about the Ashes?) Especially, this caught my eye:

Couldn’t the editors pick up on the presidential election — eg. Comey’s latest?

I know the latest election-related gossip is essential to sell papers or draws eyeballs in the U.S., but elsewhere in the world, very little of that gossip is relevant except the final result -- which has been on the front Wikipedia page ever since the Electoral College majority was declared. Also keep in mind that for an item to appear in ITN at all, it must have a full and fully sourced accompanying article backing it. For a news item, most of those sources must be tertiary: pre-existing articles about the item in question appearing in reputable mass media. A single Wikipedia news article may have upward of 50 such references, or even hundreds for a major election -- all of which must have been researched and written by news outlet journalists before they can make an appearance in Wikipedia.

And btw no, the Pony Express (another American-specific reference) would not have done better, not for global dissemination, not even for U.S. coast-to-coast dissemination for something of comparable length and comparably referenced. Tell your hyperbole-prone journalist friend to look up the facts in the matter. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I know this is not the place for formal suggestions about such changes, but the name "This Week's News" has popped into my head. That implies it is not going to be the most recent news off the ticker. But I can see a problem already; the oldest item currently listed (the train derailment) is 18 days old. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps something akin to "Quality articles about subjects in the news", that would indicate why these particular subjects are featured. Eman235/talk 05:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm or "Recently featured news articles" to keep it short while at the same time linking to the Wikipedia definition of a featured article? Although depending on what people expect to see, this might still not change anything... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

'Currently in the news'/'Background to the news'? And it is a regular subject of discussion on this talk page. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we should just call it "We're not the news" as a form of irony.--WaltCip (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"Recently featured news articles" wouldn't work because the targets at WP:ITN are not picked by whether or not they are "Featured Articles" (in the WP:FA sense). Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 14:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The only possibility I've come up with is, "Articles about recent news topics," but it's rather long and unwieldy. Still, it fills the bill. Sca (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

'Trendy news articles'/'Behind the News'?

As 'Abraham Lincoln, Wikipedian' says - You can't please all the Main Page users all the time. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

While this is an interesting diversion, and a perennial issue, Wikipedia has something like 12 to 20 million hits per day on its main page alone. I don't see hoards of individuals complaining, or not returning, because ITN isn't living up to their expectations. So perhaps we should redirect our energies to other things rather than continue this somewhat pointless discourse. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please excuse me from the discussion – I have an appointment with my shrink, Dr. Pangloss. Sca (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Does Dr. Pangloss do group therapy? If so, I'll join you. Signed, Sisyphus, the editor formerly known as Awien (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Awien, yes he does, but all his groups are fully booked. In the aftermath of the U.S. presidential election, he's a very busy guy. Sca (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sca, darn! But figures. Awien (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Recently in the news" would probably be a better header. These items may not currently be in the news, but they were quite recently. ApLundell (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

'One function of ITN' is to enlighten MP users of news stories they might not otherwise be aware of.

Where does 'renaming ITN' stand in the 'most popular MP talk page topics' poll? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it's above "another video game TFA?", but below "my kids read this Wiki and they see this smut you put on the main page!" and "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells".--WaltCip (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Per ApLundell, Recently in the news would work quite well. Sca (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The question is - which children? Those sufficiently young not to be interested in such things or those who think 'Naughty words! On the Main Page! Grown ups are too stuffy for such things!' (aka 'most 12-15 year olds) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

How about :"Did you hear . . ."? While we're at it, change TFA to "Featured today . . ." and TFP to "Pictured today . . .". I'm sure there are long discussions we could have about this :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Which circle of WP's version of hell should such discussions be banned - or should they be used to tangle up the 'unfunny look-at-me and my stupid changes'?

We are about due a 'don't annoy the children' discussion are we not? :) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Sca (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, the title could equally well be changed to In recent news. Of course, the background issue would still exist. Modern news feeds have incubated in most of us a constant expectation for the immediate and the sensational, to the point where we get impatient and sometimes personally insulted if we have to wait more than a minute for a texted or Facebook reply. In our instant-feedback-expected world, blood, violence, and scandal always lead in instant interest, and anything older than a day or so is quickly seen as irrelevant or even forgotten.

Your journalist friend's parameters are particularly interesting in this context: "recent, important, interesting". These mean different things to a news-based mass media outlet than they do to an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is the second, not the first. While both depend on drawing a readership or viewership, the core of that readership or viewership is profoundly different. "Important" and "interesting" in the news industry is anything which instantly and immediately catches the attention of the people in a particular market base. This requires a constantly changing stream of attention-grabbing subjects (and variations on the theme, which are individually more cost-effective than seeking out anything genuinely new). In contrast, the foundation of Wikipedia as business is not grounded in a constantly changing stream of immediacy and discarded stale news. Rather, it is (ideally) a database of reliable long-term knowledge.

Thus, unlike the news-based mass media, drawing instant interest (often at the expense of accuracy) is not and cannot be Wikipedia's primary goal. Rather, Wikipedia's readership is cored in people who are looking up something other than the instant news of the day. (The exact percentages of specific page clicks over time are available, for those who wish to verify this for themselves.) Wikipedia does share in common with the mainstream journalist only an interest in accuracy ... and I cannot help but notice that your friend's parameters (as described by you) did not actually include that word. The reason, of course, is simple: news-based mass media have long prioritised speed over accuracy, as a simple business decision. The rise of the Internet has only exacerbated that trend. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy is a core value in responsible U.S. journalism. "Get it right the first time" is an old dictum – and one that was relentlessly drummed into us in J-school and, for some, by The Associated Press.

The push for immediacy has been hugely exacerbated by the i-age (as in internet, i-phone, i-pad, etc.). That's another reason recently would help label ITN as not a news-aggregation site, or "ticker" (to use what seems to be primarily a British term). Sca (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It might be a "core value" in theory, but the reality is significantly different. For just one example, the Pew Research Center has repeatedly found that news accuracy keeps hitting new record lows. (Please note that I do understand the wincing of responsible journalists. I have seen too many starry-eyed journalists, medical students, etc leaving ethics classes with high ideals, only to tell us later that they felt betrayed.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's lovely that someone, one of the ten or fifteen million viewers of the main page has given us feedback. It is a shame that it comes from such a biased background. Anyway, noted (I suppose) and nothing changes. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Remembrance Day

Is there a reason Remembrance Day isn't listed? The article looks good quality, and we have the US equivalent Veterans Day. The only tag is a warning that the section about Mauritius isn't properly cited. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

To add to this, the front page is an absolute fucking disgrace and a complete insult - today is the day we commemorate the end of a war America was only involved in right towards the end - and all of today's front page featured elements (TFA/TFP/TFL) are American-centric. The. Hell. --109.147.193.98 (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

If you don't like what appears on the front page, instead of swearing about it, please participate in the processes that determine what appears there. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the article on Remembrance Day was taken out of the WP:OTD pool in 2014 because of quality issues in the article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is the note: Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries/November_11#2014_notes. At the time, this is what the article looked like. Seems to be fine now. Should urgently be added to today's OTD and re-added to the selected anniversaries for Nov 11.

My guess is that the Featured material directors all scheduled American veteran related material for today because the international aspect wasn't visible to them - as Remembrance Day wasn't on the OTD list! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Black Kite has fixed the issue for today and it now appears on OTD (not sure about reinstating it on the selected anniversaries list?). Thanks, BK. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

What equivalent events happen elsewhere in the world - and could WP articles on them be developed up to FA status for future years? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed a disgrace that one of the major anniversaries of the Commonwealth countries wasn't included in 2014 and 2015 because of (a) tags applied by drive-by editors who made no attempt to actually fix the (minor) issues with the articles themselves, and (b) people who looked at the drive-by tags and delisted them without checking anything at all. The Mauritius paragraph was utterly trivial. Everyone involved in that particular shambles ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Even worse, Veterans Day, which wasn't delisted, is really poorly sourced, with whole sections with no in-line cites. If it weasn't pointy, or more importantly disrespectful to America's war dead, I'd remove it. Unbelieveable. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Systemic bias strikes again. Just like the play to try to keep Trump's image at the top of ITN for a few days (because it's so important compared to the rest of the news going on in the entire world) regardless of whether we have more pertinent images of more relevant topics. Once again, I'm afraid this is becoming "American Wikipedia" unless we stand up to the deluge.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concern about this article not showing up for several years for no real reason, I really do. I'm not saying it wasn't a mistake to remove it. But keep in mind WP:OTD is being maintained 99% by one person, and it's been that way for at least a year, maybe more. Not because they're chasing everybody off, but because there are apparently zero people willing to help him. It's hard to do one new page every single day by yourself without occasionally making a mistake. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's any grief for him, just a concern for the bias that exists when admins control content and allow some shit and remove some useful links. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and I'm not massively criticising Howcheng, but there's obviously an issue when a major anniversary is removed because a random editor has chucked in a few unsourced sentences and another editor has chucked a drive-by unsourced tag on it. TRM has a point - look at Independence Day (United States) - again, massive great unsourced sections, some of which have been there for ages. Can you imagine the furore if that had been removed? Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't usually do the scheduling for TFA, but I'm doing it for this month. I'm American. I've never been told that I edit with an American bias, but if anyone thinks I do, I'm listening. I scheduled Patton because TFA is terribly overconstrained these days, and it was the only choice that came close to satisfying the constraints I'm working with; happy to discuss, but it might get boring. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

No, no. TFA isn't the issue here; we have to work with what we have available. Patton was a fine choice for it. OTD is clearly understaffed; I don't have a massive amount of time to devote to it, but I will try to help out where I canv from here on in. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

But ultimately, whatever. I stood in silence today for two minutes while I remembered my ancestors who fought for my freedom 100 years ago, on crappy and endless fields of nothing. Those of us who have witnessed war on our own turf will never forget, regardless of Wikipedia's clear and overt systemic bias. It doesn't matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, in the ten years I've been editing I don't even think I've looked at OTD articles....time to start I guess. Question is, how good or bad do link articles have to be? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd like to clarify that I think the Featured directors did their usual excellent job ... with the poor data they had at their fingertips. Rubbish in, rubbish out, chaps. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Some background for OTD: For holidays/observances, I tend to give them more leeway in terms of sourcing exactly because of this reason: if they disappear from the Main Page, complaints will ensue. On the other hand, if someone else tags the article and it appears to be a legitimate complaint, and the editor appears to be someone who knows what they are doing, I respect that decision and I pull it out. I unfortunately don't have time to do the research myself to bring the articles back up to snuff, except in rare cases. —howcheng {chat} 18:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Meta discussion about OTD/DYK/ITN

OTD is less problematic than DYK and ITN because parts of it are more stable, but I think the community needs to review all three.

This problem came about and persisted for several years because of a lack of a fairly simple piece of oversight, until BK's helpful intervention.

In the cases of ITN and DYK, we're constantly facing issues at ERRORS that should have been caught and dealt with long before the text reached Main Page.

That's, in my opinion, because we have a shortage of admins interested in maintaining Main Page, as well as a similar shortage of editors with clue.

Given these constraints, do we really want to include DYK/ITN/OTD on Main Page? And if we do, how can we engineer them so we're not constantly red-faced? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think ITN is OK because each article generally gets a consensus before it goes up (even if there is a ferocious argument first) and people do tend to look at the quality of the articles in some depth. DYK is more problematic - you only have to look at ERRORS or more pertinently WT:DYK to see that errors are being picked up in submissions that have passed the approval process nearly every day. Black Kite (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • OTD pages are always available for anyone's perusal. When you are looking at the pages for the individual days, there is a collapsed "staging area" that will show the pool of eligible and ineligible articles. Anyone is of course welcome at any time to try and rescue the ineligible ones by taking care of whatever maintenance problems they may have. Everyone is also welcome to help rotate eligible articles in and out of the staging area, but please familiarize yourself with WP:OTDRULES before doing so. Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 18:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Meta this: We've gone from a critique of a missing date - to 'someone must be blamed', perhaps shamed - to critique of a the entire make-up of the page on a date - to, 'no, you are not to blame but someone is' - to off-topic - to meta wander (or, perhaps, wonder). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits to Main Page itself

Um, what's going on here? The Main Page was blanked by, of all people, Jimbo Wales, then there are a bunch of changes to protection, and a whole slew of edits which have now been deleted, and no indication in the (presumably reverting) edit summaries of what happened. All of this on a page that should never need to be edited and has the heaviest protection (cascading via protected transclusions etc.) on the entire website, and nothing on the talk page. What on Earth is going on? Modest Genius ^talk 16:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Short story:some privileged accounts have had their passwords guessed and were used to vandalize it. Long story: see WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Bangles

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.

---

Will tomorrow's FP depict bright shiny beads? Sca (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Develop the relevant article(s) and why not? (And will not fall into the 'Americans/sport/too many of category X/'think about persons with hot drinks/crumbly biscuits and the children' categories). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

By biscuit you no doubt mean a cookie. Sca (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

BritEnglish - any consumable that has negative results (for you or the keyboard) on encountering 'certain topics that generate much debate.' Jackiespeel (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't understand this thread at all. The featured picture is nice (and featured) and is therefore at TFP, per the rules of TFP. Is this a joke thread? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It's at least a reference to the song Baubles, Bangles & Beads. Maybe you're too young? Awien (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Long before TRM's time, no doubt. Sca (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

And mine. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

But not mine (my baubles are particularly pendulous). A lovely, easy-listening ditty. Pure schlock. Haploidavey (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I get it now, this is a chat forum. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2016 (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.

Main page protection

Should this be restored to cascading protection? I don't know how to check the current protection level, but it appears that it is admin only, but not cascading. 192.31.106.36 (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, cascading protection is already switched on (by KrakatoaKatie, according to the Protection Log). Smurrayinchester 15:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it worth requesting a software change preventing admins from changing the protection of the main page? There should never be any reason to change it, any more than there is to delete it (don't try!) Optimist on the run (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Seriously?

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.

---

The "Great Tit"? - is this the level of depravity the project has finally fallen to?

Yes, seriously. Serious adults can look at a type of bird that is called a tit without any kind of deprave thoughts. Deli nk (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone really needs to take a featured-quality photo of a Slippery dick. ‑ Iridescent 19:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And let's not forget the booby. Awien (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You're going to egret ostric-izing our readers like this.--WaltCip (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps for us older editors, a feature on the Penduline tit might be apposite ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Shall we go 'quackers' with bioduck and geoduck? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of diversity, let's not forget the black-breasted tit. – Sca (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

So far - five birds, a sound putatively by a whale and a bizarre mollusc. Would 'a smack of jellyfish' fit into this thread? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I just realised we forgot the Cock-of-the-rock. Awien (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

(reset) Shall we switch to placenames? The Wallops (and in particular Nether Wallop) for starters. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you Fucking serious? --Jayron32 02:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Like Hell I am.--WaltCip (talk)

Hey, watch your language, you Athol. – Sca (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2016 (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.

In the snooze

I see Donald Trump is still on the ITN ticker three weeks after the U$A election.128.227.159.48 (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

So nominate something to take his place. We can only work with what we have. ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Two weeks, but who's counting? It's easier to complain. freshacconci talk to me 17:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't help that there's an item ready to go at WP:ITN/C, but apparently no admins around to post it. Modest Genius ^talk 17:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Not my normal area of adminning, but I've posted the NASCAR story, bumping Trump off the bottom. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Now we just need an ITN regular to update the image :) Modest Genius ^talk 19:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

If only.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing

Can we add the Dakota Access Pipeline protests to the Ongoing list within the News section? Thanks! Mannydantyla (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest that myself! JanderVK (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll need to suggest that at WP:ITN/C. Hut 8.5 16:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mannydantyla: If you wish to nominate it, please review the Ongoing criteria on this page. Keep in mind that Ongoing is not meant just to post events in progress, but to post events that have an article that is continually updated with new information. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@331dot: @JanderVK: Ah, I see. Alright I've nominated it, please add your support/oppose comments here: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates :) Mannydantyla (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

And can we have a different ITN picture? 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

What would you like to see there instead? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the picture from the Kaikoura page. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Normally ITN images relate directly to the news story (i.e. this one would be a picture of the aftermath of the earthquake, rather than just an idyllic picture of the town it decimated), but you should suggest it at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(RESET) Nothing against Leonard Cohen per se - but he has been up there several days (though preferable to the steaming ear Trump picture). 193.132.104.10 (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

And mention of Aldous Huxley, John F. Kennedy, and C. S. Lewis has been studiously avoided I see. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

If you would like to see more turnover in ITN , I invite you to participate at the candidates page to either make nominations or participate in existing nominations. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a slow news week, hence slow turnover. It's either that or we follow the rolling news channels and post every half-baked thought Donald Trump posts on Twitter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

None of this prevents us from changing, at least, the image at the top of the page. Cohen has had his 15 minutes after all.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Croydon tram derailment

Can we get this minor news item off the main page already? It's been a week and a half. --Smack (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate suitable replacement items at WP:ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 12:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There's (still) no agreed mechanism for removing items? Things just have to move down until they get pushed off? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You (or anyone) can certainly propose just removing it without replacing it, but I think it is preferable to have something there rather than nothing. ITN is not meant to be a news ticker, but a way to highlight articles. The best way to keep content moving is to make nominations, improve the nominated articles, and comment on existing nominations. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The end of the year is also typically a slow period for postings; it won't really ramp up again until after the first of the year(absent an unplanned event or disaster). 331dot (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, 331dot. I'm surprised that 21 November is seen as "the end of the year". I'm even more surprised that "there is less news" at the end of the year. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, we've had most of the championship games of the ITNR sports that occurred over the summer, (Japan Series, World Series, NASCAR has been nominated) the Nobels were announced, the US and other elections have occurred; most of the expected events have occurred for this year. I wouldn't say there is less news per se but there is less expected news. It's the events that aren't planned for or are otherwise unexpected (i.e. a natural disaster) that will be the bulk of postings for the rest of the year. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It was just suggesting that, while criteria are quite clear for enabling a post, the criteria for removing are not. Sure, anyone's "free to propose", but experience suggests that a unilateral removal by one admin might provoke complaint. I'm not objecting in this case, although I'm not sure it was seen as "minor news item" in the UK (also the story is still rumbling on, and there's been no final report, of course.) If this is the right forum for the discussion, fair enough. But are people meant to !vote?Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The same day that the original comment in this thread was posted, the item in question is already second-to-last in the list on the front page, and therefore is due to "scroll off" very soon. I agree that perhaps there should be a procedure for "removal", but this is not an item that is crying out for removal. It is obvious to any thoughtful observer that Trump's election and the terrible rail disaster in India are both more significant than the tram disaster in London, but still the tram disaster is a very sad event with many casualties and is just as much a news item as a sports victory or something else. MPS1992 (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's gone now. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

WT:FAC#New Featured Article coordinators

Just a pointer. Opinions are welcome and (probably) appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)