Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 162

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 155←Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162Archive 163Archive 164Archive 165

Skin

Who was it again who was responsible for the Vector skin change? Perhaps somebody could recommend a Design your own wikipedia skin option as most of the options suck. There ought to be a graphic option to design your own wikipedia design and main page. I am aware you can change the main page design in monobook but I want the option to make the frame much darker and make the articles stand out more. There is only so much you can do with changing your Internet options colors and fonts. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You may find something to your liking at Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives.
APL (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Have you looked at Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives? I personally love Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (misty breeze). It omits OTD (which I don't care for much), makes the POTD actually visible, and highlights our portals, directing the readers to our content. You can bookmark one of the alternatives if you prefer, or create your own alternative. It's a shame a user can't set one of the alternatives to appear in place of the main page itself (for that specific account), but I imagine it would be technologically complex. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
i've been using my own Blofeld designed main page for years. I mean skin actually wikipedia page design when you visit every page, to radically change the graphic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Update:Just found out it is possible to replace your main page with one of the alternatives. See the code at WP:Main page alternatives. Awesome! Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Except that completely eliminates any opportunity for panoramic POTDs (a section which, even in that layout, I have to scroll to access) as well as the fact that the Portal: namespace is the most (and arguably for good reason) underdeveloped area of Wikipedia. That and that layout is nowhere near technically sound; at least on my computer, the search boox looks like something taken direct from 1998. — Joseph Fox 21:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
But, but... I like it :D No really, this isn't about the merits of a specific alternative. It's that a user can choose or design an alternative main page and view it instead of the regular version. Both of our above comments would probably belong more on Wikipedia talk:Main Page alternative (misty breeze) Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks the label "Current events" from Wikipedia:Main_Page_alternative_(simple_layout) is preferable to the label "In the news" that we currently use on the Main Page? --Khajidha (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
That's an excellent point. "In the news" is kinda misleading to new editors, it isn't really meant to function in place of Wikinews, it's to highlight content about current events. Perhaps it's why we get a lot of complaints on this page about X event not being mentioned. Puchiko (Talk-email) 07:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
"Current events" has a very long history on the Main Page - 16 December 2001. As hard as it may be believe now, this seems to be how "current events" was dropped and "in the news" became the default option in October 2002. Ah, the simple days of early Wikipedia... Note that "in the news" still directed to current events, esp as the template system hadn't been invented yet. - BanyanTree 06:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't know about anyone else, but to me "in the news" carries the connotation of today while "current events" seems more like "in the past week or so". --Khajidha (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Hm, well ITN usually covers the span of about one week, as it isn't updated that often. Perhaps it'd be a good time to discuss that 10-year-old edit.
I think "In the news" is misleading. For example, my favourite radio station has a "ITN" every morning, but it really goes like: X newspaper said Y, M newspaper published study Z". The Wikipedia ITN doesn't rely directly on newspapers (though it cites them) and has, as for all Wikipedia articles, very different inclusion guidelines from a typical newspaper (see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which explains that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be "journalism" or "newsreports"). But when a reader sees "In the news", he expects things that are in newspapers. Most of those news reports do not belong on Wikipedia. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Pretty neat, I didn't know those existed. Unfortunately using one as your default via script will still plant that big ugly "alternative" banner across the top, and the discussion link leads not here but to that alternative's discussion, so it doesn't really act as a skin. Stylish is a good alternative, though frequently skins there don't get updated very often and end up buggy. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 14:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Meteors from Asteroids

"Samples of asteroid 25143 Itokawa retrieved by the Hayabusa probe confirm that most meteorites originate from S-type asteroids." Would it not be more correct to say that some meteors have originated from this asteroid? or something along these lines. The study of one asteroid could not possibly confirm the origin of all meteors.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be best to say that the samples "provide supporting evidence for the hypothesis that most meteorites originate from S-type asteroids". --Khajidha (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence that any meteorite has originated from that one particular asteroid. Instead, this S-type asteroid has been found to have the same composition as the most common type (~87% of all falls) of meteorites. The interpretation is that this type of meteorites originates from this kind of asteroid. This has long been hypothesised, but no direct evidence existed until Hayabusa. Modest Genius talk 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
There still isn't any direct evidence only equivocation.--108.16.25.222 (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
That was my point, this isn't confirmation it is supporting evidence. --Khajidha (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Rubbish, the inference should be that meteors and asteriods may have the same source, based on their similar compositions, rather than one spawning the other. There is no confirmation justa leap in logic.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Please fix.

This close-up photo of a Calliphora hilli blowfly shows facial features that are common to all insects: compound eyes and two antennae (the latter are difficult to see, as many true flies have short antennae to reduce drag).

The final clause of this sentence implies that the antennae are intentionally short in order to reduce drag, rather than short and the postive side effect is that drag is reduced.

Please change from: "please change postive side to positive side" --Nas132 (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC) "as many true flies have short antennae to reduce drag"

to

"as many true flies have short antennae which reduces drag" instead of which reduces drag change to "which can reduce drag"--Nas132 (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


Thanks,

-- the not-too-nitpicky Avanu (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. howcheng {chat} 04:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Smile/frown

"... that it takes more muscles to smile than it does to frown?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the other way around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.116.186 (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The article cites research that seeks to show that the axiom is fale: that's what is "hooky" about it. Kevin McE (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

On this day....(Again)

Today it's Eid ul-Fitr, an important Muslim holiday. It is one of the two Muslim holidays they have. Thus this is again forgotton to add? Why cant you add something straight to the 'On this day...' section? Is it too late to add that information? Runehelmet (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles on the main page are chosen because they are good, not because they are important (see the Main Page FAQ #7. The Eid ul-Fitr article has an orange problem tag about needing references-we don't link to articles with problems.
As for adding holidays to the template, please see Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries (anyone can add an anniversary ahead of time)... but: it must adhere to the guidelines. #8 says: The selected article (bolded item) must not be a stub and preferably it should be a relatively complete and well-formatted article, free from 'yellow'-level or more severe article issue tags. In other words, it should be a good example of Wikipedia content (see also Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#I think that the articles listed on the Main Page are awful. Isn't the Main Page biased towards certain topics? What can be done about it?).
Hope this helps, Puchiko (Talk-email) 08:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
At any rate there are two Islam-related DYKs today. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm calling IAR on excluding mention of Eid on the Main Page today. I removed the ref tag on the article -- it was added by an IP with 2 whole edits to his credit. Can someone please add Eid ul-Fitr to On This Day, please? --Kenatipo speak! 02:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I would also point out that this item has been on the Main Page every year on the appropriate day (or days) since 2004. --Kenatipo speak! 03:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think IAR is justified here. The article isn't well referenced, but it's pretty complete and this is THE major festival for Muslims. Omitting Eid would be equivalent to omitting Christmas just because someone slaps a NPOV tag on the article. Modest Genius talk 12:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, MG. The article definitely needs work; no argument there. It just seemed insulting to not even mention the major Islamic festival on that basis; and, as I note below said, the article has been mentioned every year since 2004. --Kenatipo speak! 17:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Normally, when I'm listing the upcoming moveable holidays and I spot one that requires maintenance, I leave messages on the article talk and/or the relevant WikiProject, but Eid was tagged with refimprove after I got there, so I didn't notice it until only a couple of days prior. I did inform WP Islam, but nobody was able to do anything in time. howcheng {chat} 07:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Today is the first anniversary of the 7.1 Earthquake that hit Canterbury, causing widespread damage. Why isn't it mentioned in the OTD section????Kiwibeca (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Added now -for greater geographical diversity. howcheng {chat} 18:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK: community consensus disregarded

Sorry to be a bore, but I'm rather a old-fashioned about RfCs and consensus. The prominent RfC proposal: a proper reviewing checklist at DYK talk just one month ago resoundingly decided that:


All but the last item 5 are part of DYK rules and/or are enshrined in WP policies. The results of 37 !votes (give or take a subsequent !vote or two) were:

  • Support: 28 (76%)
  • Support (qualified): 2
  • Oppose (qualified): 3
  • Oppose: 4

Fewer than one in five participants expressed an oppose or qualified oppose. This result was discussed subsequently and displayed graphically at DYK talk:


The RfC came after a period of scandal during which a pattern of plagiarism and close paraphrasing in poorly checked nominations was revealed by SandyGeorgia at DYK talk. This is why it was so disappointing when I returned to spot-check one DYK that was on the main page a week ago and found plagiarism issues.

Although there has been a passing attempt to develop a checklist that is somehow different from the bulleted list in the RfC text (quoted above), nothing seems to have come of it: the consensus established in the "Checklist" RfC appears to have been politely—and in my view improperly—swept under the carpet, hands washed, and let's not mention it. But if DYK editors want to return to the business-as-usual model in which there's no systematic checking and ticking off of the aspects that are still plaguing DYK's exclusive domain in the bottom-left corner of the main page, they need to launch another RfC to countermand the community's current decision.

A second RfC held at the same time established consensus by an even greater margin (81%) for a "seven-day rule", that "a nomination that has not met the [DYK] requirements seven days after it is first edited by a reviewer should be declined and archived, unless an administrator involved in DYK queuing grants an application for an extension of a specified number of days". Unlike the "Checklist" RfC, this text had some flexibility built into it in terms of design details; but the seven-day rule nevertheless gained clear consensus. It has not been implemented.

The issue has come to MP talk because I believe the legitimacy of exposing DYK hooks and articles on the main page is in question, given the forum's failure to abide by the RfC results. I note that there's also some resistance at DYK to the notion, proposed by User:Casliber and others, that DYK be opened up at least partially to showcase recently improved articles that aren't necessarily newly created, such as GAs and even FAs and FLs. This is looking increasingly like the way to go, given DYK's lack of due process for ensuring the proper reviewing of policy and quality compliance for WP's showcase page. Tony (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Another front for the never ending war on hijacking DYK's prime Main Page real estate, eh? LOL at FAs on DYK, though. It's like there are not enough articles to improve (expand) on, which is the whole gist of DYK. GA might get their spot, but should not be at DYK's expense. Look at FL, they made it to the Main Page w/o screwing other sections up. –HTD 11:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Ever since I started contributing to DYK, there had already been moves to remove it, and 99% of the time, they want it replaced with GAs. It's not that DYK is not the only faulty section, but with 7-8 articles on 3 daily shifts (that's 21-24 articles), there's bound to be one bad egg everyday (1/24), just like there's one bad TFA in a month (1/30), or one bad OTD every 6 days (1/36) no one cares about OTD anyway. unless there are 5 US blurbs). When people want GAs to be featured in the Main Page, they want to get DYK's space. Like I don't really care about GAs anymore (I had two), but I'd rather do an FA, which is not worth it (only 24 hours? I'd rather write a crappy ITN update). DYKs are more prone to be crappy, since they're supposed to be new. Expanded articles should not quite be bad, though. –HTD 11:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh how I wish it were as simple as "one bad egg a day" and one every six days for OTDs. I fail to see how you can apply a 'law of averages' to what goes wrong. The tolerance threshold for errors is inherently very different for the three categories; there's just no real vetting for OTD. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a big deal if there's a crappy FA. It shouldn't be on DYKs. People who insist on making it a big deal either just don't get or don't agree with what DYKs are supposed to be -- facts from new or expanded articles. What is GA all about? FA-lite? Like I said, I'd rather write an FA, or even replace DYK with another FA. There's already space on the Main Page for good articles: FAs. People (and I mean the general public, not those who spend a day snooping around for crappy DYKs) barely notice crappy DYKs; when they do so, it really is crappy (unfactual/misleading hook, they can't find the hook in the article, etc.). They'd rather notice US bias. –HTD 12:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Howard, at 75% and 81%, respectively, those RfCs are strong statements of consensus by the community. It sounds as though you regard proper reviewing of noms for policy compliance as a nuisance DYK can't be bothered with. I rest my case. Tony (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
How can an RFC !voted upon by 37(!) people warrant such wholesale changes immediately? Even RFAs have more !votes. –HTD 12:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Show me a better way than DYK to motivate people to create new articles. violet/riga [talk] 11:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
We don't mind what form the checklist takes, as long as it reflects the RfC text that the community !voted on. When will it be ready, then? Rjanag went on a campaign of removing the checklist based on the RfC bullet points from nomination pages on about 7 and 8 August. Violetriga, no one is against motivating people to create new articles, but we have nearly 4 million, and the emphasis is slowly shifting towards article improvement. Just why DYK should be restricted to newly created articles and not newly improved articles is a mystery to many main-page editors, especially when it doesn't always show itself able to keep up with managing itself to the standard befitting the showcase of WP. Why, many people are asking, is GA shut out of main-page exposure, when GA articles—recently improved—are typically a much better example of what the project can do than a hurriedly and inadequately checked post-stub article? Tony (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
There should be two reviews: one from a QPR one, and one from a mainstay (probably the directorate). If a mainstay did the 1st review, the 2nd review isn't needed. This, including whatever checklist is developed should be included: this will be an improvement over GANs where only one reviewer does the dirty work. –HTD 12:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Just because we have nearly 4 million articles doesn't mean that we don't have loads of other important/interesting articles that need creating. We are far from the point of slowing down as a quick look at Special:NewPages proves. DYK has lots of good new articles out of that selection. It is important to improve articles but DYK also covers that with its 5x rule. Yes there needs to be some sort of review checklist in place but your comments are coming across as critical rather than constructive. violet/riga [talk] 12:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The RfC also came across as critical rather than constructive. It showed an overwhelming majority favors more work as long as someone else does it. Not surprising, and not Wikipedia's finest hour. Did You Know appears to be surviving for now by paying lip service to the RfC, but lately they are running out of administrators willing to keep the queue going under those conditions. A more useful discussion would emphasize what the best use of that section of the Main Page is, while recognizing that mistakes occur in every section – rather than demanding that extra reviewers and a "directorate" must materialize so that someone somewhere somehow (just don't look at me!) will fix everything. User:Art LaPella/Is this criticism constructive? Art LaPella (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The more "requirements" the "reformers" want, the slower the discussion becomes, then less hooks are approved, which ultimately ends in the death of DYK as we've known it. What after next after that is anybody's guess. (hint: GA invasion!!!!!111111 Wait for more than a month, instead of at most 10 days (before the reform) until someone reviews your hook; who knows when it'll reach the Main Page.) –HTD 14:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
And frankly, the death of DYK is, I suspect, the actual goal of some of the most vocal "reformers". They are getting their wish, as everything to do with that section is now a ridiculous burden that is not worth bothering with anymore. I've got 60+ DYKs to my credit but the only reason I would ever approach DYK now is for the 5 points in the WikiCup competition, and even then, it really isn't worth it. And the comment above about people agreeing that more work should be done within DYK as long as they don't have to do it is apt. Of note, while Tony1 has been all over WT:DYK proposing changes and making demands, I can't find him anywhere at T:TDYK reviewing any nominations. It is far too easy to make demands on other people's time. Resolute 15:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I tried WikiCup but I got bored, so the main motivation for me in creating DYKs is to let articles from my neck of the woods get Main Page exposure -- it is easier to write a 1,500 character-article (or how many the new standard will be) than writing an FA (like I said GA is essentially worthless unless it replaces DYK/gets to the main page), updating an article for ITN (with all of the Anglosphere bias there, specially on cultural items) or even OTD (it's a lot easier to write an article that is currently in the news, but won't make it to ITN, than something historical since online archives on newspapers dating before 2000, specially on my area, don't exist). I do have a couple of FLs but they're in crappy state (sssshhhh don't tell them lol) it'll take some work to make them Main Page-worthy, and one was even FLRCed just this year. –HTD 15:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
but the only reason I would ever approach DYK now is for the 5 points in the WikiCup competition, and even then, it really isn't worth it. So what are we all doing here then? Most of the time there are no clear rewards on Wikipedia other than the pleasure of seeing your own words on screen; occasionally someone appreciative might give out a barnstar, but that's about it. There are no rewards for making these talk page posts, yet wind is not in short supply. Discussion is bloating because we keep going around in circles. Personal attacks to boot. Please stop the flow of mud. It just damages DYKs cause and alienates its supporters and would-be supporters. Does anyone here recall Tony doing a DYK review? Well I do. You might have to go back 3 or 4 weeks, but I'm certain you will find some. If you don't you haven't tried hard enough. And the comment above about people agreeing that more work should be done within DYK as long as they don't have to do it is apt. It's all dandy because people at DYK didn't have to do much work before, now they are wailing because they have to do some. Is it really that painful to do a review, using the template? I just did one today. I think of someone has spent three hours of their life creating an article, it warrants a reviewer to spend half an hour on it. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Cost benefit ratio. The time I waste trying to navigate the mess of subpages, templates and ever-changing rules just to create a DYK submission could be spent creating or improving another article. And frankly, if I am going to do a GAN-esque review, I'll just go to GAN or complete a peer review for someoone who requests it. That is better for me, better for a serious editor, and better for the project. Interesting you talk about all of the "bloat" in this debate, since Tony1 especially seems to think that he'll win his battle by talking us to death. But the facts don't lie. DYK has gone from four updates daily to three, and by the looks of it, is barely generating enough entries now for two updates on some days. I agree that greater quality control is necessary, but you aren't going to save DYK by killing it. Resolute 04:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The question is are they saving DYK, killing DYK or saving DYK to kill it, to be replaced by something else? –HTD 04:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
@Resolute: Everybody's 'cost benefit analysis' in our wikicontext is going to be highly subjective depending on where we get our kicks, and how efficient we are in finding and using the tools available, so I can't argue with you there. You just keep doing what you do, and I'll do likewise. Sorry for augmenting your 'cost' and diminishing your 'benefit'. Thanks for your time. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • With the greatest respect to Tony et al., the new system is utterly ridiculous—reviewers are expected to put almost as much work into DYK reviewing than GA reviews and all for much harsher criticism if they don't notice that a few words have been lifted verbatim from the source and no carrot if they get it right. You can't realistically expect that to continue, because it's just not sustainable for the time frame DYK operates on and the number of articles it has to process in that time frame. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not my checklist: it's the community's, since the community has !voted for it knowing full well what the RfC would bring. And as I said, another RfC is essential if the first one is going to be ignored; the current situation is untenable.

      Harry, then you're saying that plagiarism and close paraphrasing are fine on the main page? I'm not being moralistic, but if that is the implication, we should come out and say it. I see that Howard (HTD) says in his edit-summary "DYK = easy". Well, if that's the raison d'etre of DYK, the hooks should be displayed on a subpage and linked to from the main page. The main page is not there for "easy peasy" stuff; it's there to showcase WP's best work, and that means hard, not easy. That's what the featured-content forums do, and easy stubby doesn't sit well next-door to them. I've had my go at trying to support DYK under its old model, but that has failed. I say that it's high time DYK became wider in scope and the grip of the easy-peasy crowd was loosened. That's why the recent call to have one GA per shift received more supports than opposes. It should be adopted as a one-month trial. Tony (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

        • If you want Wikipedia's best work, go to WP:FC, and as Cmadler says below, the Main Page is not just for Wikipedia's best work. You might as well target ITN and OTD... wait why aren't you targeting those? ITN and OTD are a lot easier than a DYK. All you need is three sentences and some references; for OTD, just keep off the tags.
        • Take this for an example: 2011 Copa del Rey Final was posted in the ITN section. If that is nominated in DYK, it would not even pass since it is too short! (LOL!!!!!!!11111). One of my DYKs, UAAP Season 71 men's basketball tournament, would never, ever make it to ITN but is arguably the better article.
        • Also, in the Main Page RFC (the whole sale one), I think replacing DYK with GA or even giving GA one shift of DYK's prime real estate got no consensus, so clearly, this DYK RFC still has to see more eyes. –HTD 16:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Tony1, you say that "The main page is not there for "easy peasy" stuff; it's there to showcase WP's best work". I know that a number of vocal Wikipedians (including you) feel this way, but there is no consensus for that statement. At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features#What are the aims of the main page?, "To showcase Wikipedia's best content" is currently third, behind "Entice readers to become editors" and "Showcase timely and newsworthy content". Ideally the Main Page does some of each, but your suggestion that only Wikipedia's best work should appear on the Main Page is clearly not supported by consensus. cmadler (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • @Tony: I'm saying that to properly read and scrutinise an article, to copy-edit it or comment on relatively obvious prose flaws and to check every source for verifiability and plagiarism is going to take longer than it did to write the article, and for 1500 characters that aren't destined to be a GA or FA, is a waste of time. I will happily spend a whole afternoon reviewing an FAC, because that's something into which the nominator has put a lot of effort, for which they clearly have a passion, and because FA actually matters. DYK is nice, but it's not worth the kind of effort this checklist requires. If no checklist = no DYK, my only thought on that is "meh". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Tony1 says, "The issue has come to MP talk because I believe the legitimacy of exposing DYK hooks and articles on the main page is in question." It would be great if the regard for "community consensus" heading this article included regard for consensus against his so-often-repeated proposal to get DYK off the Main Page unless it implements every suggestion offered by Tony1 – e.g. the ongoing RfC about Main Page content, where many previous arguments by Tony1 against DYK have been presented. Sharktopus talk 16:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Might I suggest that some admin hat this and direct those interested to read, comment, and vote at the RfC instead? Sharktopus talk 16:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Tony's RFC is archived? –HTD 16:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The Main page RfC where Tony presents all the above arguments and many more for getting rid of DYK is ongoing, not archived.[1] The RfC Tony created and cites here is archived,[2] as is yet another RfC filed the same day by Tony about getting rid of older nominations.[3] The proposal by Casliber to replace some or all of DYK with GA items, apparently after chatting "with Tony1 about this over beers on Friday night", can be seen here; it is not officially archived afaik. Sharktopus talk 17:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The thread seems to be dominated by DYK regulars who employ tactics such as ascribing all things anti-DYK to me. Sorry guys, you know that's a distortion of the truth. I had nothing to do with launching the main-page RfC, and I didn't design the critical theme expressed about DYK there. Nor did I myself insist on the checklist: the community did.

    This statement above is a problem: "the main motivation for me in creating DYKs is to let articles from my neck of the woods get Main Page exposure". There's currently an issue before ArbCom in which DYK has been implicated as the vehicle for POV pushing and promotion. The lack of careful reviewing guarantees that editors will use DYK to push their pet topic; and sometimes that can be precariously close to breaking WP's policies. A related outcome is pumping one thematic "neck of the woods" through the main page to the extent that it sticks out: this becomes a problem of balance, and belies the mantra that DYK's mission is partly to encourage newish editors. Another unfortunate spin-off from this is that DYK doesn't see its role in encouraging article improvement after main-page exposure—does it end up being just a stub factory?

    Harry, you say, "If no checklist = no DYK, my only thought on that is "meh". On the contrary, the RfC decided that quality and policy-compliance processes should be systemic and explicitly checked off, not that DYK should end; and the RfC text spelled out that a reduced flow of DYKs might well result. This is what people !voted for; if DYK wants to stop breaching what the community has decided, it cannot maintain the dizzying rate of more than 20 hooks a day. But instead, the default of the dizzying pace is being used, implicitly, to justify breaching community consensus, because it would require an impossible workload of preparing and checking the articles and hooks properly. No, it should be the other way around: you prepare and check to main-page standards only as many as you can. You bin this imperative of the waterfall, and along with it the traditional assumption that once nominated, main-page exposure is virtually assured by default as long as the word count and "time since creation" tallied (or perhaps occasionally glaring errors are picked up in the rush). The other forums operate on a once-a-day turnaround; they, too, would become untenable if trying to flush through 20+ items a day in multiple shifts. They adjust their throughput so that they can take care.

    Until DYK accepts that the throughput needs to be adjusted to a proper checking and preparation system, the forum is in danger of losing all credibility. Disregarding the community's decision is untenable: people were perfectly aware at the RfC what the implications were for the pace, and DYK seems to be in denial about it. Tony (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  • "the RfC text spelled out that a reduced flow of DYKs might well result" I don't understand. That text is spelled out in the display quote at the top of this section, and it doesn't mention flow at all. Art LaPella (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I never ever imagined that by contributing to DYK on articles about college basketball in the Philippines and its players, buildings in Manila, and special (by-)elections in the Philippines will I be accused of POV-pushing. WTF! Well, that's not the first time the "reformers" employed such tactics. They even accused DYK regulars of being mindless idiots (close paraphrase). Ah, what else is new? –HTD 02:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Now Howard, mind that you don't imply it was I who said "mindless idiots", which is a breach of wp:civil. Your post appears to be a response to mine, so the implication is there. Tony (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I apologize for making you appear it was you who said such (maybe) words. The point still stands, though. Like seriously, creating about buildings in Manila is POV-pushing? How about the flood of Eurovision articles some years ago? –HTD 02:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, the one true source for everything that should be right with Wikipedia (just ask her), said that the checklist was overkill, and I think after that people began to drop it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, thanks for your kind words; I'll try harder to live up to your expectations. In the meantime, since I've been too busy to follow up at DYK to see if the (inevitable) plagiarism and failure to use adequate reliable sources continues (it's still curious to me how a five-fold expansion or minimum character count can be built upon non-reliable sources or with irrelevant padded text, but apparently more than one DYK regular thinks violation of core Wiki policies should be showcased on our main page), I would appreciate it if you would stop acting like a twelve-year-old and stop personalizing issues lest you would prefer a meeting elsewhere to discuss your disruptive behaviors. While I disagree with Tony1 that a reviewing template will be sufficient to resolve the significant problems at DYK (since many regular reviewers will just check the boxes without knowing anything about Wikipedia policies), I agree with his good faith efforts to at least do something, anything to get Plagiarism Central under control. Behave now-- I'll be back after the holiday to see if the personalization has stopped and efforts to resolve the significant issues at DYK have begun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
You'd like to think so. The community, unfortunately, has determined that a checklist is to be used. You seem to be in denial about this. Hold another RfC if you don't like the decision. Resolute, you say proper reviewing is a "ridiculous burden", but it's only so if you insist on churning through 20+ DYKs a day on the main page, given that a lot of potential reviewers have come and gone when they see the lack of commitment to quality and policy-compliance. And you say that you "agree that greater quality control is necessary, but you aren't going to save DYK by killing it". Again, the same smokescreen: = proper reviewing and checking will kill DYK. Well, it might be a strong reason to slow it down and take a sharp turn from quantity towards quality and policy-safety. That's not killing it: it's setting it up to survive in the medium term. Tony (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I was in a rush to get back to actual editing. Let me elaborate: I have no objection to using a review checklist personally, and I don't dispute the consensus in its favor. But the problem has been that two checklists were offered up, neither of which has achieved consensus as the ideal one to use.

Frankly, we should just force the issue by making the checklist autoinclude in the nomination pages. You won't be able to count on people to actually use it in every review. Daniel Case (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

We've been at 18 per day for the past 3 weeks, Tony. I know how you feel, but quoting untrue statistics is not a firm standing ground. Regarding the checklist (which, BTW, I think should be discussed at WT:DYK), most reviewers are using their own version of a checklist. The actual form the checklist should take has not been decided on yet, be it during the RFC or afterwards. Many of the qualified supports you mention above disapproved of your suggested checklist, with some of the full-fledged supporters disagreeing with it too. As the RFC was simply regarding the use of a checklist, many reviewers are following it. The form of the checklist was already discussed, as noted above, but to no agreements. Perhaps another discussion should be started at DYK's talk page? Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
most reviewers are using their own version of a checklist. The review process completely lacks formality; many of these 'individual checklists' appear to be scratched on the back of an envelope. It's a wonder the DYK admins know that everything that needs checking has indeed been checked. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Tony, I would be interested to hear your response to the worth of articles in other sections, specifically ITN and OTD. Do you believe that this template (or something like it) should apply to those too? violet/riga [talk] 07:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Gosh - no self-indulgent items about American football and baseball in DYK for once! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.254.168 (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The checklist misses one important point, the quality of the hook. It should be surprising or remarkable - it should also not be misleadng. It should also be (to use a for letter word) true, or at least more than merely verifiable by usually RS - I would rather see less DYKs of better quality, as I think that would reflect better on the project, or even relaxing the "new or recently expanded" rules. DYK's are in danger of being seem to be for the benefit of writers rather readers. Rich Farmbrough, 12:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Responses:

  • Rich F, the hook criteria were indeed added to the bullets endorsed by the community RfC in the list that Rjanag unilaterally decided to remove from nom pages in early August.
  • Violetriga, deflection by casting aspersions on other main-page forums (and FAC) is a regular tactic; please focus on DYK for the moment. The other tactics are to shoot the messenger (especially aimed at SandyGeorgia and me—Gatoclass is a repeat offender), to deny, and to stall indefinitely (Gatoclass: "the reason no checklist is currently being used is because I suggested we delay its implementation for a week or two, in this thread"—that was two weeks ago: time's up). All of these tactics are evident in this thread.
  • Daniel Case, it's interesting you've chosen to deify SandyGeorgia: "the one true source for everything that should be right with Wikipedia", and seek to turn her view of the checklist into an endorsement of DYK's disregard for the community's demand that a checklist is required before main-page exposure. In fact, SG—with whom you have a recent history of brawling—has clearly expressed the view that DYK should be wound up. Is this what caused you to say to her, "At this point, she would probably serve her cause best by bailing and letting Tony handle things"? Now please don't distort the truth.
    • I'm going to assume you missed my followup comment, where to reiterate I said that while the idea of having a review checklist undoubtedly achieved consensus (including from me), the exact composition of that checklist has not done so. So, regrettably but quite understandably from a community that took a similar approach to the flagged-revisions issue (endorsing it in theory but then finding no one could agree on how exactly to implement it in practice, so it was just dropped despite a lot of hoopla from the Foundation, repeated in the media, about it), people have just continued acting like the RfC didn't happen.

      You quite correctly characterize Sandy's point of view, IMO, as favoring the abolition of DYK entirely. Her dispute with the checklist is, as she said, she feels that "many regular reviewers will just check the boxes without knowing anything about Wikipedia policies". I consider that reasoning in general grotesquely counter to assuming good faith, a problem I never have with your comments, sharp as they can be (Perhaps Sandy could at least do us a favor and tell us who she thinks is competent to review DYK submissions, and to agree to a similar stricture at FAC, where one would imagine knowledge of Wikipedia policies to be even more important).

      Now back to editing ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

      • I think you completely misunderstand the ground-swell of opinion outside the DYK enclave. Even the title of the section doesn't match its stated intent. DYK will either have to reform or it will disappear, and right now it looks like it's headed down the pan. Malleus Fatuorum 18:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Malleus, you are entitled to your opinion, as are Tony1 and SandyGeorgia and the 15 people besides Tony and Sandy who in July and August !voted to get rid of DYK (as opposed to 36 people who !voted to keep DYK on the Main Page). If one is "old-fashioned about RfCs and consensus," the obvious solution for people who like DYK and think it belongs on the Main Page is to keep trying to improve DYK (for example with Rjanag's much improved nomination format, and much wider attention to copyvio issues). Whereas the obvious solution for people who want to remove or replace DYK is to keep campaigning about how nobody at DYK wants any reform and how any problem you can find at DYK proves exactly that. Sharktopus talk 23:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • So what is happening about the seven-day rule for archiving, the other roundly endorsed RfC? Tony (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Rather bad faith to dismiss my question as a "deflection" and a "tactic". It's a shame that no progress will be made while you approach discussions like that. violet/riga [talk] 12:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fundimentaly policy descripes rather than prescribes practice. If people aren't using the checklist then people aren't using the checklist and the RFC is a dead letter.©Geni 15:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to Tony I also don't think we've tried hard enough to make people use it. There's no page notice with an exhortation to do so (OK, I suppose I could fix that), or it could be made to autoinclude when the nomination page is created. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that soon -- any day now -- we will start autoincluding one of Rjanag's templates. We're going to try it for a few weeks, then switch to Rjanag's other template for a few weeks, then pick one. There is community consensus for such a template, but I think there is also community consensus against the specific template Tony has tried to impose. cmadler (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Just as long as these new-fangled attempts contain all of the points in the RfC text that were overwhelmingly endorsed by the community. And again, do NOT peddle mistruths: I did not impose it; the community did. Is this is the same league as the current abuse being dished out to Malleus at DYK talk? He's just been called a "troll" by Cristo, and "stupid" (twice) by Rjanag, who can get away with being abusive because he's an admin, it seems. ("You're just too stupid for your own good.") Tony (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Two things about Rjanag's posts at DYK over the past few hours.
First, he has continued his practice of being abusive to editors who are critical of DYK, saying to Malleus "Try to wrap your brain around it". I wonder whether someone might have a quiet word to him about WP:CIVIL. We don't want visitors to come into that page and feel it's like a zoo where the denizens scratch and bite. You've got to have strong spine to criticise DYK in its own house, I can tell you.

The second, worrying things said recently by this user, seemingly supported by some of his colleagues at DYK, are:

"DYK is not about improvement"
"DYK is not and has never been about article improvement"
"the 'Wikipedia-needs-improved-not-expanded' crowd is still not satisfied with having two article quality projects, and wants to turn DYK into one too"
"Once again (how many times do I need to say the same thing before it gets through your skull?), "improvement" is not a requirement in any of the DYK criteria." (Apparently not quite correct.)
Particularly telling was RxS's comment just 20 minutes ago: Am I really hearing editors defend the concept that DYK promotes content to the front page without any requirement that the content be improved? DYK exists officially only for the writers and not our readers[? ]. I added the question mark at the end because I'm pretty sure it's what RxS meant. Tony (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Tony, you most certainly did attempt to impose that specific template. We can argue about the RfC all we want -- I'm not even talking about that -- but the specific form of the template was not specified in the RfC, and you added it to numerous nominations, continuing to do so after editors objected to it on a number of grounds. cmadler (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Time and date on header

Welcome to Wikipedia,
6,908,160 articles in English

is the current header for the main page. I think, and I propose, that we add the time and date on somewhere for readers to see. The nearest thing you can get at current is the date on the On This Day feature. So I say we change it to this:

Welcome to Wikipedia,
6,908,160 articles in English
It is currently 19:16, Saturday, November 9, 2024 (UTC).

See? So, add comments below. Rcsprinter (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks rather clumsy (perhaps make it the same size as the article count and remove the bold?) and the UTC time will be inaccurate for almost all our readers. Hut 8.5 10:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, you could put it to local time. Rcsprinter (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't see the point, it will be inaccurate for most people (as most don't log in) and in any case, they can see the time by either looking at their computer clock or a watch or their phone etc... AD 11:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Caching will make this rather pointless. MER-C 13:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I hate websites that tell me the time - they should only tell me when the page I am looking at was last updated, but for the Main Page I see no reason for this. Did you know that most computers actually have clocks already on the taskbar? violet/riga [talk] 13:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I wanted one where you could just go to the main page, and see the date and day as well as time right away. Rcsprinter (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Why? How does this jibe with the main page's purpose?
Regardless, as noted by MER-C, caching would cause the information to be inaccurate much of the time. That's why the idea was was rejected a while back (when a less obtrusive implementation was proposed). —David Levy 17:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
As a registered user you can add one through your preferences. Go to the gadgets page and the third option under appearance adds a clock in the upper right hand corner of all Wikipedia pages. It does not all the date though. GB fan please review my editing 12:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

the news

the palmer report also stressed that israels blockade of the gaza strip was completely legal. i think that that piece of information should be better put. can we change the in the news that the "UN Palmer found Israel's blockade of the gaza strip legal, though it used excessive force during the flotilla raid"--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What ever happened to...

...sounds and lists on the main page, anyway? 86.177.224.179 (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured lists show up on Mondays. I thought we had consensus to do sounds, but I suspect that opportunity was left hanging when the driving force behind it quit Wikipedia. howcheng {chat} 18:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Image for TFA blurb

Can we please add a relevant free use image with the blurb for the TFA on the Main Page? — Cirt (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion? The primary reason why one is not there is usually because nobody has yet thought of a good relevant one to post. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Is the infograph of the route the plane took a bad idea? hbdragon88 (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

On This Day

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not going to happen. See further discussion above at #9/11 main page. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A major omission has taken place in the said section of Today's Wikipedia Main Page - namely, the September 11 attacks. I also believe that the In The News section should feature a news bit saying that it is the tenth anniversary of 9/11. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 07:38, 11 September 2011 (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.

9/11 main page

I've unearthed Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 11, 2011 as the featured article for the 10th anniversary of 9/11, but what DYKs and which TFP will be on the main page that day? HurricaneFan25 14:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

POTD is a panoramic view of Manhattan. howcheng {chat} 16:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, the 10th anniversary really is no different from the 9th was or the 11th will be, except that 10 is a round number. Wikipedia caters to the world, and should not hold its readers captive to a Main Page that overloads them with something news channels will already be doing. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I must say, I'm in agreement with this. — Joseph Fox 18:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Since it seems that TFA and POTD will be devoted to the anniversary, and one or two other sections won't, then it seems we have a nice balance (perhaps more by accident than by design.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The 11th anniversary might be slightly more interesting as it will actually fall on the same day of the week. --Khajidha (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
POTD is really more tangential. The attacks aren't even mentioned in the blurb. howcheng {chat} 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, since 9/11 is on TFA, it will be left off OTD. howcheng {chat} 01:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Apparently there is a DYK nom that would go well with 9/11. I have set it for morning New York time. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I thought a comparison to what we did at the time would be interesting. The copy of Wikipedia's main page about a month after 9/11/2001 looked like this: [5]. I couldn't get one closer to the date although Wayback Machine claims to have one from two weeks after 9/11. Many of the articles shown in the Special feature section were later spun off into the separate Memorial Wiki, although some were subsequently recreated on Wikipedia. The limitations of the software used at the time badly fractured and even lost parts of the page histories. Rmhermen (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
What a bunch of rationalizing bullsh*t. How the attacks can be left off the "On this day" feature cannot be explained except by anti-American bias. Look at this statement from one of the rationalizers above: "Wikipedia caters to the world". Yeah, then I suppose the German invasion on September 1, 1939 doesn't warrant mentioning on "On This Day" because that was a local Polish event. You're not fooling anyone, jackwads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.189.203 (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Events mentions as FA or TFP are always excluded from OTD. We have done the same for September 11 2001 and several other events for the past few years. In fact, we generally try to avoid having the events as both FA and TFP so September 11 2001 is special in that respect. By ignoring the fact we are discussing a policy which has been consistently applied over the past few years, you appear to be exposing your own biases. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, it should be noted that Patriot Day is listed in the OTD section. —David Levy 14:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I know we've had plenty of discussions and complaints before, e.g. it seems to come up very often for September 11 and I also came across discussions relating to D-day and Pearl Harbour. There are probably more but the Hiroshima bombing was the one I came across which seems to involve an event least likely to result in claims of edit:anti US bias due to excluding it from OTD. I'm not sure if that satisfies 98. As I said, I'm sure there are discussions I didn't come across, it's not something easy to search (that I could think of). More significantly, I'm sure there are also many times when we have applied the policy when complaints have not come even though I suspect the events have been relatively significant to a large group of people. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Imagine if 3,000 of your people were massacred in a single morning. How would you feel?Prussian725 (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sheeesh, there's already 1)the Featured Article American Airlines Flight 11; 2) Bob Beckwith as the lead in Did You Know, together with a photograph of him and President Bush at Ground Zero; 3) Patriot Day in On This Day and 4) the Featured Picture, the stitched panoramic view of western Manhattan taken in 2009 that shows the site of the WTC and the new Freedom Tower under construction. That's FOUR mentions on the main page, more than enough, IMHO. Every news source on the web is saturated with 9/11. Wikipedia doesn't have to follow suit. And by the way, User:Prussian725, 10% of those who died on 9/11 were not 'yours', they were nationals from other countries.Jasper33 (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we fully cover the anniversary, also History of the New York Jets is TFA for the 12th (starting 8 PM NY Time on the 11th). The article mentions the Jets' unwillingness to play right after 9/11.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The 9/11 attacks get the most prominent real estate on the Main Page and people still complain that a tiny mention is missing from OTD? Sheesh, people. I suspect that the only way these people will be satisfied is if TFA, ITN, OTD, DYK, and POTD are all 9/11-related, even then they'll complain that we haven't changed our logo or something. howcheng {chat} 18:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think shoehorning it into the other areas is rather silly; however, the only place I would expect to see it is under OTD. I don't really understand the decision to place 911 related material in a bunch of other places and then not mention the anniversary in the one spot where it ought to fit naturally. Dragons flight (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
In the past, there have been instances in which content was "shoehorned" into various sections (i.e. exceptions were made to include material that otherwise wouldn't have qualified). This is not such an instance. American Airlines Flight 11 is a legitimate featured article, and no special allowances were made. (Scheduling featured articles for specific anniversaries is routine.)
What's the benefit of duplicating information already present in the page's most prominent section (thereby depriving something else of a slot)? —David Levy 19:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, the right hand is currently too short compared to the left (on my browser at least) so there is room to put it in without displacing anything else. Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Main page really needs to be updated

This site looks like Google in 1993. Remove the borders around the words "Today's featured article", "In the news", etc. lighten the top box with the portals, add a light gray background on the bottom, and lighten the color in general, and I like how the history/edit tabs have gradients, it would be nice if they had gradients throughout the main page. Also, I'd like to see rounded lines around the main page, unlike the current 90-degree angled ones. HurricaneFan25 19:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look in the archives and stuff since this is suggested over and over but nobody can agree on anything so we stick with this. — Joseph Fox 22:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Lets add some rounded corners, Facebook "Like" buttons and noisy flash animations, too! Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC).
Agreed it looks really dated but nothing is going to change as people have different views on what constitutes an attractive main page. For instance you say lighten, in my own personal view we should replace the pastel colours and general wish washy appearance with something a little bolder/striking.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

On this day...

The "national day" of Catalonia should be removed from the On this day... section here in the English Wikipedia. A regional holiday is of no interest whatsoever to the English-speaking world, let alone a worldwide audience. --Belchman (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually going to remove it for a different reason: it's a stub, and stub articles are not permitted. In terms of your reasoning, however, we feature several instances of "regional events", particularly for U.S. states. The one I can recall off the top of my head is Casimir Pulaski Day, but there were others as well. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) In my humble opinion, regional events related to US states should be allowed here, since the United States is a major English-speaking country. --Belchman (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
In my not so humble opinion, that is complete bullshit. Our goal here is to promote learning of all the world's topics, and the fact that one region speaks a language you don't should have no impact on the decision to run it or not. It's a big world out there. You should read about it some day. Resolute 17:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Well said. —David Levy 18:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
one regions speaks a language you don't Being Catalan myself I think you just made a fool of yourself. One just has to check how the English language suffers in this encyclopedia in Catalonia-related articles to see that no-one cares about Catalonia-related topics among our audience. --Belchman (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, as a native English speaker, I don't appreciate you trying to tell me what I should be interested in reading. I will make that decision for myself, thanks. And your claim to be Catalan makes your xenophobic argument all the more disappointing. Resolute 18:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
How's anything I have said here xenophobic, honestly? Also, it would be xenophobic towards myself or what? Now, _that_ would be interesting. --Belchman (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
People typically write about subjects with which they're familiar. That doesn't mean that they don't wish to learn about others.
We seek to counter systemic bias, not embrace it. —David Levy 18:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
If that were true, the English language would be OK in those articles, since native speakers would read them, find their language butchered, and some of those readers would eventually fix the countless errors. --Belchman (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Poorly written articles often go largely ignored. It's a vicious cycle (and one not limited to subjects pertaining to countries in which English doesn't predominate). —David Levy 18:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Besides that, I've seen the state of many Malaysia related articles and they're often not pretty. This is even though for I suspect a fair proportion of Malaysians, the English wikipedia is the only one they ever visit. And English is commonly the language of business (see Malaysian English). And particularly on the internet, English or some combination of primarily English with Malay and possibly Mandarin and/or a variety of Chinese dialects or possibly Tamil thrown in (see Manglish) is what is often used (well Manglish is probably part of the problem). I'm not saying that things for Catalans are similar, simply that the idea if the articles are bad it means no one is reading them is flawed. Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah like Ka Hae Hawai'i Day (Flag Day) in Hawaii, Pioneer Day in Utah Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/July, Flag Day in Quebec Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/January, St Piran's Day in Cornwall, Casimir Pulaski Day in Illinois Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March, Father Damien Day in Hawaii, Emancipation Day in Washington, D.C. (who cares about slaves?), Patriots' Day (Massachusetts and Maine, 2011) Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/April etc. I wonder if we should even include stuff like Serfs Emancipation Day in Tibet (March), Commonwealth Constitution Day in Puerto Rico (July), National Day in Minorca (1287) (January) Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Most of those are related to English-speaking countries and therefore should be allowed, in my opinion. --Belchman (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus to give that much emphasis to English speaking countries, nor even consensus what an English speaking country is, so I would say no. And you said 'A regional holiday is of no interest whatsoever to the English-speaking world, let alone a worldwide audience.', nothing about regional holidays being okay if they were from regions which speak English until it was pointed out there are plenty of other examples. And none of that fits in to the worldwide audience part. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
There must be a limit in notability for inclusion in the main page, and the Catalonia day is certainly well below all those examples for our English-speaking (be it as a first or second language) audience. --Belchman (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
As I said, there's no consensus to give that much emphasis to the English speaking world. And I also think you need to decide if you are interested in an English speaking audience or a worldwide audience since you talked about both but are not referring only to an English speaking audience. There's no reason a worldwide audience would be more interested in something of interest to the English speaking world. Nor is there any evidence that English speakers are mostly interested in stuff happening in English speaking regions which are not their own. (I'm personally more interested in some variety like national dya of Catalonia and Serfs Emancipation Day in Tibet then I am 10 different days in various US states.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
BTW your claim on Catalonia day is nonsense. According to List of countries by English-speaking population, Spain has 12,500,000 English speakers, the 14th highest in the world. How many of those are in Catalonia and how interested other Spanish people are in Catalonian national day I don't know but it's a moot point. You earlier defended the inclusion of US state articles based on the number of English speakers in the US, not the number of English speakers in whatever state you are referring to although perhaps you're going to change your mind again. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The Catalonia day is already highlighted in the Catalan language Wikipedia, where a majority of their readers might be interested in knowing that. It isn't even highlighted in the Spanish language Wikipedia, so go figure why it was displayed here. --Belchman (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia written in English, not one intended to focus primarily on topics widely familiar to or popular among English speakers.
Under our guidelines, a subject cannot be notable for speakers of one language and non-notable or less notable for speakers of another language. (Our assessment might differ from that of another language's Wikipedia, but we won't deem something "notable for them but not for us.")
And for the record, I am interested in reading about observances from countries other than mine (the United States). An encyclopedia is much more useful to a reader when it provides information that he/she didn't possess beforehand. —David Levy 18:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The Catalan day is given undue weight then, because thousands of regional days are utterly ignored. --Belchman (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a different matter. —David Levy 18:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Undue weight doesn't really apply to the selection of items for the main page although we do aim for variety and some degree of balance. In the case of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries, as explained there and by others we do require decent articles so are limited by our article supply (and hence why this item was correctly removed). This includes some cases when what some would consider relatively significant days e.g. Guru Nanak Jayanti are excluded because the the article (even Eid ul-Fitr was temporarily excluded). We also generally aim for no more then 3 holidays/observances per day (not counting ones "that do not appear on the same date each year") so may exclude less significant days if we have 3 (although I think we may include more then 3 if it's felt it would be wrong to exclude any). A look at the monthly SA/OTDs will show there are still plenty of cases without 3, sometimes without any. If you want to add a regional holiday/observance for these and there is a decent article and it has some significance it would generally be welcome (although please Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). Given our main page goals, we also do like some variety and balance if possible although that's more important for the historical event section. As you can see, we currently only have 2 (Grandparents day is not on the same date every year) for today so there's no reason not to have one more. BTW, other then regional holidays/observances, we also have non regional stuff like Red Hat Society Day and Pi Approximation Day (which isn't the same thing as Pi Day which we also have but seems slightly more significant so I didn't mention) and International Beer Day and OneWebDay and National Hug Day; of which I wonder how many people are aware of or care about and the last 1 is trademarked. As well as various UN related days like International Day of the World's Indigenous People, Red Hand Day and World Tourism Day which may related to significant causes and may be recognised on the day by governments and the UN but again I wonder how many people are actually aware or care about them. I'm not actually suggesting these be removed, I think this variety is useful but I even less understand your concentration on regional holidays/observances. P.S. To some extent it also depends on what people have added to SA/OTD. I noticed a lot of Christian festivals and Japanese observances and possibly more than I expected Thai ones in the months I looked at. I can't be sure, but it's possible these were added by someone who was interested in these particular holidays/observences. I know we had a lot of Vietnamese stuff in the historical events section at one stage because they were added. The best solution if you are concerned about balance is to add more stuff from other places or non regional observences, not to remove ones which qualify. P.S. As my final comment, the specific reason Catalonian national day was there was because it was added by User:Llull in 2004 [6] who yes is a Catalan, apparently with a basic level of English. Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps because we aren't the Spanish language wikipedia and have our own policies and criteria? Nil Einne (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Further evidence your claims on Catalonia are unsupported by the facts. According to [7] "22.4% of Catalonia's population aged over 14 have a full range of English language skills". From [8], it's easy to work out Catalonia's population over 14 is 6,270,148. 22.4% of that is 1,404,513. That's of course is higher then the total (individual) population of 11 US states, including Hawaii (also Maine and Washington D.C. but the ony Maine on in the list I found from the 6-7 months I looked at was combined with Massachusetts and my comment on slaves was obviously sarcastic, I hope it didn't cause offence). List of U.S. states and territories by population Nil Einne (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess you meant "higher than" rather than "higher then". Maybe it's true that us foreigners speak better English that some native ignoramus. That said, you still haven't answered why the completely irrelevant Catalonia day is given undue weight here compared to thousands of other regional holidays —which is my main concern. --Belchman (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
1. I find it humorous that you accidentally typed "that" for "than" in the following sentence.
2. Please refrain from engaging in personal attacks. Referring to a fellow editor as an "ignoramus" is unacceptable.
3. Your "main concern" seems to change continually. —David Levy 18:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm a native speaker as English has always been the language I spoke at home (and with most friends). However my language of instruction at school for all subjects (technically anyway, English may have been used on occasion in some subjects and in interactions with teachers) was Malay until form 5, with seperate English lessons. And I'm not sure if all my English teachers, particularly at primary school, had much better English than me. (And the general standard of English instruction including the amount of time devoted was obviously less than in countries where English is the native language.) Perhaps that's partially why I'm a 'native ignoramus', perhaps I'm just lazy or stupid. Either way I don't really care about your comments in this instance, but do agree with DL you should not make personal attacks in general. As to your 'undue weight' concerns, I've now replied above. Although as with DL I find your inability to decide what is your main concern frustrating so am unlikely to be replying further. Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
What exactly are "seperate" English lessons? --Belchman (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion related to the MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Main page header design

Gosh doesn't the header bar of Naturalpedia look much better than ours?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah, looks shite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.94.16 (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have added back the above comment from an anon. It may not be the most WP:civil way to express the opinion but it doesn't seem that bad nor and looks to be a genuine comment from an unblocked user on the issue so I don't see any reason for removal nor was any offered in the removal so perhaps it was an accident . Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Some of the interwikis are prettier than ours - the French main page is very nice to look at (though perhaps with less information). violet/riga [talk] 13:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Ugh, the French one is far too busy for me; lots of different colours and logos. The Naturalpedia banner is OK, albeit rather simplistic, though the rest of their front page is horrible. Modest Genius talk 15:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It wouldn't be hard to be a better look than ours, which is crappy. On the matter of the French main page, I agree with MG: it's just as crowded and overloaded with grey text as ours is, and fails just as miserably to optimise the use of images, now commonplace on good websites. (BTW, a quick-as-a-flash improvement could be made to ours by adopting the phase-out blue headings (the Italians and Swedes have used it for a while, and now the French). Tony (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Someone proposed these gradients in the headings [9] but it wasn't very popular Talk:Main Page/Archive 154#The page is sooo 2000's. Gradients have also been discussed or proposed and opposed in other instances Talk:Main Page/Archive 159#Visual update?, Talk:Main Page/Archive 152#Visual redesign of the Main Page, Talk:Main Page/Archive 97#Look of the Main Page. Suffice it to say, I think it's clear not everyone agrees it's a 'quick-as-a-flash improvement' Nil Einne (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Back to the header. There should be some way to add a little color or imagery to it without much controversy, considering it has a lot of empty white space. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

White space? Maybe on a large, wide screen monitor but not on a small one. Current consensus is that the Main page should be optimized to fit on most screens regardless of monitor resolution (see also WP:ACCESS#Resolution). That is why the width of the two main page columns are set to percentages instead of a specific number of pixels. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember seeing the changed Wikipedia layout for the first time not too long back, and thinking, "What have they done?". And now looking at old archived main pages, I can't believe I used to like all the lines underneath the hyperlinks etc. What I'm saying is is a lot of people hate changes when they first come in, and then grow to like them - see nearly ever change to the layout of FaceBook for a further example. Ultimately, I'm trying to say I'm not sure it really matters... Also, is this the place for this discussion? I thought this was just for errors in today's main page... Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm very new to this...) LacsiraxAriscal (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, this is the correct place to discuss the design of the Main Page, and related issues (discussion of the sections appearing on the main page, which sections should appear on the main page, and accusations of bias in coverage are also common). However, WP:Main Page/Errors is the correct place to discuss errors in the various sections appearing on the MP. It's transcluded above making it appear as part of this page. Reporting an error here (instead of there) may (or may not) lead to being pointed there. Regards. (e • nn • en!) 04:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. ;) LacsiraxAriscal (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally prefer underlined hyperlinks and have changed my CSS file to do so. Having underlines makes it easier to distinguish United States President from United States President. howcheng {chat} 23:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture sizes

Howard, nice to have the POTD at the size it deserves. Featured-list people, don't you think the FL pic could be ... double the size? Tony (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That the featured list's image could be larger (from a technical standpoint) doesn't mean that it should be larger (from an editorial standpoint).
As in the other sections (excepting that of the featured picture), the featured list section's image isn't the main content, so I see no valid reason for it to substantially exceed the others in size. (I realize that you want to increase all of the images' sizes, but that's a separate matter.)
The community approved this layout, described as containing "a small, right-aligned image." —David Levy 16:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't get too used to it. The aspect ratio of the sugar-apple picture makes it so that at the standard 250px size, it would be way too small, and that's why it's being shown larger. howcheng {chat} 23:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I support this case-by-case approach. —David Levy 23:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, for me (IE 8), the "Today's featured picture" box is about a hundred miles wide, with the whole of "A stitched panoramic view ... the Empire State" on one line before any wrap occurs. The picture itself seems reasonbly sized, with a horizontal scroll bar, centred relative to the box but appearing well off the visible page (i.e. I have to scroll the page far to the right to see it). 86.160.213.4 (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep - same for me on IE8 too. Don't feel confident to fix it though. Pedro :  Chat  08:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Please report problems at Template talk:Wide image so that the template creators can attempt a fix. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure that's the best page howcheng, given the last edit to it was over six months ago. Nevertherless fixing it is barely worthwhile now. I suppose that as it's a Sunday we have less activity on en.wiki, but it's a shame that for one of the most used browsers by version we managed to bugger up the main page image. Pedro :  Chat  19:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The people who work on the template are all fairly active, so I presume one of them will be able to address any technical issues you may be experiencing without too much delay. howcheng {chat} 16:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing content

Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features, the links in "Other areas of Wikipedia" to the community portal, local embassy, site news, and village pump should be removed. I'd be happy to do so, but I wanted to make a note of this change (which currently has consensus) before doing so. Any further objections to the link removal? –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features, the "Wikipedia languages" section at the bottom of the main page should be removed or, at least, trimmed. This has iffier consensus than the link removals discussed in the section above; would anyone like to comment on the section and whether it should be kept as-is, removed altogether, or shortened to include fewer languages? Note the sidebar of the main page lists many languages of Wikipedia already. –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This was/is a straw poll, conceived as a means of deriving a rough idea of what goals to pursue when drafting a proposed main page redesign in the future. The results are inherently non-binding.
The poll attracted a tiny amount of participation (particularly in comparison to the main page feedback obtained in the past), in part because of the opinion that it was fundamentally flawed. Numerous editors (myself included) consciously declined to take part, criticising the use of a poll format (which encourages ballot-casting instead of discussion), the relatively low value of the data solicited (because the main page's elements don't exist in total isolation from each other and cannot simply be inserted/removed in a modular fashion, let alone on the basis of a numerical tally), and the likelihood that some would mistake the questions for binding referenda whose results were to be implemented immediately (which evidently has occurred). —David Levy 18:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
So what would be an effective way to go about discussing changes to the main page? –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
We need to actually discuss the matter (instead of lining up to cast ballots), focusing on the entire main page (instead of its individual components in isolation).
It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that certain elements be added or removed, but we must consider how these changes affect the main page as a whole. We also need to make such a determination not based on how many people like/dislike something, but by weighing its overall benefit to the community against the benefit of its absence. (For example, if a link is very important to a minority of users, this benefit might outweigh a small clutter reduction for the majority.)
When such concerns have been adequately addressed, we can begin working toward the creation of a new main page draft, incorporating any cosmetic changes in the process. (This, of course, entails further discussion and considerable revision.) After everything's been worked out and consensus has been reached among those involved, then we can seek to confirm the resultant design via a simple vote, which will attract far more participation. (In 2006, more than 900 people commented.) —David Levy 21:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

How can you make gumbo today's featured article and not mention okra?

Really bizarre that the word okra does not even appear in the main-page blurb. --Trovatore (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Why bother? Okra is not essential. You can use Roux instead of okra in making gumbo. --50.101.164.190 (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not real gumbo. --Trovatore (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not Okrapedia, sorry, ;-) if you think it should be in the blurb, that's the articles "Fault" not the main pages. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It got added. howcheng {chat} 23:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
In this particular case, it seems the article [10] was not at fault, rather I guess the detail didn't seem important to the person who wrote the blurb so it was left out. Nil Einne (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the Day

Can I just say that I love the picture of the day and find it a complete coincidence that I was walking up Catbells yesterday when I was in the Lakes, brilliant coincidence and beautiful picture ! (Preston North End Dan (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Battle of Kaiapit

was not in 1946 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.7.27 (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed by GB fan. Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Missingno Is awesome, so quit bitching. Besides, it's just a damn article. I think you guys have a sense of unwarranted self importance.

Seriously - you're putting an article about an obscure glitch from a mediocre 1990s video game for kids as a "featured article"? What next? Why not put an article on the main page about "Peter Griffin's underpants" or "Theories about the sexual identity of Batman and Robin"? This isn't "Nerdipedia" - this supposed to be an serious encyclopedia, not a collection of fan-cruft. What a disgrace... there shouldn't be a "missingno" article at all - let alone on the main page!--01:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.193.118.126 (talk)

I was wondering how long it would take for the complaints to start. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. Personally, I regard this as an excellent demonstration of Wikipedia's comprehensive nature. The site would be far less successful if we settled for covering only the same subjects as Britannica instead of aspiring to catch 'em all. —David Levy 02:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
It happens to be a Pokémon computer glitch that has been studied by multiple sociologists as well, making it more interesting and notable than most computer glitches in my opinion. Also Mr. David Levy, would that be Ditto (Pokémon)? ;) かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
That was an accidental bonus joke!  :) —David Levy 16:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, per the lovely suggestion, anyone want to bring Homosexuality in the Batman franchise up to FA? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I could care less about a Pokemon glitch mob either, but that is irrelevant to the purpose of Today's Featured Article. Articles are judged on quality, not popularity. And if the article meets standards, it deserves its day on the main page, just like every other FA. Additionally, I have written five TFA articles in my time, and this article generates more page views on average than four of them, while the fifth had a very similar number of views last month. Most people may not care about a Pokemon character, but many do. Just the same as a hockey player, Canadian hero or any other topic you can imagine. They all warrant their turn. Resolute 03:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm just surprised that such a short article can get to be a FA, but great to see a wide range of FAs appearing. Off to start the article on Peter Griffin's underpants. Ridcully Jack (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I think some of the tropical cyclone FAs (another common area of complaint) tend to be short too. Ultimately if the article is very well writen and sufficiently comprehensive for the topic and can't be merged elsewhere and whatever else is needed then it probably should be an FA (although that isn't really a discussion that concerns the main page anyway). Nil Einne (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that every video game FA gets flack? Last time I recall someone going through each month's of FA to demonstrate that there was not a video game bias or over-representation of video game FAs over the past year on TFA. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That was probably me. IIRC the average seemed to be slightly over 1 a month. Of course, if you believe the article shouldn't exist and no article of that sort should be on the main page I guess even 1 a year is too much. Nil Einne (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I remember a brief time, I think either late last year or early this, when there seemed to be a game-related featured article every two weeks. (Rather like the polar exploration articles more recently.) That was a bit much, but it only lasted a couple of months. No Pokemon fan I, but a distinct social culture which grows up around a coding glitch is absolutely fascinating! - Tenebris 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Video game FAs make up 4.24% of all FAs (143/3374) and show up on the main page about once/month (3.29%, 12/365), which makes them actually underrepresented on the main page. --PresN 23:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest creating a form letter template for TFA complaints, just to save time and effort for IP users that have an opinion about what goes up on the main page.--WaltCip (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternately, why don't we just ban certain featured topics from ending up on the main page entirely?--WaltCip (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably because there is no benefit to doing that. Resolute 15:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Precisely. Also, the point that the original author brought up regarding this being a "serious encyclopedia"; I've checked the Five Pillars as well as their associated policies but I find nothing to support the concept that we are attempting to be so overly discriminatory that we cannot provide information on subtopics that are notable and verifiable. We are not a paper encyclopedia, and we are not Encyclopedia Britannica. Careful analysis of Wikipedia:Notability also shows that there is no set objective standard that says we cannot publish articles like these. MissingNo, for one, has no less than 18 references, many of which are from very reliable sources.--WaltCip (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So when are the 'excess of Mainpage articles on (UK/US/sport/other topic of uninteres)' and/or the 'high squick factor/not in front of the children/Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' discussions starting? Should there be a WikiVanilla Main page from which all the above topics are banned? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah... I miss these tirades. About time I nominated another article about cricket for TFA. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Shame we can't rerun Fighting in ice hockey. That was a fun TFA! Resolute 16:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Mr. 108.193.x.x in that the article in question gives Wikipedia a rather goofy look. --Belchman (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more 108. What an embarrassment. Vranak (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not usually given to agreeing with TFA complaints, but that is indeed one of the weakest FAs I've ever seen - not because of the subject matter, but the lack of content. It's very short (six paragraphs of body, plus two of lead), has only one image, and the references + navigation box at the bottom are longer than the rest of the article put together. That's hardly an example of our best work. I'm amazed it passed FAC at all, let alone without significant opposition. Modest Genius talk 22:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
In your assessment, what content is missing? —David Levy 22:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
On this particular topic, I'm not aware of any particular content which is missing (never having heard of the subject until it appeared as TFA). However, that's the not the point I was making. I suppose my issue is with the FA criteria themselves if they allow very short articles to be featured. Whilst it's nice that we have a decent article on the topic, if there's so little to be said about the topic across the entire corpus of reliable sources, it probably shouldn't be allowed to become an FA. Of course I don't want things to move towards any kind of 'importance' criterion, but nor should it be possible to split a tiny sub-topic off another article (here the article on the game itself) and drive this up to FA by virtue of its incredibly narrow scope. DYK has a length requirement, why can't FA, so long as it's sensible set? (maybe 5k words would work) Modest Genius talk 19:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The determination of whether a subject warrants a dedicated article is separate. In this instance, the community evidently decided that the MissingNo. article's subject does.
DYK has a length requirement because its focus is article expansion. TFA's focus is overall quality. A minimum length would encourage editors to artificially pad otherwise excellent articles. —David Levy 20:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Any overly-padded article would fail FAC on the quality of the prose. And I'm not saying that the article should not exist, just that it shouldn't qualify as an FA. The problem is with the FA criteria, not their application in this case. Modest Genius talk 15:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Any overly-padded article would fail FAC on the quality of the prose.
Exactly. You advocate a setup in which certain articles never could pass, no matter what.
Nonetheless, it's likely that some editors would engage in misguided attempts to satisfy the proposed minimum length requirement, thereby lowering the articles' quality.
And I'm not saying that the article should not exist, just that it shouldn't qualify as an FA.
Apart from lists (whose disparate format justifies a separate classification), if an article exists (i.e. the community hasn't determined that it shouldn't exist), it can become a featured article (assuming the availability of reliable sources, the absence of which means that the community erred in permitting the article's existence). To change that would fundamentally alter the FA designation's nature and discourage editors from improving countless articles.
The problem is with the FA criteria, not their application in this case.
I disagree that this is a problem with the FA criteria, and I unreservedly oppose the concept of making any non-list articles inherently ineligible to reach FA status.
It is problematic if the community is keeping articles that shouldn't exist (which, in some cases, theoretically could pass FAC), but that falls outside the FA process. —David Levy 16:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I disagree that the set of 'all articles which could exist, satisfying notability requirements' and 'all articles which could theoretically be able to pass FAC' should be the same as each other. But I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Modest Genius talk 17:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I assume that we also agree that the addition of a minimum length requirement — whether good or bad — would be a major change. —David Levy 18:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, more a moderate evolution than a major change, since it would affect a very small fraction of existing FAs. But it certainly would not be a minor change, on ground of principle rather than effect. Modest Genius talk 15:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I view the situation as more complicated than that. It's true that relatively few featured articles would be demoted as a result, but it would be impossible to gauge the the overall impact going forward.
By providing our highest level of recognition, the FA process encourages editors to improve articles. Many never pass FAC, but their quality is increased nonetheless. The institution of a minimum length requirement would disincentivize improvements to short articles (apart from those that actually should be longer). As previously noted, it also would encourage misguided efforts to artificially pad them (thereby reducing their quality).
And yes, the change would alter the the community's principles by essentially declaring that we officially regard short articles to be inherently lower in quality.
You note that "a very small fraction of existing FAs" fall below the cutoff that you envision, so I'm curious as to why you feel that it's particularly necessary. Even if I agreed that it would be beneficial to weed out that handful of articles (which I don't), I don't see how this would be a positive tradeoff. —David Levy 16:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with MG, this simply isn't a great article. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
In what area(s) does it need improvement? (If the answer is that it should be longer, I again ask what content is missing.) —David Levy 23:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The point about length (which I made on the wiki-en-l mailing list earlier) is that it short-changes readers who have come to expect a decent-sized read from the daily featured article. There are some sections of longer articles that are longer than this article alone. Consider a reader who came to Wikipedia for the first time and clicked through to this article. They might end up thinking that all featured articles are this short. It is a matter of expectations. If readers come to expect the daily featured article to be a decent length, then that should be taken into consideration. Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Yea basically sums up my thoughts. Hot Stop talk-contribs 06:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
You wrote that "this simply isn't a great article." What would make it one? Is it your position that an article cannot be "great" unless it's long? —David Levy 07:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I probably didn't chose my words correctly. I felt the article was too short to be an FA. But to answer you're other question there isn't anything I know of that was left off. I'm not really an expert on the subject. Hot Stop talk-contribs 07:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. —David Levy 13:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
That isn't "the point" made by Modest Genius, who appears to suggest that the article's length is indicative of poor quality.
I have a much easier time understanding your point, but I disagree with your use of the term "decent length." An article should be whatever length is needed to convey the encyclopedic information about its subject. I see nothing embarrassing about an article that does so in a concise manner (instead of being padded with fancruft).
Regarding "expectations," let's keep in mind that any featured article is of little or no interest to a large segment of readers. In this instance, why would the article disappoint someone who wishes to read about the video game glitch described therein? Barring the omission of essential information (which no one has asserted), what expectations does it fail to meet? —David Levy 07:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that short length indicated poor quality. My point was that it indicated poor quantity. I think both should be required for FAs (and of course 'too long' is also poor quantity). Modest Genius talk 19:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. In my view, an article is "too short" or "too long" if it contains significantly less or more text than is needed to cover the subject in accordance with Wikipedia's content standards. If this can be accomplished relatively succinctly, that's the proper way to do it (and I don't see how this prevents the article from being "an example of our best work"). —David Levy 20:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no problems in general with that article being a featured article (though I'd have to read it more closely to see if there were any specific concerns). The problem I have is more that it was put on the main page (I haven't looked yet to see if it was nominated at that page for TFA (today's featured article) nominations, or was just selected). I agree that an article should be whatever length it needs to be, but if you re-read what I said you will see that I said "readers who have come to expect a decent-sized read from the daily featured article". The qualification there of 'daily featured article' is an important one. The expectations that may have not been met here are those of the regular reader of the TFA, which may still go out by RSS as well, I'm not sure). Imagine, if you will, a subset of readers who regularly read the TFA. It is those readers who may have an expectation that when they settle down during their lunch-break, or at home in the evening, or take a printout to read on the train (or browse here on their iPad), that there will be a decent-sized article for them to read. You can just imagine someone with a printout turning the page over and wondering where the rest of the article had gone. They might even ask for their money back... :-) And if people say "but regular readers will know that there are other FAs to go and read", I return to my point above about what a first-time reader might think if this was the first FA they saw. They might not bother to go to the FA archives and might presume that all FAs are this short. This is why I think the FAs that are put on the main page should have a length that falls inside a reasonable range around the average length, whatever that is. I might even say the same about really long FAs. Carcharoth (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I realize that you're referring specifically to TFA (a distinction not drawn by Modest Genius, who's "amazed [the article] passed FAC at all"), which is why your argument makes much more sense to me.
As I noted, the section inherently fails to satisfy large segments of visitors on a daily basis. I'm confidant that the type of complaint that kicked off this discussion is far more prevalent than concerns about an article's length are. I'm also confident that the section has far more casual observers (those who read featured articles of specific interest to them) than daily loyalists.
I acknowledge that users with a daily routine of reading TFA (irrespective of the subject) might have been disappointed to find an article of below-average length, but there likely were as many or more users (between the TFA loyalists and casual observers) who were delighted by the article's atypical, unexpected subject matter. Both groups, of course, probably were dwarfed by those who ridiculed the notion of "putting an article about an obscure glitch from a mediocre 1990s video game for kids as a 'featured article'."
I find it unlikely that first-time readers would "presume that all FAs are this short." More importantly, I don't believe that the article would come across as distressingly short to someone lacking a preconceived notion of a featured article's length.
On the plus side, including such articles in the TFA section advertises that an article needn't always be long to meet Wikipedia's standards of high quality. This strikes me as a good way to encourage involvement from potential editors (who otherwise might assume that their work won't be recognized unless it results in an arbitrary quantity of text). It also seems like a good way to discourage padding articles with filler (e.g. the aforementioned fancruft). —David Levy 13:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
You make some good points, but on the issue of length, I would have half-expected to find this whole article serving as a section within a larger article. Or at least that it was linked from other articles more than it actually is. It appears to be only linked from Template:Pokémon and a few other pages such as glitch and the 'see also' list at Data buffer. It appears not to be linked from Pokémon Red and Blue, though it is linked from the 'Codes and glitches' section of Pokémon (video game series). This is a classic example of how a massive template like Template:Pokémon swamps the few links from within the actual text of articles (rather than from navigational footer templates of which that template is an example). If anyone does know how to work out how many incoming non-template links there are for this article, please let me know. It is not mentioned at Pokémon. It is not mentioned at List of Pokémon. As far as I can tell, outside of the template, this article is only mentioned in three other articles (Pokémon (video game series), glitch, and data buffer). It could easily be merged to the 'Codes and glitches' subsection of Pokémon (video game series) without any loss at all, as there are only two incoming links from glitch and data buffer. That should give you an idea of how isolated this article is from the rest of the encyclopedia. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a merger would be sensible. As I noted in response to Modest Genius, such a determination falls outside the FA process. Unless and until the community decides that an article shouldn't exist, its quality is assessed based upon what it should/shouldn't contain if it does exist. —David Levy 04:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • As the one who nominated the article at TFAR, I should say that I considered the length and discussion indepth enough. As noted above by DL, not all FAs are articles that take half an hour to read. IIRC, The Volcano (British Columbia) was our last "small" FA run in TFA (it was the last one I saw, at least), and that was last year. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Its no coincidence though that articles on sub topics of non traditional encyclopedic topics get the most complaints, Articles on subjects with subjects such as video games characters/glitches, cartoon/fictional characters and TV episodes especially if short often attract questions. I know of several hundred GAs which encyclopedically have far more merit than this article and would not pass FA. The subject is questionable but discussion amongst sociologists as claimed is at least something. The fact though that such article get promoted to FA illustrates that technical soundness is considered more important than encyclopedic merit, which is one aspect of FAC I've always disagreed with. One might argue though that the article is as comprehensive enough about the subject as it could possibly be so is appropriate as a listed FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
"Encyclopedic merit" is an inherently POV viewpoint given the scope Wikipedia carries. Resolute 17:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed it is, but not if viewed traditionally. The argument will always be "we are not a traditional encyclopedia" so it gives us an excuse for cruft and coverage of topics which even a pre-pubescent fanboy would be amazed at.. However technically brilliant the article is though, the questions must be asked "how valuable is this particular article in an encyclopedia in providing knowledge and educating people" and "would wikipedia greatly miss it if this article was non existent." That is how I would assess encyclopedic merit. Of course the argument is that to make such judgements on subject matter is POV and that every subject, even theMoustache of Ned Flanders must be treated with equal respect and consideration encyclopedically. I guess you'd disagree then that some subjects are inherently more encyclopedic (and more important) than others? Anyway.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia's ability to cover non-traditional encyclopedic topics is one of its key attributes. Judging "encyclopedic merit"/FA-worthiness based on a subject's perceived importance would relegate non-traditional articles to second-class status, greatly reducing their prominence and discouraging editors from creating/improving them. And because the pool of potential FAs would be greatly narrowed, the bar would need to be lowered accordingly, resulting in FAs of lower quality and disincentivizing further improvement to those articles too.
No one has asserted that "every subject" warrants a Wikipedia article. The hypothetical "Moustache of Ned Flanders" article obviously would be deleted or redirected.
If an article is kept, it ideally will be improved, recognized and showcased. Whether it's about a world leader or a cartoon character, there's no better way to demonstrate Wikipedia's comprehensive nature and encourage continued improvement. —David Levy 18:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I see no "encyclopedic value" in an article on a law firm, but you recently took one to GA status. Value is in the eye of the beholder. Resolute 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I ask you to remove that comment and refrain from making this personal. I agree David to an extent, that's the value of wikipedia is the sheer possibility of topics, but some in my view appear to really exploit this open possibility! But I've seen some articles on barely unencyclopedic subjects with great articles written about them. This article is not an example of our best work, that's my point, rather than solely just disapproving of the topic. Really notable topics in my view should have more sources available.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I still don't know what it means for something to be "encyclopedic". Could someone define that term for me?--WaltCip (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
"Encyclopedia appropriate" I mean. Work it out. Compare minor Pokemon issues to something like History of China or something. Something intellectual I guess it means, or what you could imagine finding in a traditional encyclopedia book. Look there's no point arguing about this, it is unlikely to change status and wikipedia is unlikely to change as a repository of popular culture so just forget about it. I've tried to delete fictional cruft lists and related articles in the past and they are always kept. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Then the community obviously disagrees with your definitions of "cruft" and "encyclopedia appropriate." —David Levy 19:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Not really, the vast majority of people who voted keep were members of the anime project. From what I recall barely anybody neutral commented. I'm pretty sure there are many people here who if they had there own way they'd eliminate articles on cartoon characters and in universe fiction. This article of course is fine and fair enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
If your account is accurate, it reflects a serious problem beyond this discussion's scope. —David Levy 20:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I nominated a Seiyu of dubious notability once and nobody voted keep but for an angry anime project who turned up in numbers and it ended up being kept. Same thing happened with in universe lists of GI Joe characters. The GI Joe project turned up and forced a withdrawal. Sure this happens frequently.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
That's quite alarming and should be addressed in an appropriate forum. —David Levy 04:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Or should it? I haven't read up on policy for a while, I admit, but are AfD results based on voting now? Because the last time I was an active editor, they were based on rationale for keeping vs. deleting. I had always been under the impression that if every anime-related WikiProject at WP unanimously "voted" to keep an article that policy said should be deleted, it would be deleted despite their "votes." User:Resolute may have been wrong to phrase his/her comment above so personally, but the point, I think, is valid: not everyone agrees on what should or should not be in an encyclopedia. One person's MissingNo. is another person's law firm, and vice-versa. That's why we have (had? are these gone now?) quite clear policies about what is or isn't notable enough to deserve its own article. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 20:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Notability, if I recall correctly, is based purely on independant coverage from third-parties. If it has that coverage (assuming those third parties are reliable sources), then the article satisfies the notability criteria. Mustache of Ned Flanders or WALL-E's solar panels, or any other number of seemingly irreverant aspects of pop culture trivia could have articles if they satisfy what Wikipedia demands for them to be considered 'notable'. If people are so concerned that MissingNo, or any other number of seemingly pointless articles, have articles, then perhaps they should look at reworking the policies on notability instead. Anything can become notable if it receives enough coverage. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a problem there. Wikipedia documents the world as it exists/existed, not as we want it to exist. It isn't our place to deem a subject non-notable due to a belief that its independent third-party coverage was undeserved. —David Levy 23:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Nor do I. I worked on the article back when I was actively involved with WP:PCP. I was pleased to see it promoted, and happy that it was on the front page. My point is simply that if people are concerned with subjects such as MissingNo. becoming featured, then they should take a look at WP:N. If it passes it is notable, if it doesn't then it isn't. The beauty of Wikipedia is that literally anything can become featured if enough work is put into it. I'm happy for it to remain that way. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, you've described the correct procedure. Dr. Blofeld's claims raise the question of whether it's being followed. (I don't know how accurate these accounts are, but the situation should be investigated.) —David Levy 23:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
"Making it personal" was required to communicate my point, and it was by no means an attack on you. You asked "how valuable" is it for Wikipedia to cover certain topics and whether Wikipedia would "greatly miss" such articles if they did not exist. Frankly, I look at that article and say no. I recently expanded an article on a guy who played a dozen NHL games in the 1940s. Likewise, "encyclopedic value" says there is no need for that article either. We all have our areas of interest, and our participation here is all centred around the same purpose: to share what we care about with others. You likely don't care about my obscure hockey player any more than I care about your law firm, and neither of us cares about a Pokemon character. But all three have deserve articles on this project because they meet our notability thresholds. Your article deserves its GA plus (it is a fine piece of work, btw), and near as I can tell, the Pokemon character deserves its FA star. All of these articles have value because there are other people interested in reading about their subjects. Resolute 19:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Reg Bentley though I view as a decent traditional sort of biography, even if not widelt known, that's the difference. I guess my choice of coverage comes down to IDONTLIKEIT. Its not the first time I've been outspoken against Pokemon and anime. But I'm less likely to comment if the article appears to look like a featured article. Generally though, just looking through the FA list, the vast majority are not on questionable subjects and most have an abundance of sources, so such an article as this is quite rare, so it is hardly much of a concern. The FA reviewers 99.5% of the time do a brilliant reviewing job and are more than well equipped to judge passing FAs. Somebody else commented on the talk page of the article by the way questioning its FA status..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you've now gotten Resolute's point. To use another example, I have absolutely no interest in Reg Bentley and even reading the article he doesn't sound terrible significant. I have little interest in anime or Pokemon and don't really get the facination many of my peers seem to have with anime, but I definitely find the Missingno article more interesting and of encyclopaedic significance then Reg Bentley and without knowing what article's being referred to perhaps even the article on whatever Seiyu (as an example of my lack of interest, I had no idea what that word meant). BTW I have to say the complaints for this article, for whatever reason, are way less then for Ernest Emerson (which I saw recently on ANI someone was suggesting for another AFD). Of course that had complaints of it being an advert, which while we've got some bizzare advert complaints before, including Maraba coffee being a paid advert and for some old video games, is harder to say about the Missingno article. Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Did any of thne people complaining about this topic being a featured article even participate in the FA discussion? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't but I've looked at it and I completely agree with what Rjanag said.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(1)Surely there should be some estimate, not only of current signficance, but also of probable future signficance? (2)I do not know why people who contribute to the discussion of the main page article, which is the most prominent feature of Wikipedia, should have contributed to an obscure discussion on another page. Martin Wyatt (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1) Why would future significance be a factor in main-page featuring? It's only featured for one day.
2) Because Wikipedia is a volunteer project. Instead of uselessly complaining after the fact, why not help with the decision making process before the article is posted? APL (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Also about future significance, I think we're going to needs MW's WP:CRYSTALBALL first.... Nil Einne (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)0
Well, to be fair, he said "probable". That could be estimated. Very few pop culture articles will still have wide interest in a century, but the continents will still be as relevant as ever.
However, I think that were we to do that, it would argue against Martin Wyatt's point. Think of what a waste it was to feature Antarctica back in 2006! We could have run a Pokemon in that slot and saved Antarctica for future generations! Think of how much more interesting that article will be once the icecaps melt. APL (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Anything can be done, the question which crystalball addresses is whether we should (the answer being no) considering that our answer is subjective and influenced by our biases and probably not going to be terrible accurate to boot. Note that estimating for a category of articles is one thing, estimating for specific articles is another. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant to whether it deserves to be a FA, but I enjoyed the MissingNo article. I come to Wikipedia most often because I like reading something obscure and unusual that you won't get detailed coverage on at this writing level most anywhere else. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 21:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and this sort of article is not exactly a high percentage of FAs so its not as if they appear every few days. I guess more concerning is systematic bias in that we have one liners on real world African regions covering thousands of square kilometres yet have a featured article on a glitch in a computer game. It says a lot about the website and the male geek stereotype and what is important to its editors. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course Pokemon is important to our editors. To redirect that enthusiasm, I would think the attitude would be more like "That was a great Pokemon article. How would you like to make more of a difference, and write about something like Sud-Ouest Region, Burkina Faso?" Art LaPella (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
LOL, you read my mind exactly..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be rather difficult to collect information on such a region without flying out there and performing intensive field work? Furthermore, any information gathered would surely be challenged as being original research, regardless of the credentials of the person who carries out the investigation.--WaltCip (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you think I have visited Chamba, Himachal Pradesh and Sisimiut myself? You are forgetting google books amigo. You'd be amazed how many scraps can be found to write a half decent article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
And why is it acceptable to write stub/start articles using "scraps" from Google Books? All such articles will ever be is placeholders until someone removes the 'scraps' and starts again from scratch using proper sources. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And why is it acceptable to write stub/start articles using "scraps" from Google Books? Placeholders? What the hell?? Just because it is a snippet view doesn't change the fact it is a proper source LOL. Because snippets of pages in google books containing reliable information are exposed and by finding 20 odd examples you can compile a half decent articles. Like I did with Sausapor, Saukorem, Gwebin and so on. In fact you'd be amazed at what you find in there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I should have said "properly assessed sources". How do you assess the reliability and context of what a source is saying if you can only see snippets of it? The point is that assembling articles from snippets, while tempting, is inherently unreliable, and only takes you so far. To get any further, you need full access to more detailed sources. And it is at that point that the original article will be swept away, hence my comment about placeholders. Google Books full view and preview are very useful, the snippet views less so. Carcharoth (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that using snippets from Google Books when you can't see the whole source will often be a bad idea. However back to the original point by WaltCip I do agree it's a rather strange comment. The way you write any article should normally be using WP:RS. In some cases there will be available online, in some cases you may need to use sources that aren't available online but instead do something like visit a library and perhaps take advantage of an interloan service. In some cases you may need to rely on non English sources (i.e. you will need to have a decent command of some other language). In a case like Sud-Ouest Region, Burkina Faso, it will obviously be much more of the later and the number of sources and amount of info available is likely to be far less but since we're discussion a 16 202 km² area with a population of 808,928 in 2006, it seems rather likely there is a lot more info then there is that article currently. Personal familiarity with the subject is not a pre-requeste and in some ways it's better if you don't have any (even if it's the norm). While it may stop you making unfortunate errors which are obvious to anyone with such familiarity, it also means the risk of OR and particularly if have extensive familiarity it can also mean you may inadvertedly write from the POV of someone with such familiarity. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Second Ostend Raid

Along similar lines, shouldn't the blurb for today's featured article mention World War I somewhere? Zagalejo^^^ 16:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you at WP:ERRORS here, and I'm repeating that here for the record (since WP:ERRORS is not archived). I made the change here, but the article only had 20 minutes left on the Main Page anyway. If you (Zagalejo) want to take this further (to ensure that it doesn't happen again), the person to ask would be Dabomb87 who scheduled the article and presumably wrote the blurb. See here. You could also watch the blurbs be scheduled and make suggestions like this before the blurbs reach the main page. What I'm more concerned about is that your suggestion, both here and at WP:ERRORS, appears to have been ignored or not acted upon quickly enough. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Delinking

Is there consensus for removing most of the wikilinks from the Main Page featured article summary? If not, did I relink the right things? See edit, edit, null edit, this discussion, and the WP:OVERLINK guideline. Art LaPella (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This raises an interesting and broader point that main-page editors might be inclined to discuss: the extent to which TFA blurbs are or should be a somewhat different genre from the article leads on which they're based (I think Raul has long recognised this in several ways, and I'm sure Dabomb87 would agree). My guess is that they differ in at least five ways:
  1. Disconnection. The blurb is a stand-alone, in that many or most readers won't end up proceeding to the related FA; thus, the blurb needs to make sense and to be a satisfying read without clicking to the article lead, and probably should emphasise The Big Picture even more than the related lead. Just one issue as an example: some relatively unknown terms coming up this month I've found linked but not glossed on the spot ("entomologist" in an opening sentence, which should have been glossed in both blurb and article lead; I've glossed it in the blurb. Same for "Zanzibar", which I've pointed out in a nested phrase is an island off east Africa—rather than requiring readers to divert via a link to a different article to find out a basic fact necessary to contextualise the blurb; in the lead, of course it needs to be linked as well as glossed (it still isn’t glossed), but I wonder why it's linked in the lead now that it's glossed: we do want the readers to go to the FA, so why offer the competing Zanzibar link that is in the FA's lead anyway?).
  2. Length and tightness. The blurb often needs to be shorter than the related lead, especially for long articles; I believe less than 1250 characters is the rough guide. Blurbs need to be tight and immediately engaging to whet readers' appetites for more, while to some extent the lead has already captured a readership that is likely to engage with the main article text, or at least to scroll through selectively; a lead can thus afford to include more higher-level details. The blurb could dispense with foreign-language equivalents (I've removed one, as cluttter), as well as the alternative terms and the day-month dates of birth and death that Raul already excludes. An example of inappropriate detail was the opening of the blurb for Millenium Park, which talked about the "Illinois Central rail yards and parking lots" that used to occupy the location—boring stuff that needs to be trimmed out of the blurb). Of course, some leads are already suitable as blurbs, with little change.
  3. Visual environment. The blurb has to fit visually into a four-corner display on the main page in which the column width is relatively narrow, especially around a pic at the top (hence Raul's single-para format, removal of the bolding of the topic-name, and the exclusion of alternative terms);
  4. Primary linking target. A major function of the blurb, surely, is to encourage readers to click to the FA so painstakingly prepared; thus, some wikilinks that are appropriate in the lead should be considered as unhelpful dilution (I've unlinked "earthquake", for example, in a blurb for next week's 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes, but the link is appropriate in the lead); and I unlinked the names of little-known political parties and operators in Zanzibar in the 1960s on the basis that they are very secondary diversions, and a reader who is interested enough to click on them is highly likely to visit the FA first and click from the larger context.
  5. Lack of checking of direct secondary targets. Every secondary link in a blurb is hugely exposed on the main page, but is not currently checked/audited for policy compliance and article quality (e.g. copyright infringements, verification, plagiarism and close paraphrasing, neutrality, and prose), let alone FA-quality standards; these links are presented at the top of the lead when the reader clicks to the FA, where they are less exposed in terms of our legal and intellectual obligations and our public reputation. Back to the blurb on Zanzibar Revolution: those links on arcane local political parties go to articles like this—great advertisements for the project; but you wouldn't mind it in the FA itself, of course.
There is a case that the only link in a blurb should be to the FA, which in turn functions as the primary conduit to secondary links. (If every blurb and hook on the main page linked only to the article fussed over in one of the forums (OK, perhaps more than one for OTD and POTD) the main page would still contain 20 to 30 links every day, rather than about 100 as now.) That's what I'd do, but I appreciate that many editors would find it too radical, so I'm not proposing it. However, I put it to you that TFAs generally contain too many secondary links, given a TFA’s role as representing the FA over any old article; why the big deal about FAC and the TFA queue if readers are beckoned to divert to lots of non-FAs of unknown quality? Then I say, rhetorically, let's ditch the FA idea and let editors apply to have any article, FA or not, in the slot. Tony (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Its not an exact science, but I think the net result of both of your edits comes close to reflecting consensus. There were widely understood linked phrases before Tony touched the blurb, obscure but highly relevant unlinked phrases after, and I think the current balance is more or less right. —WFC— 17:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think Tony's strongest argument here is that the link we should be wanting readers to follow is the main one, to the article. Some people argue that it is important to link other terms so that readers are aware that we have articles on those terms, but if you look at the main page as a whole, there are more than enough links there to make readers realise that we have lots of articles on lots of topics. I would support a time-limited (maybe one week) experiment where the only link in the TFA (today's featured article) blurb is to the featured article. The idea would be to monitor for two effects: (1) increased traffic to the featured article (using the page view stats); and (2) to see if readers dislike this and register their annoyance in the form of editing to make a complaint, demanding that links be put back in. If no complaints (or not very many) materialise and page views of the featured article increase, then clearly Tony is right. If there are complaints, then this will in turn demonstrate what some readers want. In there any initial support here for such a trial? If there was, I would be happy to put together (some time next week) a formal proposal for an RfC to be conducted here, for a strictly time-limited one-week trial to see how much linking really affects things in this part of the main page. If this yields useful data, the same could be tried in other areas of the main page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Excellent idea! One week seems a little short. Howz about two? ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Your sarcasm in the fifth point is utterly misplaced, Tony. The use of a link like Umma_Party_(Zanzibar) in that article's TFA blurb is potentially a great advertisement for the project. Namely, that the project is not done and that we require interested people to expand articles. The entire push of having everything on the main page be perfect is both short sighted and misguided. We are a work in progress, and there is no shame in pointing that out, even on the TFA blurb. Resolute 03:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
To me, explaining that Umma Party as best we can at present, is more important than advertising our alleged completeness. Art LaPella (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I have occasionally suggested a clearer identification of less than obvious terms on the TFA blurb, and the response has been that "the link is there is people don't know what it means". If that is no longer to be the case, then TFA will, on occasion, have to be much more clearly phrased. There are shortcuts and assumptions that one can get away with when links are available or the article goes on to explain: these will have to be avoided. Kevin McE (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I, and another user removed (twice) the "A non personal appeal from the document foundation" content from the Zanzibar Revolution page. It does not seem to belong:

  • Too much text occupying too much of the page.
  • Not bordered as normal Wikimedia Foundation appeals are done.
  • Change made by anonymous user from IP address. Special:Contributions/190.175.204.140

Titaniumlegs (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That was obvious spam. I doubt the person involved even has any real connection to the LibreOffice as it is unlikely they will approve of people spamming on wikipedia or other unconnected projects. Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

REM splitting up In the News for three days?

I thought it was somewhat distasteful for a rock band's amicable breakup to occupy space next to monumental achievements, disasters, tragedies, and the like the first time I saw it. But for three days now?!? How about replacing it with the faster than light neutrinos, or Palestinian statehood bid, or something which has a nonzero chance of actually making a difference in someone's life? 69.171.160.21 (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Once something gets into the In The News box, it stays there until other stories bump it off the bottom. It isn't that the REM breakup has been considered particularly worthy of inclusion for three days in a row. --FormerIP (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course, it should be obvious that it wasn't newsworthy to begin with. Everyone knows that Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are the English-speaking world's only truly noteworthy artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.170.4 (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm also wondering why probably faster-than-light neutrinos aren't in the news (in the main page). --Belchman (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. The discussion is there (and quite lengthy). Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Finally! Speedy neutrinos kicked REM out. --Belchman (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Listing Tomorrow's OTD on WP:ERRORS

WP:ERRORS invites us to scrutinise/copycheck the current and next Main Pages, to that, hopefully, we can ensure that plenty of eyes check that what appears is of as high a standard as we can. But the link to Tomorrow's OTD links to a set of hooks of which typically only about half are actually used. Is there any way that the selection could be made 2 days in advance, so that the set that we see as "Tomorrow's OTD" actually are to be "tomorrow's OTD" Kevin McE (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

When is "tommorow's OTD" usually ready? --174.93.81.243 (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I usually finish my updates around 12:00 noon California time (GMT-8 or -7 during winter, so that's between 19:00 and 20:00) on weekdays, usually later on weekends. howcheng {chat} 15:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
And you do sterling work, no disrespect. But rather than finding out 4 hours before MP appearance what is intended, it would be great if at some time a double hit could be prepared, so that daily updates after that are ready 28 hours before uploading to the front page. Under the current system, the link to invite editors to check tomorrow's OTD is essentially a tease for 20 hours a day. Kevin McE (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I keep meaning to get to it earlier (and I really need to stop doing it during working hours), but usually I'm too tired at night (as I was tonight) to do it. howcheng {chat} 08:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

UEA

For "on this day" we're listing the founding of UEA? Really? A coup d'etat in Haiti, the first successful private spaceflight in history, and we pick the founding of the 23rd best university in Britain. Ironholds (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean SpaceShipOne? That was already featured on June 21, the date of the first successful flight. Also, 1991 Haitian coup d'état is too short for my tastes (although Alouette 1 isn't that much longer, I suppose). howcheng {chat} 08:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sports

Yet again, I must suggest that any sports related news item is not true news, however sports news. Currently two of the four items of ITN are sports related. Like the REM split last week, this is yet again inapporiate use of the "news".Cosprings (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

whats your definition of "news"? -- Ashish-g55 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
We do "final results of x" frequently, and the world marathon record...is quite unusual, it's not as though it happens every year. To your point, if you look at WP:ITNC, very few things are proposed, and I say about 30% are voted down, and another 20% languish and get stale because the article isn't updated enough to warrant its posting. So if you want the sports off, update some of the current ITN candidates so they can get posted. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
What dragon says. Although regardless, it would appear that more than one person disagrees with you. Your best bet of getting the appropriate people to pay attention would probably be here. —WFC— 23:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Sports news is still news. Resolute 23:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
As Cosprings's universe has no music and no sports, I feel sorry for Cosprings. --174.93.81.243 (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Though the only sport that interests me is chess, I'd argue sports news is a subcategory of "true" news. Otherwise, the vote to right right to vote in Saudi Arabia is "just civil rights news" while the death of Maathai is "just Kenyan news". Then we couldn't have anything at ITN. The current events are important, their articles are in decent shape. Period. Puchiko (Talk-email) 08:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The examples you gave are of actual, real world events. Music and sports are entertainment. In some sense they aren't the same as real world politics, deaths, wars, space launches, diseases, etc. They are in some ways closer to movies and television programs, and the events of those aren't reported as news. Perhaps separate sections for sports and entertainment would prevent this recurring complaint. --Khajidha (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
But don't we include movie and tv major events, Oscars, Emmys, etc? Sports and Entertainment news is still news. ITN isn't intended to be only "front page" news.Rhodesisland (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
And we probably have people upset about the inclusion of those events. There seems to be a widespread perception that ITN is for "front page" news, perhaps because it is on the main (ie front) page of Wikipedia. I don't know if it could or should be clarified somehow what it is for, but it is something to think about as these complaints turn up fairly often. --Khajidha (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice Picture

Cool news picture, wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.134.88 (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Donation banner clash

I've put a screenshot on the right for someone to file this bug in the correct place. 93.89.134.1 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the clash
Reported at Meta:Talk:Fundraising 2011 although I think this belongs in bugzilla [11] Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting this, it's fixed now. Pcoombe (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

I undid a vandalism in Film noir, but I do not think I got the original photo returned. I have an injury to my tight hand (was at emergency clinic last night) and cannot type well right now. Someone else will have to follow up on this.Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks, take care (of your hand). Materialscientist (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

TFA pic indistinct and absurdly small

Anyone think it's effective, shows off the site to its best, not to mention the FA involved? Tony (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd support raising the image size limit or whatever. The weather map is nearly indistinguishable. HurricaneFan25 14:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Completely agree. But the horse may have bolted as far as today is concerned, unless we're going to trim today's blurb accordingly. —WFC— 14:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The image's size wasn't the problem. Even a significant increase wouldn't have helped much.
The problem was our use of a fine-detailed map, which never works well as a thumbnail. I've switched to a high-contrast, text-free map. —David Levy 14:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
David, it's much better: any way the guidelines for TFA could be modified to suggest to nominators the preference you've expressed? I wonder whether these two pics aren't a good example to put somewhere in the TFA instructions, to show nominators what makes a good squint-sized display.

In my view, the TFA system pays too little attention to the choice of image; I'm even so radical to say that if an FA doesn't have a suitable image, its chances of appearing on the main page should be significantly downgraded. But the other systemic problem is still the tiny size forced on all main-page images. It's very 2002ish.

Here's your substitute, at the current 130px (left), then 150px and 180px. The 180 is so much more effective, in my view. Then the previous choice you replaced, at the same sizes. The previous isn't much good even at large size. David, can you get to a reasonably sized monitor to view these?

The storm's path The storm's path The storm's path
Also, the "Archive" link needs to be changed to October (unless you guys normally leave it on the previous month for a while). Tony (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the archive link.
I agree that the TFA section's images often are selected without sufficient care. (In many cases, such as this one, users seem to simply use whatever image happens to appear first in the article.) I support the idea of encouraging greater discernment.
Regarding the suggestion "that if an FA that doesn't have a suitable image, its chances of appearing on the main page should be significantly downgraded," I could support that only to the extent of assigning preference to a featured article with a suitable image over one from the same subject area that lacks such an image. Otherwise, certain topics (particularly fictional works) would be greatly underrepresented.
On my screen (of a typical laptop resolution and below-average size), the 130px version of the current image is as clear and recognizable as the 180px version is. The TFA section's format allows for images wider than the standard 100px when necessary, but I feel that substantially exceeding the size required for clarity would unduly shift the text/image balance. (Even a 100px image is likely to draw readers' focus. A 180px image would come across as the main attraction.)
Also note that the resultant text wrap would be quite ugly under many configurations. —David Levy 15:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The path of the storm is very difficult to see on a small screen. Lightmouse (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Any image size is smaller than optimal for some users and/or larger than optimal for others. We attempt to strike a balance that works as well as possible, with text layout issues considered more problematic (because the image is secondary and can be viewed at full size via a single click). —David Levy 18:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. A bolder line, as is common on weather maps, would have helped. Not a big deal. Lightmouse (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect substitution of American English for Commonwealth English on the front page

I have noticed this increasingly on the front page: articles that are written in Commonwealth English that are referenced in ITN, OTD and sadly, even Featured Articles, are being put on the front page in American English versions. Today, the FA Cirrus cloud is just such an example ('color' and 'gray' instead of the article's 'colour' and 'grey'), and I have just notified ITN of Tiangong 1, which is also in CE but appears in AmE on the front page ('program' rather than the article's 'programme'). Why is this not checked for as a matter of course? There is a tendency of US editors to treat their version as the default on Wikipedia. It isn't, and it is bloody annoying for those of us whose version of English is not respected. Please do something about this and make sure it stops happening. 86.133.51.90 (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Chinese space program uses American spelling, so that's why it's spelled like that on the MP. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
No, the bolded article to which the blurb refers is Tiangong 1, not Chinese space program, and so the language of Tiangong 1 is what should guide the language of the blurb. 86.133.51.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC).
And the massive American English warning on the featured article's talk page. — Joseph Fox 15:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the IP has a point. The American English tag on the FA talk page in question was added today. It was not there historically. If you look at the lead paragraph in the FA, it is in Commonwealth English, not American English. The version of the lead paragraph that was posted in the blurb about today's FA had the words changed. That doesn't seem right, notwithstanding any addition of an incorrect tag to a discussion page after-the-fact. Singularity42 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll retract that then. Odd. — Joseph Fox 15:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
There is really no such a thing as "Commonwealth English", especially as Canadian English mixes elements of American and British English. Does the IP mean British English? Moonraker (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1. As discussed on its talk page, the Cirrus cloud article historically has contained mixed usage, so which English variety to settle on is unclear.
2. Not counting the Chinese space program link, the Tiangong 1 article contained two instances of the spelling "program" (the first of which was inserted in January 2009) before this edit introduced the spelling "programme" last month.
3. The main page issue arises in both directions. We recently had a DYK hook that referred to an "American footballer." (The term "footballer" isn't used in American football.) In a vast majority of cases, this is an honest mistake and in no way reflects a lack of "respect." —David Levy 18:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
"American footballer" sounds good in one kind of English. I once had a DYK with the word "basketballer" on it, despite specifying "basketball player" on the suggestions page. It was crazy as I was the one who'd insist that "basketball" makes no sense to whatever kind of English at the ERRORS page. LOL –HTD 03:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Complaints like this always get my blood boiling, even if it's not the intent of the complainant. I see absolutely no problem whatsoever with whatever form of English happens to be used. All it reflects is who worked on the article at that particular point in time. As long as it's still legible (and I for one can read British and American English interchangeably), it's not hurting the main page and it's certainly not intending any disrespect whatsoever.--WaltCip (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the form of English matters for a country-neutral blurb such as like Cirrus cloud. It does matter to an extent with country-specific articles: American footballer and English soccer player are phrases that the ordinary reader would simply not expect to see, and would give the impression that we don't understand the difference between the varieties of English. —WFC— 22:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been guilty of this. Years ago, i was writing out the Alex Rider plot summaries, and for the longest time the article read that the "soccer team" had been murdered. I was horrified when I realized that I should have written football. But, if I had been reading the original version (the U.S version makes it all American, down to changing the Michael Owen stun grenade into a Tiger Woods one), I wouldn't have made that mistake. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm British. But wikipedia is an American website and therefore one would naturally expect it to be American English by default.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It is an international website that happens to have its servers hosted in the United States. I would not expect American English to get any preferential treatment at all. Apropos of nothing, I frequently get a kick when someone looks at my articles and tells me to pick between American and British English, not realizing that Canadian English utilizes a mixture of both! Resolute 15:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The simple fact is that the differences between American English and British English are so minor and superficial that it just doesn't matter all that much. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Umm, no, actually, that's not the case. It may not matter to you - and in fact, is not as big a deal as it's sometimes made out to be - but the differences are more extensive than I think you realize. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
'Two countries, separated by one language,' But somehow, it didn't much matter to Winnie, either. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The role of Wikipedia is to improve knowledge. If someone incorrectly "corrects" spelling from one English variety to another, they are lacking a bit of knowledge. I think it's our duty to improve that editor's knowledge level just that tiny bit, and in the nicest way possible. (I may have failed that last requirement once or twice myself. I shall try harder in future.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The engvar absolutely must not be changed from article to blurb. Please, anyone let me know it this happens again. 05:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello,is there anybody who want to edit encyclopedy about Linguistics, who will be create by me? 83.168.75.9 (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, thanks (feel free to remove this thread :). Materialscientist (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yas, counts me in. Wifione Message 14:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Italian

The Italian language Wikipedia is currently on strike because of a proposed Italian law which threatens all editors with jail and fines. Please forward any comments to WP:VPM#Italian Wikipedia or Meta:Wikimedia Forum#Italian Wikipedia. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Wrong forum but valid (and worrying) issue. BencherliteTalk 20:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

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 frequent the Italian language wikipedia and though my Italian is not so great, it seems to me that Italian Wikipedia has been shut down due to anti-defamation laws. Can anyone give me insight as to what is going on?

More suited to discussion at the Village Pump or meta than here, but the translation is at it:Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011/en. BencherliteTalk 20:23, 4 October 2011 (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.

Mentioning the italian protest in the news section

I think, that the italian protest should be mentioned in the news section. This is a very important information about the Wikipedia itself, but the protest itself has also been featured by many european media. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Long story very short, it was posted in ITN. Then it was pulled a couple of hours ago, when the consensus debate reopened after most of us thought it was closed. Follow Melican's link, cut down to the end of Oct 4. - Tenebris 07:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
FWIW ITN 'debates' never actually stop, WP:CCC Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Full instructions for POTD

What are the instructions for admins updating POTD? Does one have to follow the instructions at Category:Protected main page images as well as manually protecting "POTD Main Page v"?

Just edit away. The images are covered by User:Krinkle's bot and the POTD protected template is covered by cascading protection. howcheng {chat} 00:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Mixed content on "secure" pages? Bad Wikimedia!

I'm posting here because for some very good reasons I do not want to log in, and you don't have a method where casual visitors can raise concerns over presentation and technical matters.

Https.Secure.Wikimedia is supposed to be secure. So why do you serve insecure/unsecured items on secured pages? This makes a mockery of our (users) efforts to prevent intrusion. You have Secure.Wikimedia in part to make web browsing safe for surfers living in totalitarian regimes. By serving inseure items on these pages you effortlesly make user-tracking a trivial excercise for the secret police.

You also make quick reference to your pages needlessly difficult for others: to avoid the unpleasant red URL bar, I have to copy the article title and manually type in the unsecured (http://en.wikipe...) then paste the article title.

You cannot use lack of resources as an excuse. Securing servers is not an expensive process. It means you have to patch your software, and in this age of GNU software it is a trivial expense.

If you cannot see your way clear to quickly fixing the problem you have created, then stop search engines from spidering the (in)secure pages. 122.200.166.26 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a known issue. Images are being served in the clear (i.e. without HTTPS). See bugzilla:16822 for more information. —mc10 (t/c) 00:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, it's fixed, on <https://en.wik...>. But 34 months to fix such a glaring error is 36 months too long. 122.200.166.26 (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You operate on the assumption that startart HTTPS protocols are secure? Thats is at best inacurate.©Geni 08:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea, also, how you think that using and displaying your IP address is secure. — Fox 11:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Ahhhh... You're still serving something "in the clear" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TextEdit This is not good. 122.200.166.26 (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you aware you're broadcasting an IP address? Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC).
@Lankiveil, @Joseph Fox: see the first sentence, this section, then read it. @Geni: I suggest that if you want your "security" then disconnect your box from the internet and the wall. To all readers: It may be of the greatest indifference to you that some people cannot use Wikipedia without being visited by the Savak or equivalent. But when your own "democratic" security police come calling, don't call me, I won't care. 122.200.166.81 (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
If they can't use Wikipedia without being visited by Savak then it would be very bad advice for us to suggest they use the secure site. The only thing this stops is people from monitoring their communication with the wikipedia servers (presuming their computer is secure etc), anyone who is interested will still know they are visiting wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
...It's the monitoring which is of concern. 122.200.166.81 (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
But my point is if you can't visit wikipedia without being visited by Savak then it doesn't matter if they can monitor your activities. This is only of relevence to people where visiting wikipedia is not illegal, including via a secure communication method, but where visiting certain pages or doing certain editing actions are. it is not of relevance to the example you gave in your post I replied to where visiting wikipedia is enough to get you in trouble. BTW, while this is an annoyance, it would always be a bad idea for the WMF to encourage people to rely on them to ensure the connection is completely secure even if there are no known bugs (since things can always go wrong and the WMF is a volunteer project with no guarantees and only limited commitment to ensuring complete end to end encryption). In other words, if people are at risk from their activities being monitored, we would still need to tell people to either make sure their browser rejects any unsecure connection or use some other method to stop monitoring from their secret police (like Tor, without a secure website they are obviously at riskj of Tor exit nodes monitoring the activities but they should not be identifiable if they don't do anything stupid). Nil Einne (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The lack of proper site-wide HTTPS support is indeed unfortunate, and it would certainly be nice if we had it. Whilst HTTPS is not completely secure, it is indeed much better than not having it. However, I'm not sure what we can do about it here - this is the talk page for the Main Page of the English Wikipedia. The secure server is beyond our control, and is something that only the Wikimedia Foundation can improve. Modest Genius talk 13:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, and MC10 as well, for your thoughtful comments. Now, all we need is for Wikimedia Foundation to implement some method of allowing casual visitors to comment on technical aspects without the need for a user account. I did not want to post this... complaint... here. There is a better place, I just can't reach it. 122.200.166.81 (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
What place are you referring to? If I may make a suggestion, you may want to try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). That page is open to edits by unregistered users, and would be more likely to get attention from individuals in a position to act on issues like this one.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed the best places to comment will be on meta, on the mailing list or on bugzilla, none of which require a registered wikipedia account. Nil Einne (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both. This is the info I/we need. BTW, I noted some of the comments on Bugzilla. They are interesting. 122.200.166.81 (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I note from bugzilla:20643 it doesn't appear anyone is aware something isn't using SSL at [12] as you suggested is happening, unless this uses a sub-subdomain which seems unlikely. If no one is aware, it may not be fixed until someone makes them aware. Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Most viewed article?

According to WP stats, Steve Jobs was viewed by some 7.4M readers yesterday October 6 - a new record? Bruzaholm (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that beats even MJ's death - by one and a half million hits.. — Joseph Fox 13:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
According to [13] the numbers for Michael Jackson were 8.68 million in the first 24 hours. If I understand it correctly, even though you may search for 'steve jobs' or 'michael jackson' on the stats page you only see the stats for Steve Jobs or Michael Jackson so the number is an underestimate, whether the magnitude (about 25% higher) is the same for SJ as for MJ, I don't know. Note that the numbers for any single day will depend precisely when the news broke. (Without needing to look at the source I provided, it's apparent that the numbers for the first 24 hours for MJ are spread over 2 days in the stats page. This doesn't necessarily balance out since if we do look at the source I provided, MJ got 1.24 million in the first hour.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Waddesdon Road railway station TFA is poor

The blurb and lead and article itself are 80% about the overall railroad, not the "station". Really, this is incredibly obscure to have an FA on a small rural station (not even the railway). As such, it should not surprise us, that there was not enough material on the station itself. Instead the piece has been padded with overall railroad background. This is not good work. This should not have passed GA. It is not "focused" on the topic. The review at FAC was very sparse also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.* (talk • contribs)

  • Leaving aside the process crap, what do y'all think of the criticism? Valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.* (talk • contribs)
  • Goodness, our system of selecting TFAs needs a review itself. There are so many FAs to choose from; I'd be very picky. And we need more hands on deck to audit the articles before they go on the main page. Tony (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_162&oldid=1145836980"