Talk:Main Page/Archive 189

Archive 185

←

Archive 187

Archive 188

Archive 189

Archive 190

Archive 191

→

Archive 195

Featured article is another video game. Again.

Couldn't the subjects covered get rotated better? These articles on obscure videogames are not at all interesting to most people, however well written they are. Awernham (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

If you don't like what appears there, please participate in the processes that determine what appears. That said, you seem to be disappointed that you might have learned something you didn't know before..... that's a positive, not a negative. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

(A former TFA coordinator writes...) What 331dot said. The "Today's featured article" coordinators can only work with what they've got. About 6% of the stock of featured articles from which they can choose are video games, and there are 200 FAs about video games, showing that there are quite a few people who happen to find them interesting enough, even if you personally don't. Now 6% of 365 TFAs in a year would mean on average 22 video games TFAs annually, or just under 2 per month, and in fact looking at the charts that the current coordinators keep (User:Dank/TFA) there will be slightly fewer than 22 video game TFAs per year. If fewer video game TFAs are chosen, then the stock in other areas diminishes more quickly, meaning that the proportion of video games in the TFA pool will in fact increase. Funnily enough, just as you complain about TFAs on video game topics, there are people who complain about TFAs for sport (10% of the TFA pool), military history (18%), hurricanes (4%), coins (2%), mushrooms... you name it, someone will have complained about it - so there is no perfect solution here. One partial solution is that if more (and different) articles were promoted to FA status, with the help of writers and especially reviewers at WP:FAC, then there would be a broader pool from which to choose and the frequency of TFAs on video games would be diluted. Hope this helps. Bencherlite^Talk 10:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, the Main Page can only choose articles from the list at Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. That means there's a limited pool of possible selections, and its highly biased in subject coverage. That's not the coordinator's fault - it simply reflects the articles that users write and put in the effort to go through the Featured Article process. If you don't like the balance of topics being featured on the Main Page, the best way to improve it is to bring an article on an under-represented topic up to Featured Article status. Modest Genius ^talk 11:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Awernham: the solution is for you to bring articles on subjects you are interested in up to FA status. Then they can be featured on the main page. Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the solution is that the people who put up the Main Page FA do not need to, and in fact should not, feature topics purely on the basis of numerical proportion of FAs available. If enthusiasts like to write good articles about video games then that's good and fine, but if 6% of FAs are about video games, this does not mean that 6% of the Main Page FAs should be about video games. 6% is obviously too many. Only when there are no other topics available could it be justified. 86.185.218.189 (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

If numerical proportion isn't taken into account, then the TFA coordinators are merely bringing us closer to the day when we have nothing but pages on video games and other frequently featured topics to run, at least among FAs that haven't appeared on TFA yet. At some point in the future, re-running FAs is a concept that might gain traction if the number of newly promoted FAs doesn't start to increase (in fairness, the last couple of months have seen some improvement according to WP:FAS). However, we're still some ways from that point. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestion is like saying that the proportion of blue Smarties* we eat doesn't have to match the proportion that comes in the packet. Sure, we could pick some out and leave them to one side, but sooner or later we'll be left with a mountain of blue sweets and nothing else to eat. It might work if we had so many that we can afford to throw some away, but the current list has less than three years' worth of articles on it. That's enough for now, but not so many that we can throw away high quality content just because a handful of people don't find it interesting. Besides, how would we decide what the 'correct' proportions are? The only practical and sustainable solution is to run topics in approximately the same fractions as we have available. * or pick your own favourite multi-coloured sweet Modest Genius ^talk 20:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

You have misread or misunderstood something. Yes, there would be "nothing else to eat" if Smarties of other colours were not being replenished. I have already mentioned that possibility when I talked of "no other topics being available". "Three year's worth of articles" hardly seems to suggest that we are nearing that situation. 86.185.218.189 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Featured Articles are currently being promoted at less than one a day, and some of those are video games or re-promotion of an article that has already been on the Main Page. Or in other words, we are receiving less than one new Smartie each day. TFA has been running for twelve years, so a three year buffer is reasonable but we still need to take a long-term view. Modest Genius ^talk 12:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

For being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there seems to be an awful lot of emphasis on topics that interest young white American males. 70.171.33.201 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes there are a great many featured articles that would fit that description. I suppose this means that those of us who are not young white American males, should put some work into bringing some articles that interest us to Featured status. But there are other complications with this too -- American males of all ages seem very interested in sport, not just young ones, and a great many non-white and non-American males are very interested in military history. I am not sure that coins and mushrooms are a uniquely young white American male interest either. Video games are even more popular in parts of East Asia than they are in America. MPS1992 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, and we're working to correct that. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The best way to help improve the coverage of TFA is, as noted above, is to bring articles on under-represented subjects up to Featured Article standard. Modest Genius ^talk 20:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

These topics certainly interest more than "young white American males," and that aside, if you think other topics don't make up a high enough proportion of TFAs, then you should consider writing featured articles yourself. People are going to write about what they are interested in, and saying "they should write about other stuff" isn't exactly going to work very well. Dustin (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

While everyone understands that Wikipedia is a voluntary and cooperative project, it is long beyond the stage where every criticism can be countered with "If you don't like it then fix it yourself". Some people are not able to fix things themeselves. They may not have the time, knowledge, or skill to create a worthwile article. It doesn't mean that they can't have an opinion about what needs improving. 86.185.218.189 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Opinions are like anuses. They always stink and it's rude to let anyone hear yours. Fix something or go away. Bitching from the sidelines is worse than useless. --Jayron32 21:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

My grandfather relates a story from around 1944 where an American serviceman in the UK tried to plug in a hugely current-hungry connector without turning the power off. Needless to say the connector "literally melted in his hands" upon which he exclaimed "about as much use as a god-damned hog with tits". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Everyone has their own opinion about what needs improving. Opinions mean little unless they are acted on. If you aren't able to fix something right now due to a lack of skills or ability, take the time to learn how to do so if you care enough about it. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

You're all assuming that we should even have a "Today's Featured Article". To me, the whole thing smacks of childish "my article is better than yours, neener, neener, neener" and should be done away with.--Khajidha (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't really follow that. The principal contributors to the TFA aren't credited in any tangible way on the main page, so what are you talking about? And if we did do away with TFA, what would we put in its place? A picture of Dave Lee Travis or a hedgehog or Shit happens? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The table of contents of the encyclopedia. Awien (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Good one. I guess you're not really trying to sell the place! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I see people putting ridiculous little tags on their pages about how many FAs they have worked on and so on. Or the "I've had x FAs so why should I listen to you" comments in discussions. Everybody talks about "we need to reward the work", and I ask "why?" If you are here for anything other than to do that work, if you are looking for any sort of ego boost, then it seems to me that you aren't the kind of editor we need. And I have no clue what you mean by "not really trying to sell the place", Awien's idea sounds more like what an encyclopedia should be to me.--Khajidha (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that people shouldn't play the "I have so many FAs" card in discussions. But what exactly do you think would happen if we took away token rewards for quality work? Praise and recognition, however slight, are motivators for practically every person, especially in a volunteer organization. If the token rewards were taken away, I doubt it would have much affect other than decreasing that motivation. I'm not very active on Wikipedia anymore, but the fact that there is such a thing as a "Featured Article", and that it could be featured on the main page, is what motivated me to bring Voting Rights Act of 1965 (a subject I have expertise on) up to Featured Article status. Now that the article is a FA, its quality is far-and-away superior to what it was before I worked to bring it up to those standards. Am I the "kind of editor" you think Wikipedia doesn't need? Because whether it was due in part to my ego or not, those little milestones and rewards, including the possibility of a TFA, helped me improve Wikipedia's content for the better. And if they can help motivate others to volunteer their time to improve this encyclopedia, then I would hope we would be all for them. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

TRM Khadija's opinion is worth thinking over. The main page may be okay now but in time, it could become stale. You also have to concede that one of the arguments for TFA is to reward editors who put in a lot of effort writing articles. However I feel like every couple of years, wiki should introduce something and remove something. Even the ITN picture looks like last week today.

It may be that editors get a buzz out of seeing their work at TFA, but it certainly wasn't something that motivated me in the 16 or so FAs for which I was the main author. I got a buzz out of creating decent content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• I actually don't see the problem in re-running some of our best articles at TFA. Many people reading Wikipedia won't have been doing so five or ten years ago, and it would solve the problem of the same types of article running over and over again (especially video game articles, which with absolutely no disrespect to their authors, are by their nature pretty dull). Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the slogan for the encyclopedia should be rephrased to "The encyclopedia anybody can edit for me, because I don't want to."

And as for replacing the TFA with the contents of the encyclopedia, I'd like to see the TOC for 5,293,555 articles. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Special:AllPages. --174.61.130.222 (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If a former featured article is of FA status 'after several years and (insert number of choice) edits and meets current featured article qualifications it is probably going to be a somewhat different text to the original. (I think this 'triple lock' is practical.)

To what extent are Wikipedians operating across the wikiverse and elsewhere so their better work may be elsewhere (eg because it includes original research)?

Another point on 'the list of discussions that will persist as long as Wikipedia (even as humanity moves from Earth when the Sun makes it uninhabitable). Jackiespeel (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Re my suggestion to have a table of contents: I should have said replace the Main Page as it stands, not just the FA; it wasn't a joke; I know most people get to their article via Google, bypassing the Main Page; my "table of contents" would be something more along the lines of Britannica's Propaedia, a guide to the fields aimed at people looking to educate themselves in a certain area. I do know [too well] the unlikelihood of effecting even the smallest change to the Main Page, never mind a total rethink. Signed Quixote, the editor formerly known as Awien (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I reiterate my comment with regard to placing an index on the mainpage - I'd like to see that index, all 5 million entries long. Perhaps an alternative would be to have a search option on the main page instead - such as the one that's already there? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

We did used to have a list of articles on major subjects on the main page. See Nost: for an early example, or a version from February 2004 for the version replaced by what evolved into the current format. Portal:Contents/Outlines would be the current equivalent.-gadfium 22:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Gadfium. I hadn't overlooked the nine links currently on the main page, but It would certainly be easy to do. The problems with them are that:

- they're very inconspicuous, completely overshadowed by all the colours, large bold headings, and images of the rest of the (cluttered) page

- it's far from obvious that they are links

- it's still less obvious that they're links to an overview of content as opposed to an article on "The Arts" etc.

- the meaning given to the term "portal" is not standard English, and not transparent

Why do I do this? I guess in the hopes of planting a seed. Signed Quixote, the editor formerly known as Awien (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact it is not clear what the function of 'the several words' are - and clicking on 'all portals' leads to a different format - perhaps 'in depth/branching out' would make it clearer? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I love these threads. Can we do one every week? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"Three years' worth" of unused FAs

Just to address one issue raised above. The "three years' worth" stat is nonsense. A high proportion of older FAs have been deemed unsuitable for Main Page as they have significant quality issues. You can help address this by participating at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page. Oh, and of the rest, we're burning through FAs far faster than we replace them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure the situation is more complicated than I suggested. But it doesn't really matter if the number is in fact two years, or even 18 months; the point is we don't have so many that we can throw perfectly good FAs away. The replenishment rate is the more determining factor for long-term health anyway. Modest Genius ^talk 12:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

There'd be no problem with repeating an FA on the main page, since there are nearly 5,000 of them, it'd be no real issue to see one that was featured in, say, 2006 as a TFA, assuming it still met current standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

That's certainly something for TFA to consider, although your final phrase could be a real problem. I suspect it would require running each article through WP:FAR a few months before it went on TFA. That would place a huge amount of extra work on FAR and rely on there being editors able and willing to bring the articles up to current FA standards, on usable time scales. Re-running TFAs is a potential long term solution, but one which shouldn't be rushed into. Modest Genius ^talk 12:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• There are considerations, but as MG notes there are multiple considerations that need to be weighed before a formal proposal can be made.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Discussions like these provide essential information for the TFA coords going forward. We have hard choices to make, and so far this year, the number of new Featured Articles is only about 60% of the number of FAs that TFA is using up, 365 per year. Chris and I would like for the two new coords (see below for where that's being discussed) to settle in on their jobs first, then we'll tackle this problem again, together. Stay tuned. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

ITN picture

I was tempted to change the ITN picture to the infobox picture of Rama X (he's the top story, and it's a good-quality free picture), but I suppose that I ought not do that without discussion — but where? WP:ITN/C doesn't seem like a good place to request a change in the picture, WT:ITN also doesn't look good, WP:ITN just explains the process, and WT:ITN/C redirects to WT:ITN. And the current picture isn't an error, so I won't put this question at WP:ERRORS. Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

If you're not willing to change it without discussion, I think WP:ERRORS would be the best place for discussion, even though technically it isn't an error. Optimist on the run (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• In general, picture changing can be done without discussion unless it's controversial. In this case, the photograph was included in the nomination, and no-one voiced any opposition to it. I'll make the change. Smurrayinchester 09:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There are so few admins who are comfortable changing the picture that it gets done when there's a good free image and someone gets around to it. The only consideration is how long the previous picture has been displayed. If it's just gone up then wait a while before changing it. Stephen 10:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that needed a discussion, really. Carlsen's picture had only been up for 17 hours - it could have waited. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Generally discussion is not needed, but it's also best not to replace an ITN image that's been up for less than 24 hours. It's highly unlikely that a third will turn up that quickly to allow the rotation to continue. Once something has hit 24 hours I think it's fine to update with whatever is available - starting with the next newest ITN blurb etc. Modest Genius ^talk 13:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Donations banner

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.

---

This has been raised before - it appears #only# when users are not signed in - when those who sign in are, by definition, more likely to be supportive of WP. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I know the foundation needs to raise funds, and I also know there's nothing we can do about it, but I personally am very against the big banner. I think it's a big turn off for our readers - I'm sure there are many who just navigate away when they see it, and hiding it from logged in Wikipedians make us forget the issue is there.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The latter is the point I am making.

What alternatives are there - 'sponsor a page' is probably impractical/leads to paid editing; '£x/$y allows WP to afford 10 edits'? 193.132.104.10 (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps an already gave so the banner goes away? It's a big turn off right now. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I have just been put off donating - I wouldn't mind making the odd donation. But I was asked my email address, something that I carefully guard. If I am not setting up a regular donation, surely my email address is not necessary?

80.192.223.213 (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of not assuming good faith, what percentage of people who say "I was going to donate but chose not to donate because of the banner" actually mean it?--128.227.194.253 (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I, too, was planning to donate until I saw the banner.128.227.194.253 (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Too intrusive advertisements

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.

---

O.K., I know you guys need to make cash but, these donation banners are getting WAY too intrusive. Makes me not want to visit the site. Just sayin' --2602:306:CC18:CF60:7454:4DA1:AC31:9713 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You might not even have much of site to visit without those donations though. Deli nk (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Today's featured article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why does today's featured article have to include in the lede a rather gruesome listing of symptoms from consuming the mushroom? This seems a bit too macabre for the main page. Remember that some of us have kids who read this website. 128.227.227.8 (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Well you should be grateful that Wikipedia is making the dangers of consuming such a dangerous mushroom very clear. It could save lives. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, there are some strange issues people have with main page content. But I never would have thought "Don't teach my children the dangers of poisonous mushrooms" would be one of them. Deli nk (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I assume that WP:NOTCENSORED has some exceptions for the main page - explicit images for example... I've never seen them here. But a couple of sentences of medical symptoms? "The initial gastrointestinal symptoms, including abdominal pain, diarrhea and vomiting, subside after two or three days. Ongoing damage to internal organs can cause jaundice, diarrhea, delirium, seizures, coma, and in many cases, death from liver failure 6 to 16 days after ingestion" I would say we have a duty to teach our children about these things as part of learning, not to censor it from their poor innocent eyes.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"Gruesome"? --Khajidha (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If they're old enough to read and understand it, they'll be fine. freshacconci talk to me 15:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

To the original poster, there are literally tens of thousands of other pages that are far worse than that one. Wikipedia is not censored, if you feel it is not appropriate for your kids, then you should instruct them not to visit. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Male bias

Many men mentioned on the front page, and only one woman, Hannah Dadds. Also five photos of men, Walt Disney, Alexander vd Bellen, Tarzan, HH Asquith and John Jellicoe, and none of women. JMK (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

And all photos are of old white men.--128.227.215.11 (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Be the change you'd like to see. Contribute pictures, articles, and news items you'd like on the front page. If you're noticing any bias, visit the respective pages and contribute to counter that bias.12.10.219.228 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It's an interesting point. As far as I know, all the different rotating sections (In the News, Did You Know, today's featured article, On this day, etc.) are all performed by different teams. There's presently no organized effort to ensure that there is any demographic balance. Brianga (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to restore mainly pictures related to women and people of colour this year. Unfortunately, such efforts have a long lead-in. Jellicoe, for example, was promoted in August 2014, and FPs appear on the main page roughly in order. Pragmatically., I suspect there's always going to be some male bias in an encyclopædia, because the historical side is filtered through what the past wanted to push towards the future. Women who should have been notable may have lost the documentation of their achievements, or simply been blocked from doing what they could have done in the first place. But we've hardly reached that limit yet: We can do better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You have to understand that this site has a lot of people who like to play with their guns. Sometimes it is refreshing to know that we can be less pretentious.

Correlation does not equal causation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That is the attitude that promotes and causes systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the main cause of systemic bias at Wikipedia is editors who spend time complaining about it and don't spend that same time fixing articles so it goes away. Every second someone complains that <insert topic here> doesn't appear enough on the main page is a second that was wasted that could have otherwise been spent on improving articles on that topic. If the energy we spent telling everyone how mad we are that there aren't enough women on the main page was spent improving articles about women, we'd have solved the problem and then some. --Jayron32 16:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Warehouse "rave"

The event in Oakland was a tiny house party inside of an artist loft - which happened to be inside of a warehouse. It seems as soon as people heard "warehouse" and "edm", so they immediately assumed it was a rave, but its not. It's probably better that we just put "a party inside of an Oakland warehouse space". [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 10:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

By all means start another thread on this at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

QbixQdotta, is it just the size of the gathering that you think makes it not a rave? Because our own rave article states that "some raves may be small parties held at nightclubs or private residences", this seems to fit. --Khajidha (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I have seen nothing in the media that characterized the event as a "rave". -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

For future reference, this report goes in the errors section above. But I've made the change to the wording if only because "rave" isn't much used in the sources. — foxj 05:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This was discussed before and media at that time were using rave more than "warehouse party", which was an unfamiliar formulation to several posters. --Khajidha (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&oldid=753296375 --Khajidha (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I don't think ITN should refer to the party as a "rave" when the article on the fire never uses the term "rave" to describe the event. "Warehouse party" is not much better, but at least the article does describe the venue as a warehouse. Dragons flight (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the context, Khajidha - I guess that's one downside of the lack of an archival system at ERRORS. Without wanting to drag this out too much further, the word "rave" currently exists exactly once in the article, and that's not in the article text. — foxj 19:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Blue tint

Um, am I the only one seeing this blue tint on the left column and at the top?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any blue tint. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Could be monitor miscalibration? 109.146.248.113 (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it any more--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Jayalalithaa in recent deaths?

No room for Jayalalithaa there? According to her Jayalalithaa#Death section there's one day's national mourning in India, the world's second most populous country. If there's room in there for Andrew Sachs, surely there's room for Jayalalithaa? I don't see cricket test matches being switched because of his death... 2A02:C7D:3CBD:3100:51E1:6E92:BDB6:A037 (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

(sigh) Nobody seems to ever read the giant notice box at the top nor the edit notice that comes up when you edit the page. So why have it? Anyways, the page you are looking for is WP:ITN/C. There is already a discussion there for this. --Majora (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Patience please; how often do you read the warnings when you buy batteries? From an outsider's perspective, this page is like a phone tree joke: press 1 to be sent elsewhere, press 2 to be deleted without a trace, ... But WP:ITN/C is indeed he preferred page. Art LaPella (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Besides, imagine the maybe-hundreds of people each day who do read it, and actually go to the right place. For those who don't, they can't say we didn't tell them. Eman235/talk 03:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing note

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'm not trying to Americanize WP, but as a onetime Lexington, Kentucky resident, I have to mention that to many U.S. readers "UK football" will mean the Kentucky Wildcats. ("Go big blue!"). Could we possibly substitute British for UK? Sca (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sca: You're are probably going to want WP:ERRORS. More likely to get a quick response there. --Majora (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother taking it to Errors, as your point is pretty ridiculous. For 99% of the world's population, the UK means United Kingdom, and football means football, not handegg. I note you don't make a suggestion what to change it to avoid the potentially catastrophic confusion. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say its "ridiculous"; it's a legitimate point of view. Ultimately, it might not be changed- but it's completely reasonable to hold such an opinion. Try to see things as others do before you judge them. 331dot (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge will immediate see the point is ridiculous. What will people think UK refers to? Some minor American university of a major European country? 86.28.195.109 (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I get that you see it differently but not everyone in the world thinks as you do. UK could mean anything listed here. 331dot (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I would add that the University of Kentucky has over 30,000 students according to its article; hardly a "minor American university". 331dot (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

And I would add that according to List of languages by total number of speakers, U.S. speakers of English as their first language constitute 77 percent of all native English speakers. Sca (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and every single English speaker EXCEPT for those trying to make a WP:POINT (and I should say including those people, except that they are pretending like they are confused just to be a pain in the ass) understands exactly what the words "UK football" means in this context. Americans are not stupid. --Jayron32 04:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIV. – Sca (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with that, but for the prevalence of sexual abuse in American college football - there are almost always several sexual abuse scandals ongoing (most notably right now the Baylor University football scandal) - and the lack thereof (at least perceived, from the States) in association football. I did initially think it was the University of Kentucky, even having heard of the British scandal (of which I'd assume many Americans would not have). ansh666 05:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

American college football is famous not only for sexual abuse, but for its lack of institutional control and Ponzi schemers. As far as UK being confused for University of Kentucky rather than the United Kingdom - I smell a WP:POINT.--WaltCip (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, nobody could seriously believe that using UK is confusing. Why isn't the OP thinking it's a band, record label, a defunct university newspaper, or numerous other universities? I suspect the OP has a problem with non-US items in ITN and is using a roundabout way to make their point. (For the record, I don't see why it's in Ongoing in the first place, so would agree with the OP in that sense.) Fgf10 (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. On your page you make a point of using British English and living in the UK. You also display a puerile an inane userbox that says, "This user will destroy, annihilate and generally kill any instances of the American English 'language'." Ridculous (and poorly worded). Sca (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Puerile insults aren't going to help your case, which is baseless in the first place. Fgf10 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! Sca (talk)

You suspect what? Try WP:AGF -- it's actually not hard to assume the OP actually thought of something else when they saw "UK football sex scandal" - bonus is, it's probably actually true, they did think of something else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I wasn't going to bring up this little issue, but in U.S. English football means something entirely different than it does in British (and European) usage. Sca (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Bonus bonus fact: Wikipedia has blue links that allow people to learn more about subjects that confuse them! --Jayron32 16:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Bonus fun: preaching cultural tolerance, while demonstrating cultural intolerance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

We need to tell the middle management to cut down on bonuses next fiscal year.--WaltCip (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly not going anywhere. Mod close seem prudent. Fgf10 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Grammar aside, I agree. Sca (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How about some good news?

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.

---

In today's ITN, all five items are about death and destruction. It's depressing, and not representative of a world that is more peaceful (proportionately by population) now than ever. Isn't there anything good to report? The Transhumanist 00:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately all I can really do is point you to WP:ITN/C, where these are discussed. — foxj 01:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this page other than redirecting people to that page?72.219.189.102 (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to discuss the layout and organization of the main page. If you would like to propose some changes to the general layout of the main page (that is, the organization of it, and the general layout of the sections, which sections are included, how they are organized, etc.) that's what this page is for. If you wish to participate in adding items to any one section, then you should participate at the nomination pages for the various sections. If "In The News" article choice is your concern, then WP:ITN/C is the correct place to go. --Jayron32 03:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If anyone does not like what is posted, then they need to participate at ITNC, through commenting on nominations or making their own. 331dot (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok thank you.72.219.189.102 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

For some good potentially news (depending on your perspective), Boeing made a deal to sell $17 billion in planes to Iran, in a sign of normalization of relations between Iran and the US: [1]. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Good news, everyone! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate suitable 'good news' stories at WP:ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 13:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

By its nature the Main Page or sections thereof will occasionally have an apparent or actual over-emphasis on one topic/category/type of material on one occasion or over 'a few successive days.' This is seen as being 'inherently somehow wrong' and worth complaining about (regardless of whether anything can be done about the particular cause of complaint). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Joke Transhumanist seemed to fly right over everyone's head.Correctron (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed for years that ITN has a tendency to strongly emphasize events with multiple fatalities as well as political elections no matter how obscure. I suspect part of this is unconscious habit, WP has easily the most staid front page on the internet, but also just has a lot to do with what (modern) humans expect to hear about as newsworthy, encyclopedia-worthy content. my2¢ 195.69.60.12 (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• You can't win really. At some times of the year people complain that there are too many sports stories on ITN. Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And in 12 days will there be comments on the theme of the day? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot. There's another bloody bird as the featured picture.--WaltCip (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

A bloody bird? Do you mean a turkey prepared for cooking? MPS1992 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Or a 'squeamish ossifrage'? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to peacock your avian knowledge.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Iconic'

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.

---

HMS Resolute – I wish we and the whole English-speaking world could get away from the abuse, or overuse, of iconic. How about "traditional" – ?? Sca (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see what's ironic about it. It doesn't seem to have been intended as a joke either. Just deleting the adjective would be the simplest solution.Shouldn't this be at WP:ERRORS? Modest Genius ^talk 11:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Er, MG, iconic and ironic are very different things. Awien (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hah, whoops! I clearly misread that, twice. Struck. Modest Genius ^talk 14:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

As for "iconic", Power Thesaurus lists 260 - two hundred and sixty! - synonyms. For most situations it ought to be possible to find a mot more juste among all those! Or maybe we should just drop it as a peacock word anyway. Awien (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seasonal greetings

It being 'that time of year.'

Partly to allow the archiving bot to deal with the ironic/iconic discussion. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

UK football abuse scandal

Why has this been removed from the in the news section? WikipediaUserCalledChris (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

As per the usual conventions, the discussion for items an the In the News section was held at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#[Removed] Remove from ongoing: United Kingdom football sexual abuse scandal to be specific). You can get the details by reading the appropriate discussion. --Allen3 ^talk 17:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

24 December:Libya

You always forget the Independence Day of Libya!!!--Maher27777 (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is forgotten, it's just not included because the article on Libyan independence day doesn't actually exist. Independence Day (Libya) redirects to a (fairly messy) list of national holidays. The "On this day" section is designed to be a showcase of the articles featured there, and so they need to be of a certain quality to be included. — foxj 20:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Maher27777: I would add that if you want to see it listed, you need to do the work needed to improve its quality. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

George Michael RIP

Massive name, can we get him onto the recent deaths named people ASAP, thanks. --Barry Bubbles (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Add your support at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

In the [celebrity] news or why we should not ignore guidelines

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.

---

We now have more than half of the "In the news" section given over to the deaths of people from the world of entertainment (Debbie Reynolds, Carrie Fisher and George Michael). Like all deaths these are sad events but none of these people are "major transformative world leaders" which is the standard that should be met according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section - unless the cause of death itself is a major story (a daughter and mother dying in close succession is a story but not a major one). Although I will happily admit that I have a preference for "serious" subjects like developments in physics and astronomy, events in international relations, the reporting of disasters, current battles, etc, I could be persuaded that figures such as Michael Jackson, within the world of popular music, were major and transformative and their deaths might be included. In my view this situation has come about because the relevant discussions have been run too much like a vote (of course each non-vote has been backed up with a sentence or two - so they have not run exactly like a vote) rather than being run along the lines of applying the criteria we've already agreed to the proposals under consideration. I suspect this is the general situation in current way Wikipedia makes decisions so I don't want to single any closing admins out here. Also, there have been a few honorable exceptions to the trend but in general there has been rather too much disregarding of the guidelines. Of course there will be edge cases and as we have guidelines not policy rules here, there can be exceptions but in such case I submit that those arguing for an exception should make their case with reference to the guidelines. Greenshed (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• If you disagree with these or similar postings, you are welcome to discuss any future nominations at WP:ITN/C. If you visit that page, you can see that there was a consensus to post all three. Let us not ignore policy in a rush to apply a guideline...  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • In the case of George Michael and Carrie Fisher I did do that but my main point here is not to try and overturn closed decisions but to highlight that the whole way that Wikipedia is currently arriving at consensus isn't always working that well. If I have understood your point then I think you're arguing that WP:CONSENSUS (policy) trumps Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section (guideline). While of course policy must come first I don't accept that that the two should be in opposition. What I am saying is that consensus should be built from rather than in spite of guidelines. If editors don't agree with the guidelines then they should argue for their modification rather than ignoring them. Otherwise, what's the point of having the guidelines? Greenshed (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Today there is nothing on the end of Grigori Rasputin after hundred years? Greenshed is right. Wikipedia became more like a tabloid.Taksen (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Greenshed I too agree but it looks that we have to accept fact that people love this kind of story. It is sad when someone dies but in my opinion the rather "kitschy" aspect of the story (her mother died one day later) brought D. Reynolds to our main page. Instead of complaining go to ITN/C and check our coverage on what Putin the fake peacemaker now does in Syria. It is now major and more important news, at least in my opinion. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
      • To some extent even if the Wikipedia Main Page were the size of 'large TV screen'/there were separate pages entirely devoted to ITN entries and OTD entries there would be comments that certain significant events had been omitted. And perhaps one could argue that the Putin event needs a little time to see how things develop. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As Greenshed stated, it's a guideline. A guideline is not something that has to be rigidly adhered to at all times. Mjroots (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I assume that the people commenting at ITNC believe in good faith that they either are following the guidelines, or that there is a good faith reason not to. You are free to disagree, but I'm not sure how you can force people to do anything differently than they already are. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • While I am certainly not accusing anyone of acting in bad faith, I'm not at all sure that everyone commenting at ITNC is actually aware of the guidelines. If editors have a good [faith-based or otherwise] reason to depart from the guidelines then as I have noted above they should explain their reasoning for the departure, not simply make tangential remarks. In terms of what can be done then that is a thorny problem, although not an intractable one. The first thing is for people to keep pointing out the guidelines and politely challenging those who disregard them (that's what I'm doing here). Secondly, I would really like to see the closing admins generally give much more weight to arguments which are developed from the guidelines in comparison with arguments which do not. If this were to happen then regular editors would soon realize that they needed to take guidelines into account if they want their views to carry the day. Greenshed (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Feel free to make "everyone commenting at ITNC" aware of the guidelines. That's an easy win. I'm certain that'll fix things up. 20:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

People are probably getting caught up in the, popular but mostly false, meme that 2016 has a higher than expected number of celebrity deaths, and believe therefore that the guidelines can be safely stretched for this extenuating circumstance. ApLundell (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: like many others, you are assuming that "consensus" means those who shout the loudest, or vote counting. It is neither. There were legitimate guideline/policy based concerns raised about the inclusion of Debbie Reynolds/Carrie Fisher, but they were drowned out by the masses. Now there is an argument that if our editors are consistently voting for things that aren't in the guidelines then the guidelines are wrong, but then again the guidelines weren't written in arbitrarily, and are mostly the result of existing lengthy discussion between experienced editors.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Both women were notable enough to each have a mention on ITN - and it is 'very unusual' for two members of the same family to die so close together in different localities - which has some newsworthiness of itself. There will also be statistical flukes when several people in a single category die within days of each other (and there may be a 'year's end effect').

If Wikipedia had existed in the last months of 1963 there would have been a long talk page discussion on whether the death of Lee Harvey Oswald should be given priority over CS Lewis and Aldous Huxley, 86.191.125.158 (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Amakuru, take a look at WP:ITN/C (and the archives, since one of the discussions in question is off that page now). There were multiple arguments for Carrie Fisher, including a front page obit in the New York Times, multiple internet news portals having Fisher on their front page, her cultural impact through Star Wars, her involvement in such a financially successful film, her involvement in mental health awareness-raising, and her death being unexpected. Likewise, there were arguments against including her article being posted, including referencing (later addressed), being "known for a single thing" (which, again, was Star Wars), not being at the same level as Bowie and Prince, "we didn't give Leonard Nimoy a blurb when he died", and systemic bias. The referencing issues were addressed. The level of Fisher's cultural impact was rather subjective, as was the argument of her "not being at the same level as Bowie and Prince". The "one thing" argument had issues; Star Wars may be one film series, but it's not one film, let alone one film with very little commercial/cultural impact like Night of the Lepus, and as others pointed out she had prominence as a mental health activist. Arguments were considered. It was not just a simple vote.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It's time for an admin close on this thing; it's going nowhere.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:27, 4 January 2017 (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.

Bloody news

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.

---

Keeping with its macabre tradition, all four ITN stories on the main page mention death or killing in some shape or form. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:7A (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted! Unfortunately there's no prize. ;) — foxj 19:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I should also give the customary "post to ITN/C if you want to propose something else" as well. — foxj 19:57, 5 January 2017 (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.

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani

Why is Rafsanjani not in the "Recent deaths" section?--98.88.130.195 (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The article has quality issues. If those are fixed, it probably will be added. --174.61.130.222 (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Like what? Just curious since I'm sure not all the articles linked to are above B-Class.—Arpose (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to join the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BPulled.5D_RD.2Fblurb:_Akbar_Hashemi_Rafsanjani. Modest Genius ^talk 12:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Linked article quality is based on the existence of maintenance tags, not class ratings. ansh666 21:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding a link to the Special:Nearby page?

Hey, I heard about this page and heard it's on the mobile app and the mobile website but not on the desktop website, why is that? We could just add a link on the top navbar for instance.

Nearby

- Dorianinou (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech note, to add to the sidebar (MediaWiki:Sidebar) that page can be updated (and it will show on most every page). — xaosflux ^Talk 01:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A better place to discuss this would be WP:VP/T. For what it's worth, when I click on that link I get a blank page that says 'Loading' but never does anything. Modest Genius ^talk 14:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You need to allow the website to access your location and then refresh the page (and even then depending on how your broadband connection works it might not be able to locate you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.167.165 (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer(s) needed to help bring TFA files up to date

There's a request at WT:TFA for assistance with a TFA book-keeping job, if anyone is interested in volunteering. - Dank (push to talk) 01:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

MOS:ENGVAR issue in "On this day…" January 18, 1958

Since the Boston Bruins are an American team, the piped link "Racial integration|breaking the colour barrier" should be "Racial integration|breaking the color barrier". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Roman Spinner Please report errors at WP:ERRORS, or in the appropriate section at the top of this page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

In any case, I can't see this on Main Page. If it's just in the OTD page, you can post on the talk page there, or apply {{sofixit}}. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed on the Main Page OTD. 1958, with Willie O'Ree highlighted. He's Canadian, hence the spelling. Art LaPella (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I had hoped to make it clear in the section header that this was not being flagged as an error, but as a point of interest regarding decisions in applicability of MOS:ENGVAR. The judgment call centers upon the use of "colour" because Willie O'Ree is Canadian, or the use of "color" because Boston Bruins are an American team, the article Racial integration is about an American issue and the mentioned event occurred in the United States. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

We could also in addition note that as the NHL is a Canadian-founded organis/zation, it tends to use Canadian spellings. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Or that it is now an American-headquartered organization. We could go around and around like this until the heat death of the universe and no one can ever make an argument that would "win" by any reasonable definition. Which is why the other part of WP:ENGVAR is "if there isn't a clear winner between two variations, leave it the eff alone". My vote is whatever it reads now should be left that way forever, for no reason other than it isn't worth the effort to change, and neither variant is more or less right. --Jayron32 02:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

In addition to being creators of content, Wikipedians are also lifetime members of an extremely wide ranging debating society. He may say "color" and she may say "colour", but they won't call the whole thing off, because on their high definition screens they know they're right and they wouldn't be here if they thought otherwise. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

(laugh) Thank you so much for that apt analogy, Roman Spinner! and for the pointed and equally apt truth to which you applied it. Wherever did you run into that song? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Or as Ambrose Bierce put it:

Absurdity, n. A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.

Sca (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to have been the source of a bit of amusement, especially in the occasionally prickly area of ENGVAR. "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off", which is most appropriate for this topic, is imprinted in the minds of vintage musicals' enthusiasts and has been a part of Wikipedia since October 2006. One of the references within the article links directly to the full set of lyrics "For we know we need each other / we better call the calling off off". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

20 January "on this day" entry is incorrect

The team that reached the Antarctic POI in 2007 had 4 members, not three, and the prior visit was 1965, not 1958. I have corrected the January 20 page, which was wrong, and the underlying article page, which was poorly worded. -Arch dude (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I edited the January 20 page, so thank you, although I did not find the described edits to the January 20 page or the underlying article. The article confirms 4 members (Cookson, Longsdon, Sweet and Landry, also confirmed elsewhere) but it also says "A second Russian team returned there in 1967", not 1958 and not 1965 when there was an American visit. 1967 isn't referenced, but I confirmed it here, and that's the date I used. Art LaPella (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The articles I edited were January 20 and Henry Cookson. The 1967 visit is not mentioned in Pole of Inaccessibility (Antarctic research station), which is where I got the 1965 date. I will update that article from your source. -Arch dude (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

In The News: Inauguration

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.

---

now. Or when there's a page for 2017 inauguration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4505:CBF0:EC21:287E:F462:8499 (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, since my last post was deleted/vandalized, I simply add that I also think the inauguration should be mentioned. 93.224.110.127 (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion took place over at WP:ITN/C whether to post the inauguration. The consensus was firmly against doing so.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@I.P. #93.224.110.127 Yeah, I saw your post before (you were the German guy I think), and they did remove it. Now, @WaltCip, can you specify their consensus? It was an immature decision to do so. The POTUS and American politics in general pertain to a large audience for information and in perspective, there is no reasoning that the information should not be notified in Wikipedia's news, even though most should assumably already know. And then, secondly, there are usually updates of a new ruler being declared for other countries, why not this one? Wikipedia is supposed to be an informative site, without bias (as self-designated), but how can that be when most of the editors seem to have such biases, and presumably against this subject?

When you say ... there are usually updates of a new ruler being declared for other countries ... could you provide us with, say, three examples? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

We post election results, not inaugurations. Isa (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man In any way would I individually go to the archived news of Wikipedia for each day to see when was what? I've seen it in the past declared a new leader sworn in, and I'm not taking any lying stance here. @Isanae Could you direct me the the regulation stating so?

It's not a regulation, it's a consensus. You are welcome to discuss it on ITN/C. You should also sign your comments with four tildes at the end: ~~~~. Isa (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I suppose so then. 2601:2C6:4505:CBF0:EC21:287E:F462:8499 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to contribute to the process.--WaltCip (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that currently, the inauguration of Evo Morales as President of Bolivia in 2006 is scheduled to appear as one of tomorrow's (January 22) selected anniversaries. (Since it will appear only about 31 hours after Trump took his oath of office, perhaps an ulterior motive was behind its selection.) So it seems two sections of the main page are at odds with one another. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Opinion at ITN seems to be: inaugurations are indeed important historic events, but they are not really news, since nothing unexpected or even interesting usually happens at them. The election itself and its results are absolutely news, and are reported at ITN. Similarly it is reasonable that inaugurations would appear at OTD, but not elections. Staecker (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2017 (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.

Inauguration missing

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.

---

Since inauguration is verboten in Wikipedia, and any mention to it here is speedily deleted, what is the "appropriate discussion page" then? --213.104.136.117 (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's already been discussed here. — foxj 22:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The protests today are also being discussed for posting on the same page. I invite you to participate. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

here's obama on the main page in 2009.. America might have a new president but no let's post an ill-defined protest movement on the main page instead. Obviously there's no bias here on wikipedia! --Dinosaurdracula (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• The inauguration is mentioned in the very same sentence as the one you're talking about. Where's the problem? Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • hahah -- "Where is the problem?" -- then people complain when one says that there is no bias on Wikipedia. Will remember this episode when receiving emails from Jimmy Wales asking for money. --213.104.136.117 (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The people in charge of the front page/in the news section are clearly censoring the news, as they apparently don't like Trump's inauguration getting any attention. And the next day a march against the inauguration -is- news? You must think the readers of wikipedia are idiots to make your choices so transparently manipulative. Poor showing, whoever you are. Whether you are happy or sad about Trump is irrelevant. The inauguration of any US president is big news, regardless of who he is. Vince (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
      • No it isn't. Trump's inauguration was like any other and by precedence we 'do not post inaugurations' , with very few exceptions. The march is historical and unprecedented and even beat the inauguration in terms of attendance. But please, tell me about how the March that drew sister marches worldwide in the millions was irrelevant. Your US centrism is showing and by God it's horrific. --WaltCip (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
        • The Women's March is also an extremely US-centric story. Even more US-centric than the inauguration. Also, adding up small gatherings from many places around the world to get the 1M total is dishonest framing. Miraculouschaos (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
      • And incidentally, you had a chance to comment on the nomination. There are links everywhere on this talk page that will take you to where the ITN story was discussed. But no, better to be a drive by complainer and call the process idiotic and biased, right? Good for you. --WaltCip (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
        • When one goes to the "appropriate discussion page", the discussion on this is actually "closed", and that "shouldn't edit". Arguably, timing for discussion has passed. Ok, but then why Carrie Fisher's death stayed in the front page for almost (if not more) than 10 days? [EDIT: just checked: it stayed in the ITN until 13/Jan, whereas she died on 27/12] There is only one explanation for this: bias. The rest is just empty talk to justify it somehow. --213.104.136.117 (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
          • "Only one explanation"? Cute little rhetorical trick that did there. But since you're so keen on looking up web archives, check the archives for ITN/C. It's documented that we went through a slow period where very few stories were nominated for ITN. Your observation that Carrie Fisher stayed on the page for more than 10 days is due to lack of suitable replacement nominations, not due to bias. But thanks for trying! --WaltCip (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
            • The editors that propose and vote to choose a topic are not representative of the audience that uses Wikipedia as their reference. Then of course there is bias. --213.104.136.117 (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
        • There is more: for Obama's 2nd inauguration, it wasn't in the ITN, but the featured article (!): http://web.archive.org/web/20130120173623/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page --213.104.136.117 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
          • ITN and FA are governed by their own separate processes. There is no collusion in place between ITN and FA to ensure some devious attempt at liberal bias, despite what you might think. In fact, there have been complaints in the past of ITN and FA being overly redundant or reflecting a coincidental pattern. So that kind of torpedoes your argument. Next you'll be telling us we're getting paid by George Soros to fix the Wikipedia front page, yes? --WaltCip (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2017 (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.

Bias on Wikipedia

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.

---

Twice by two different readers concerns have been raised about bias on Wikipedia against Donald Trump in favor of some silly protesters. In both cases the discussions were locked. I sense an attempt to silence criticism. This needs to be addressed if Wikipedia wants to maintain its credibility as an unbiased source, and more importantly, get donations that will keep it alive. This is a bad look for your donors. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:78 (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you even read the close message? Isa (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2017 (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.

Deletion request

I would think that as one more (putatively) 'unthinkable' move by a deletionist. MaynardClark (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

To what does this refer? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone HAD inserted a deletion request on the Main Page. MaynardClark (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the Main Page is protected. A link would clarify this. Art LaPella (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Art LaPella: I believe MaynardClark was referring to this.

And it was a mistake.

Pity that WP:Articles for deletion/Main Page is salted. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Main page column widths

Is there a good reason why the left hand column (TFA and DYK) is set to be 55% of the main page width, and the rightmost column (ITN and OTD) is 45%? Any reason they can't be an even 50/50? Stephen 09:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I seem to recall someone pointing to studies indicating that even segmentation is perceived as less inviting and reduces people's ability to focus (or something along those lines).

Additionally, the left-hand column typically contains more/longer text, so a 50/50 layout would result in longer retention of ITN items (which already tend to stagnate) in the pursuit of length balance. —David Levy 20:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent deaths

I see we have a dead horse on RD. Is it time to drop the stick? Optimist on the run (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I was quite surprised by the lack of a mention of the death of Mary Tyler Moore. Yet some horse gets listed as a "recent death"? Good grief!

Philologick (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Well perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with the way ITN works where we consider only the quality of the articles as a barrier to posting at RD. MTM's article wasn't up to scratch until some good work was done on it, then it was posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This sort of thing is exactly why nobody takes Wikipedia seriously anymore. 98.175.65.13 (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why it gets more than 20 million hits to the main page alone every day. Good one! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Should be getting a billion or more. Sca (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

As has been said before - not everything can be included in ITN/OTD (and we probably all 'wonder why topic of personal interest X was omitted' on occasion).

Is there a viewing figure for 'all the main pages'? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

3 February 2017 FA Article

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'm surprised with the topic of the Featured Article today, that it hasn't received as much vandalism than usual for sexual topics. I'm fine with it on the main page, but with a topic like that, it's going to be hit hard with kids and teens vandalizing it. —JJBers|talk 01:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's awesome. Isa (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's probably gonna spike tomorrow, when us kids in the States get back to school (not to mention it's only been an hour). So keep an eye out. JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm just surprised there hasn't been any pearl-clutching complaints on behalf of the children. freshacconci talk to me 02:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and that it's great. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. Over half of native English speakers live in the United States if I properly recall, so the U.S. can have outsized effects. Vandalism wasn't too heavy despite the page being viewable for hours before 90% of Americans went to bed, though. Dustin (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

MY KIDS ARE GOING TO SEE THIS!!!11!!1--WaltCip (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2017 (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.

Proposed addition to OTD

A discussion is taking place at WT:OTD re a proposed addition to the "On This Day" section of the main page. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

On this Day: Groundhog Day

Anyone else have the feeling this has happened before? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

After Bill Murray boned Andy McDowell, it got better. --Jayron32 02:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Best scene was when Murray punched that guy in the face before he'd even said anything. Several users here could use a dose of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Blatant sexism on front page of Wikipedia?!

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.

---

Really, a pair of tits? You guys couldn't find anything better to put there? I mean, a painting of a woman worker or scientist like Marie Cure or something? How does this help to promote feminism which is the preferred ideology of women on Wikipedia? Beatitudinem (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Who said we should promote feminism? This isn't a soapbox. And who doesn't like tits? Isa (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You're not going to ask us to "think ... of the children"?

Seriously, I think this has tremendous historical importance as the first tit-pic selfie sent to an intimate partner, basically. And it's so well done ... without filters, natch!

Actually, I think this is feminist, since it was painted by a woman at a time when not many women painted to begin with and it affirms and celebrates her body and her sexuality. It's not porn, it's art. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Read the article about the painting; it's much more nuanced in context. In particular, I found this bit illuminating: This [focus on the breasts], [art historian Chris Packard] stated, challenged the assumptions and stereotypes regarding the demure, homebound 19th-century woman. In context, the painting is arguably an act of feminism, particularly as a self-portrait. I'd rather we not take the argument that, reductio ad absurdum, implies it'd be sexist to, say, feature a Georgia O'Keeffe painting. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 05:16, 5 February 2017 (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.

Re-running TFAs

Please see this post about re-running TFAs, and comment there if interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That Look

The marmot on TFA is staring me down, and I don't like it. I'm not sure what edit I made that it dislikes, but I'll gladly revert it if need be. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 14:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Marmots are all bark and no bite. Pay him no mind. At least it isn't a groundhog, though. They'll eff you up. --Jayron32 15:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

As we say in the business, "Cavy-at emptor".--WaltCip (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

/applause/ - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 16:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on how to deal with a shortage of featured articles for the main page

Please see here and comment there if interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Front Page font is too small.

Check out how most sites look nowadays. Most look like to be zoomed in at 125% compared to 100% of it--188.4.15.166 (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC).

I've got it at 200%. Looks fine to me. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The point exactly --193.92.203.187 (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

My quick look with Firefox's 'inspect element' tool shows our main body text is 12.7px (Monobook) or 14px (Vector). For comparison, BBC News uses 14px for body text, as do The Guardian and Yahoo, whilst MSN.com uses 13px for subheadings. There doesn't seem to be much in it. Regardless, the Main Page uses the same text style as any other article, which I think is a sensible choice. If you want to change the size throughout the encyclopaedia, this isn't the place to discuss it. Maybe WP:Usability? Modest Genius ^talk 16:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's an issue. When I can read The New York Times easily online but I have to squint to read the main page, with 20/20 vision, that's a problem and it needs to be addressed. After all, this is the place to ask questions about the main page.128.227.125.70 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this the same New York Time website whose front page uses a computed value of 13px (and uses a serif font), as opposed to Wikipedia's 14px computed size? Bazza (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Which reminds me: is there some way to make Wikipedia show up in a serif font? I've got things set for serif font in the edit window, but would prefer to be able to read articles in a serif font as well. --Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Firefox, for example, has a setting in Options/Content that will let you set a 'default' font and size, however this is iffy, as some pages have style sheets that will try to wrestle control back from the browser, so it'll work most of the time, but not always. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 15:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Tried that. The "From today's featured article..." and such headings come out in serif, but the main text is still sans serif.--Khajidha (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Without seeing the 'behind the scenes', it's probably dealing with a stylesheet issue. If it's not allowing browser to "use its own fonts", it'll basically use what is hard-coded in the css file. (*but that's just a rough guess*) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 16:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I find it entertaining, because I usually keep mine at 80%, because I think "normal" zoom level is too large. :) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 17:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I keep Wikipedia at 90% zoom because 100% is too big to read easily. Problems with any reasonably normal font size are probably personal issues, which should be handled personally (i.e. by zooming in or out on the browser), because any site-wide change, whether to make it bigger or smaller, will just end up annoying the 99+% of people who thought it was just fine in the first place. 69.210.136.253 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Tabs on Main Page Sections

Check out the Main Page of https://hi.wikipedia.org/ for an example. Popcrate (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK complaint

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.

---

Hello, I'm here to complain about the Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells being featured on the Main Page! How could you!! There are children! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 18:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

And exactly what is your complaint about it @Bobamnertiopsis:? The Royal C (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@The Royal C: See satire. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Kudos to The C of E for your work bringing an article that's so often referenced here at the MP's talk page to the Main Page itself! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bobamnertiopsis:, you're welcome. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Taking on the role of DofTW? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2017 (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.

New pages

Why has the new pages link been re-titled "Archive"? Deb (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No answers yet? Maybe because nobody can find it. Click "Special pages" on the left, look for the "Recent changes and logs" heading, and it says "New pages", not "Archive". Art LaPella (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I mean, the link at the bottom of the "Did you know?" section. Deb (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It was changed from "Recently improved articles" to "Archive" by Maile66 with this edit. Hard to tell why, it may have been unintentional. Jenks24 (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll amend that. Deb (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding [2], the opening sentence of Wikipedia:Recent additions says it isn't just for recently created articles. Main Page says "Archive" in three other sections so I guess it was intentional and not a typo. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for my mistake. It absolutely was unintentional. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Now it says "Recently created articles" but that is not entirely accurate, as many of the DYK articles are recently brought to GA status, and thus are not "recently created." Previously it was "Recently improved articles." This is not 100% accurate either, but I suppose it is more accurate in that a created article is an improvement over nothing. Thoughts? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"More new and improved articles" ? --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That ought to be (pickily) "new or improved". Bazza (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No, no, it should be "newer or improved". "More new" makes no grammatical sense.--WaltCip (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You're not understanding the use of more here correctly. Apparently, you understand it as Wiktionary:more#Adverb #3 but it's meant as Wiktionary:more#Determiner #1 --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Deshou. More + new and improved articles. Not hard to understand. Correctron (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Clearly it should be worded "An additional quantity of both new articles and improved articles may be found here" ApLundell (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK

There's a painting inspired by the compassion of George Washington, two people accused of treason who were pardoned by George Washington, and a Hawaiian politician named George Washington. Can anyone say "{{globalize/US}}"? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I like this kind of coincidence but this one is not - Washington was born on 22 February. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

How many articles did YOU, @KATMAKROFAN:, contribute to the DYK process today? If zero, then you could have fixed the problem, but did not. If YOU want to see different topics on the main page, then YOU can fix the problem immediately if YOU simply write content to put on the main page from topics YOU want. --Jayron32 17:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that this is just a misunderstanding. KATMAKROFAN simply didn't know about this nice WP:DYK way of reminding various anniversaries from less known perspectives. And this DYK set is an intelligent and inconspicuous way how to bring people to George Washington's anniversary :) I like it very much. Thanks to all who participated. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sooo... What will we be putting on DYK for Nelson Mandela's birthday? --2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:A3 (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Frequently asked question. A more specific answer: We have a DYK archive, and neither Washington nor Mandela has been mentioned on DYK on his birthday for at least 5 years. For some reason the usual flippant but relevant answer was omitted from the FAQ: there was no Mandela DYK because you didn't submit one.Art LaPella (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think 'many people' will find the occasional themed front page interesting/amusing (apart from 'the usual discussion' in a month and a few days) - and will regard the ingenuity involved in arranging such things positively. 'Thematic overload' and 'seemingly accidental concatenation' are, however, probably best avoided/likely to generate much more discussion. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Remember that one time TFP ran different "eagles" for a week or so, and nobody noticed? But every time there's a couple American/video game/[insert other grouping here] articles together, we never hear the end of it... ansh666 02:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I seem to recall that someone realized the (deliberate) trend at TFA and POTD after ... 3 or 4 days.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, so they did. I stand corrected (but my point is still mostly valid - more proper wording would have been "nobody cared/objected"). ansh666 00:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Nick Griffin birthday

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.

---

As funny as it is to have him alongside Lupita Nyong'o, it feels a bit odd to have Nick Griffin - a convicted racist who led a neo-fascist political party - in the birthdays section (for Americans: Griffin is more or less the British David Duke). In general, can we avoid listing people who are primarily known for criminal, widely-condemned or very controversial stuff in this section (for whatever reason, listing someone's birthday feels like a bit more of an honour than mentioning them elsewhere on the page)? Smurrayinchester 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait...Wikipedia has a birthday section? News to me. In regards to the subject of your comment, I find Griffin and his yoke to be repulsive, but for the sake of objectivity I don't see a problem with what you have raised. Probably bad taste lumping Nyong'o in with him though...yeesh.--Máedóc (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, he's on Wikipedia, and it is his birthday, so he gets listed. I don't think we should censor birthdays for whatever reason, it's a very slippery slope. I disagree with that a birthday mention somehow "honours" said person, or that wikipedia somehow approves or promotes said person. It is simply a mention, and if people view the person's page they can read about their deeds, good or bad. Reading about mistakes, misdeed, and atrocities can also promote awareness, and be educational in a positive way (and probably will be for most people). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpopper (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not censored. We post good people and bad people and disliked people- all of which vary from person to person, based on their opinions. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Ironically, I actually used Griffin to replace Andrew Breitbart who died on this day but whose article was sub-standard. I don't think you can say Griffin's article in any way protrays him in a good light, to be honest - it's straight and factual. Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised to see his name listed there yesterday, and wondered if it was someone else. But no, it's the right-wing idiot who pops up in UK news from time to time. The saving grace is that the article is actually of decent quality, which is the whole point, right? If we start saying "don't post x because of y" then were does it stop? Nothing German-related between the years of 1939-1945 on the frontpage? Generation Snowflake has a lot to answer for. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

We've mentioned the war a few times but I think we got away with it. GRAPPLE ^X 11:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Bit surprising he is still being mentioned on here because the BNP have become a non-entity in British politics now, they have lost everything they once gained and Griffin went bankrupt too. Even to the point where they were de-registered with the Electoral Commission because they did't pay the fee. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2017 (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.

ACS Nano

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS_Nano

Comments 1) Adding information about the current editorial board 2) Information for authors and reviewers 3) Adding "2015 Total citations" 4) How to submit a manuscript 5) "ACS Nano received the 2008 Association of American Publishers’ Award for Best New Journal in the category of Science, Technology, and Medicine."Jaeyune (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jaeyune. This is not the place to discuss the contents of individual articles. You can make your comments at Talk:ACS Nano. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, and you should also see WP:JWG which discusses appropriate content for articles on academic journals. Several of your comments are explicitly included in their section on 'what not to include'. Modest Genius ^talk 11:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Main page column widths

(Posted notification of this discussion at the following locations: Wikipedia talk:Did you know, Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries, Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article, Wikipedia talk:In the news, and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical))

As you may have seen, WP:On this day have started adding entries for births and deaths which has made their Main page section slightly longer. At the same time WP:Did you know are scaling back on the number of items they post. This has affected the ease of maintaining balanced columns on the Main page, with the right side often longer than the left.

Currently the columns are set to 55% width on the left (TFA and DYK) and 45% width on the right (ITN and OTD). I would like to shift the balance to 50/50% which will give On this day space to breath, and take the pressure off DYK to fill their section. I propose to do this in 1% increments with a few days gap in between to ascertain whether there are any issues. After 5 increments the main page columns will be balanced.

Comments invited. Stephen 00:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

One of the variables at DYK is that hooks can be any length up to 200 characters. That affects the area it takes on a daily basis. The longer hooks wrap into one or more lines. And there is no way to predict that. I don't know how affects what you have in mind.— Maile (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It will have the effect of making the left column slighty longer, on average, and the right column slightly shorter, on average. This will, on average, better balance the Main page, where ITN and OTD often have to remove a hook for balance. Stephen 01:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There's an ongoing, well-attended vote at WT:TFA#Survey, linked from WP:CENT, that shows that the broader community thinks quite highly of TFA's role on the Main Page. Unless there's some other vote I don't know about, I don't think there's community support for reducing TFA's space. Personally, it wouldn't bother me at all to reduce the max character count at TFA slightly, say from 1200 to 1150 ... I could make it work easily, I just don't know if there's any support for it. If this is about reducing DYK's space, I really don't know how the community feels about that. - Dank (push to talk) 01:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This does not reduce TFA space. The TFA word count will remain exactly the same. Stephen 01:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, I greatly appreciate being invited to the discussion. Just to clarify your assertion that DYK is scaling back on the number of items we post, at DYK we increased our sets to run eight hooks per set from seven hooks per set a few weeks ago after hearing that OTD was adding additional information to their section so I am not sure where you've heard we are scaling back on the number of items we post. I've been keeping an eye on overall MP balance because of that and when I've checked for the most part the MP appears balanced to me. Of course there are times where it favors the left or right side a little but that depends on what content is running on any given day. To echo Malie's point above, as DYK has variable hook lengths there are times where we run a set with shorter hooks which can result in less space being taken but the very next set can be primarily composed of longer hooks which swings the balance back the other way. At this point I would advocate for the status quo until we can see where everything winds up over a longer period. Mifter (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I must have looked at an old discussion. Eight hooks now seems the norm, and the frequency of change is irrelevant to balance. On average, if the page is unbalanced then something is typically removed from the right, after perhaps a DYK hook is pulled or a shorter set is posted. Stephen 03:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As I noted when you raised the topic in January, I seem to recall someone pointing to studies indicating that even segmentation is perceived as less inviting and reduces people's ability to focus (or something along those lines). —David Levy 04:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As this is all my fault, I suppose I'd best comment. I generally view Wikipedia using Firefox with the page set to 200% expansion. The addition of a birth and death to OTD generally takes two lines. I think that a change of 2% maximum (53/47) should suffice. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

'Main page redesign discussion episode number (xxx)' - which tends to be mostly harmless, and 'actively agreeing to maintain the status quo' can be a Good Thing. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I oppose modifying the balance of the Main Page at this time. I also have heard the fact referenced by David Levy above concerning unevenness proving aesthetically pleasing (though I cannot remember where.) Looking at the Main Page as it appears right now (image to the right) the left side with TFA and DYK is visibly longer than the right side with ITN and OTD (I have checked this on multiple devices with multiple browsers at different screen sizes/resolutions to verify that it was not just my device.) To me this illustrates that a change is not currently necessary. Best, Mifter Public (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I should point out that the addition of the birth/death days hasn't changed the length of the section as the previous UTC date and purge link (see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2017 January 1 for example) has been removed. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Should the current date and purge link be restored somewhere else on the MP? Whizz40 (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm running full screen on 1680x1050 at 80%, and DYK (*left side*) is one line taller than OTD (*right side*). With DYK being as flexible as it is, depending on hook length, I don't see a need to mess with the screen ratio as it currently stands. Sometimes it'll be longer, sometimes it'll be shorter. I doubt that there'll ever be a time when it'll be 'spot on' every single day, unless strict limitations are placed on what is actually displayed. Otherwise you're just aiming at a moving target. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Jewish Holidays starts at night, which day to show on Wiki?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries § Jewish Holidays starts at night, which day to show on Wiki?

 – Modest Genius ^talk 13:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

About Wikipedia

Tonight I discovered that there is a page Wikipedia:About. This can serve like the 'about' section on many other websites. However it seems that there is no link to it on the Main Page. I would suspect the header 'Welcome to Wikipedia' to link to this page, but instead it links to the encyclopaedic article about Wikipedia. I propose to change this. In that case, the article can still be found through the hat note on the About page. Bever (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The link is on the sidebar present on every single page in the entire encyclopedia Bever. Under the "Interaction" section. Whether it needs more prominence than that is a different matter but it is present on far more than the main page already. --Majora (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Vera Lynn

As Kirk Douglas appeared on his 100th birthday, why not Vera Lynn on hers? 100th birthdays of notable people are probably still scarce enough to warrant a mention. Or a link to 'something with which they are notably connected' (eg in these cases a film and a song respectively). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• That would have been a great idea, but unfortunately with less than 5 hours until the Main Page flips over to March 21 it isn't going to happen now. Lynn's article needs quite a bit of work to be linked from the Main Page. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

As 'why no mention of notable anniversary etc' discussions happen regularly, what can be done? In some cases there will be a suitable associated article (eg, in this case, one of the songs; or for 'an event' a participant) - but what can be done with the rest.

Unfortunately Vera Lynn's article was not of sufficient quality to be listed. Stephen 22:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Persons who reach 100 (and various other anniversaries) are sent a congratulatory official message - what can Wikipedia do? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This an encyclopaedia, not Moonpig. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well said The Rambling Man. Wikipedia is not a birthday greetings website. David J Johnson (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The question was open ended and WP orientated: but the question of what to do with anniversaries where there is no relevant article of sufficient quality still remains - perhaps (an occasional) 'anniversary article of today requiring improvement' (or 'nearly anniversary'/'nearly centenarian' subject of a page)? Or will 'MP Talk Page mention/discussion' suffice (and hopefully in some cases the article(s) in question will be improved as a result)?

Perhaps the '1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état and related articles' could be flagged up for MP mention now? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you know of someone coming up to 100 years old and are willing to get their article in such a condition that it could be featured on the main page (preferably GA or above), then there is a good chance they could be mentioned on the births/deaths part of WP:OTD. We would obviously prefer to have good quality articles linked there (I struggled to find more than two for a day recently). Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyone care to set up categories 'articles requiring improvement on 99-year-olds' and 'articles requiring improvement on events X9 years ago' (with X ≥4)?

No matter what system is set up there will be a few anniversaries which slip through the net as there is nobody with sufficient interest in the topic at the 'right' time. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• The answer to the question of "what to do with anniversaries where there is no relevant article of sufficient quality" is WP:SOFIXIT. If you want an article to appear on the main page, no other person except you is responsible for fixing it up to get it ready to appear on the main page. Complaining that no one else fixed it yet isn't going to get you anywhere. --Jayron32 04:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I did flag this up at WT:OTD a few days before her birthday. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I was 'observing the situation' - and my areas of activity are elsewhere (one reason for my suggestions above). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Introducing this talk page

A newcomer to this talk page is greeted with: "Welcome! This page is for discussing the organization and layout of the main page."

That's a lie. Anybody trying to redesign the Main Page is greeted with groans of "Oh no, not again!" We might tell them to go somewhere like Wikipedia:Main page redesign proposals and be ignored. If discussion breaks out here anyway, we all know where it will lead: nobody will endorse anybody else's idea without changes, and no individual's concept, not even yours, will get a consensus. So it's ridiculous to say that's what "This page is for".

It goes on: "It isn't for general questions ..."

General questions are the opposite of specific questions. So if I complain here that my big brother won't stop calling me a wumblebutt, that isn't a general question, that is a specific question specifically about wumblebutts.

"... or for encyclopedic content."

Another lie. Everything on this page is about something on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, so everything here violates the rule against discussing encyclopedic content. Except wumblebutts. That isn't content on any encyclopedia, so it's OK to discuss that.

Reading on to the bottom of the brown rectangle, we find: "Question help: to find out more about where to ask questions ..."

In other words, if newcomers with nothing better to do have wasted ten minutes reading this far, we expect them to waste another 20 minutes reading another page. We can't imagine they would just ask their question and get it over with.

And even when I edit this page, it says in red letters: "This is NOT the place to make suggestions for Main Page content. Please direct your suggestion to one of the forums listed above or your post may be removed or ignored."

Once again, everything here is about Main Page content. Well, everything except wumblebutts. Art LaPella (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This page is about discussing the organization and layout of the main page. You should take your specific concerns to Wikipedia:Village pump.--WaltCip (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's also the most relevant page for discussing the organization of this talk page. Art LaPella (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I generally agree with your points Art. The first sentence should be changed to:

Welcome! This page is for discussing the organization and layout contents of the main page.

We could say "current contents", but sometimes there are discussions about controversial content which is going to be displayed in the near future, so "contents" should be sufficient.

You are reading too much into the second sentence though. The "general questions" part implies general questions not related to the contents of the main page. I believe the second part is an attempt to dissuade the common occurrence of drive-by IPs dumping random "encyclopedic content" about their new start up business or amateur football team on this talk page. So for clarity, the second sentence could be rewritten as:

It isn't for general questions unrelated to the main page or for the addition of contents to Wikipedia articles.

I think these changes are fairly uncontroversial and would help clarify the first two sentences. Whether people read beyond that or listen the advice is out of our hands. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Much better. I agree that is what the second sentence is supposed to mean, and that the clarification explains it better. Art LaPella (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that users who come to discuss the current contents are generally told that they should have raised the issue at WP:ERRORS. The cynic in me is tempted to suggest Welcome! This talk page is for discussing the contents of this talk page. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

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.

---

Blocked users cannot edit Wikipedia. Why not put an asterisk by "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and put at the bottom of the page in small font with the words (not blocked users)? UpsandDowns1234 15:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, anyone can still edit. Blocked editors were allowed to edit until they decided that being an asshole was more important than being useful. So they are part of anyone. No one blocks anyone without prior evidence of assholery. --Jayron32 17:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's add: "Offer only applies to literate humans (or other human-level intelligences) with access to a computer and Internet connection. Void where prohibited. Side effects may include filling out reference templates in your sleep. Do not operate heavy machinery while editing Wikipedia until you know how editing Wikipedia affects you. Consult your doctor to find out whether editing Wikipedia is right for you." --47.138.161.183 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Being blocked does not stop someone from editing. It does stop them from editing with that username/IP but it does not keep them from editing. If it did there would be a whole lot less work around here. The only thing that really stops most people from editing is page protection. The number of people who can edit Main page is a very small percentage of the total editing population. If we were to add any disclaimer, (I am not advocating one) it should be unless the page you want to edit is protected. ~ GB fan 18:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is highly centralized. It's gotten worse when specific organizations and lobbies are (only) allowed to edit pages to promote products or ideologies. Wikipedia is compromised and should never be thought of as a primary source for anything. Use it as a jumping off point to research on other sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.196.58 (talk)

The primary intent of Wikipedia #is# to be a starting point/seeing what has already been done - and the talk pages to help people advance their understanding.

IP - do you mean only certain bodies are allowed to edit some pages, or that such bodies are only allowed to edit those pages (but not others). And it is those who are most interested in a topic (in the various senses of the phrase) who are likely to develop the pages in question beyond the stub stage. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a slogan, not a conclusion in a scientific journal.

No real person is confused because the slogan doesn't contain a list of disclaimers explicitly specifying in detail the set of circumstances for which it is strictly true.ApLundell (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• It does say "anyone", not "everyone" -- the implication being that anyone with an internet connection whose IP range isn't blocked and isn't blocked themselves can edit. Eman235/talk 19:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'm sorry if this is harsh but to me this question seems like trolling, so I guess my response would be don't feed the trolls (but my second response would be - having seen this type of thing before - someone just put a FAQ at the top, so whenever this is raised - one person can go see FAQ). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• This being a webpage, it uses hyperlinks instead of an asterisk. If you bother to click on the "anyone can edit" phrase, you'll be directed to the Wikipedia:Introduction page, and from there to other pages about editing, policies and so on, where all the caveats and conditions on editing Wikipedia are detailed, including information about blocked users. That is too much information to be put on small font at the bottom of the page. 186.228.52.36 (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

So what are the proportions of 'constructive contributions'; 'neutral/trying something out (which they are not always able to immediately correct); newbies, persons using another language, and others needing some help and greater leniency; persons with a (peculiar) sense of humour (not necessarily shared by others); look-at-mes, trolls and other categories of nuisance (against whom the best 'revenge' is treating them nicely)?

The problem with the MP talk page is that it attracts the 'general enlighten my interest' remarks which cannot always be distinguished from Rationalwiki's 'Just asking questions' and actual trolls.

If you are an innocent bystander on a blocked IP you are provided with means of resolving the issue. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2017 (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.

Early comment

Wikipedia is allowed an occasional outburst of attempted humour on the Main Page. This is part of Wikipedia's cultural heritage, and so should be protected and enjoyed. 31.49.115.137 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I for one am quite happily anticipating tomorrow's main page. Eman235/talk 21:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I wish there were less...crude...jokes in DYK (as usual), but otherwise, it's great. ansh666 04:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The answer, generally, is start finding better ones for this time next year - or 'intriguing hooks' for use on days in between.

Don't worry, given April Fools Day next year coincides with Easter, there will probably be less risque hooks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's hope not. I plan to treble my efforts to make them more offensive and ridiculous than ever. In fact, we should start working now to find some Easter-related April's Fools hooks which can include juvenile, sexist, racist, misogynist, hooks as I think we could probably manage four or five sets that day. A long weekend shouldn't get in the way of this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Like the fact you tried to block all of those things this year? Why the sudden change of heart? :) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Why would the fact that it is Easter influence anything content related? As long as its clever and well done the subject matter really shouldn't make any difference(easier said than done obviously). For an encyclopedia it should not matter which religion celebrates whatever figure on a certain day, even when its just about sillyness. 91.49.80.100 (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Is the IP's comment on Wikipedia having a cultural heritage correct? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it will be particularly fun to find some anti-Easter stuff!! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

At least since 2006. Art LaPella (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

(reset) On the relevant day in January a (Julian Calendar) Christmas themed page.

Next suggestion - broaden the 'April Fool discussion page' to a 'general humour/misdirection/puzzle the reader links on the Main Page' discussion, with due consideration of the issues which led to the ending of the BJAODN threads. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

South American Bias

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.

---

Wikipedia's In The News Section, as always, shows an disgusting South American bias. All of Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself for this continuing problem! --Jayron32 02:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Infact, redesign the frontpage NOW! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Makes a nice change that the USA isn't dominating ITN. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Jayron, you know as well as anyone that the best way to deal with systemic bias on Wikipedia is to contribute more content to the ITN process. There are dozens of stories that go unpublished on an ITN on a regular basis for lack of attention in these areas. However, we do not combat systemic bias by removing quality content from consideration.--WaltCip (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

WaltCip, it's a joke. If you don't like it, I suggest "I get the joke, but ..." Art LaPella (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I take refuge in Poe's Law.--WaltCip (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2017 (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.

Video as main page image for April 13 TFA

Czar asked here if it was OK to switch out a pic of a game cover for the April 13 TFA with another image; I agreed, not realizing the replacement image would be a video. I don't know any reason why this would be a bad idea, but since I haven't seen it done I thought I'd ask here, just in case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Videos turn up at DYK, OTD and TFP more frequently than they appear elsewhere on the main page, but that mainly reflects availability. This seems like a good opportunity to run one at TFA, particularly given the relative scarcity of free-licensed pictures (of the static or motion variety) in the subject area. —David Levy 02:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I do think the cover is quite attractive, but from a purely EV perspective the video is of greater encyclopedic use.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way the thumbnail can be fixed? Looking at it on firefox, it's just a grey play button with a few colorful pixels to the right of the button. ApLundell (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've increased the thumbnail's size and selected a more suitable still frame to display. —David Levy 07:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Writing under "did you know" makes no sense

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.

---

"... that in Canada, ten dollars will get you an EMD F40PH diesel locomotive?" I live in Canada, and there's no way you can buy an actual train for 10 dollars here. Socialistboyy (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)socialistboyy

The reference is to the following sentence: A rebuilt locomotive was included on the back of the redesigned Canadian ten-dollar note in 2013. It is not meant literally (obviously). --Majora (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a blurb that inappropriate outside of April 1. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is a long standing tradition at DYK to have the last hook be particularly...hooky. If it gets you to click on the article and read, it has done its job. --Majora (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh and in case you think I am joking. It is actually written in the prep rules. See Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas #N9. N9: Consider picking at least one funny or quirky hook if there is one available and putting it in the last (bottom) slot of the update. Just as serious news programs end on an upbeat note to bring viewers back next time, ending on an upbeat or quirky note rounds an update off nicely and encourages readers to come back next time for more. --Majora (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Since when did either quirky or funny mean inaccurate? This is literally false. LordAtlas (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It's off the main page now. I suggest you all take your complaints to the DYK project where your concerns, I'm sure, will be taken into consideration. It's no longer relevant here. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2017 (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.

Featured pictures

Three animal-related pictures almost in a row - and nobody has commented yet. (The pictures are decorative/interesting enough.) Jackiespeel (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

OMG IT'S AN ANIMAL CONSPIRACY!!!!! Better? ansh666 20:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a conspiracy, It is just the animal cabal. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 08:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It's systemic bias against plants. --Jayron32 14:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You can help, Jayron; rather than denying postings to animal featured pictures, you can work to help bring plant pictures up to featured quality so that they are adequately represented on the main page.--WaltCip (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think that claim is a plant. Vive les animaux!  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Main page accessibility pass

I started out fixing the MOS:LISTGAP with the portals in the top banner, but I got a little carried away. So I tried to fix the list gap, get rid of the nested layout tables, and add some <section>-like structure, while minimizing visual changes: (sandbox) (diff). It's still a work in progress, but does this look like something that ought to be done? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Should we move the main page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It would be more useful if the main page was located at Wikipedia:Main Page so we can redirect Main Page to Home Page. Also, the main page does not have the title visible or the redirected from visible. UpsandDowns1234 (Talk to me) (My Contribs) 06:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

At one point or another, I considered "Portal:Main" as an option. Probably not realistic to suggest at this point, though. Master of Time (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussion Art LaPella (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if there were consensus to move the main page (and I can't see it happening), Main Page would have to redirect to it, rather than Home Page or anything else, as there are far too many external websites that link to it. Optimist on the run (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've always thought that we should have a hatnote linking to home page, but apparently there's no consensus to do that either. ansh666 02:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

20 million or so people find the main page every day, it's probably ok where it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not the problem here - it may be preventing people from finding our article about generic main pages (currently located at home page). But because of inertia and all those other reasons mentioned above, there's never been consensus to do anything about it. ansh666 04:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That's hardly an issue to get upset about is it? So often we end up "creating" problems here, i.e making problems looking for solutions. Such a waste of energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's upset, at this point we mostly just shrug and point to the previous discussions (last of which was in 2009). ansh666 07:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As putting (language code) wikipedia.org into the URL brings one to the Main Page, and clicking on the jigsaw globe also goes there, what is the problem? There is something of a case for a link to the article on 'main pages' - people may be interested (or developing their own wikis). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, the problem isn't trying to reach the Main Page, it's trying to get to the article on generic main pages (home page). If for example you use https://www.wikipedia.org (non-language specific), typing in "main page" there would still bring you to the Main Page. ansh666 19:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no point at all in having this discussion on en-wiki; that entering Main Page into the search bar or linking to Main Page takes you to the front page of whatever project you happen to be on isn't some arbitrary value judgement we've made on en-wikipedia but is hardwired into MediaWiki. (Head on over to Special:SiteMatrix, pick a wiki at random, and test it for yourself). Even in the unlikely event you get an overwhelming consensus on en-wiki for this change, the WMF will block a change which will affect the running of hundreds of other sites unless you can convince those sites that the change is in their interests as well, and since on every other project it will cause inconvenience with no benefit that appears unlikely. If you want to change that you'll need to head on over to Meta, get consensus there, and assuming you can get a consensus the next step will be to submit a Phabricator request and try to persuade a dev to action it. ‑ Iridescent 20:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not much point to the discussion I agree, but isn't it the case Iridescent that all this is governed by what's written at MediaWiki:Mainpage? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No—that's what the MP is called on this project. I could move Main Page to Main Page on wheels!!! and update MediaWiki:Mainpage to match, and clicking the globe or typing "Main Page" would then take you to that new title, but entering or linking to "Main Page" would still take you to whatever is defined at MediaWiki:Mainpage as the main page title. For instance, Greek Wikiquote's MP is called "Κύρια Σελίδα"—and defined as such on their MediaWiki:Mainpage—but if you type "Main Page" into their search box, in English, it will take you there. (That is, the title defined at MediaWiki:Mainpage defines what Main Page will take you to.) ‑ Iridescent 23:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you can relocate the main page at Wikipedia:Main page or Portal:Main page or MediaWiki:Main page, but I realized that the software is preventing the deletion or the relocation of the main page. See Wikipedia:Don't delete the main page. It can be pretty annoying, but modifying that software would allow the moving of the main page. UpsandDowns1234 (Talk to me) (My Contribs) 18:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

To reiterate, since my saying it three times so far doesn't appear to have been enough, this would entail recoding the MediaWiki software, and then manually searching and replacing every instance of the string [[Main Page]] on every one of the 1000-odd projects listed here with whatever the new name chosen happened to be, would require the consent of every other WMF project, and is not something that can be done unilaterally on one project even if that project is en-wikipedia. That on en-wikipedia the Main Page title happens to be identical to the "Main Page" magic word is an anomaly derived from the fact that MediaWiki was mostly written by English speakers; whatever title the main page of any WMF project happens to be located at, as far as the software is concerned it's called "Main Page". ‑ Iridescent 21:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that sounds kind of dumb to be hardcoded in like that, but good to know. ansh666 21:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you can make the location of the main page a global variable so you can easily change the software's configuration to allow an easy move of the main page. By doing this, the main page can be moved in two steps:

1. Move the main page
2. Change the title on the appropriate MediaWiki global variables.

UpsandDowns1234 (Talk to me) (My Contribs) 05:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

(bangs head against brick wall) For the fifth time now, this is not something we can do unilaterally. It doesn't matter what title the main page is located at; moving the MP to a different title won't free up the [[Main Page]] link to be used for another purpose, as it will still need to lead to whatever new title the MP is housed at. The best you can do is put a "Main Page leads here, for articles about main pages in general see Home page" hatnote, but you'd be unlikely to get consensus for that as it would push all the other elements on the main page down a notch. ‑ Iridescent 11:48, 16 April 2017 (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.

Wikipedia bug/glitch

If i go on this revision of the Roman empire article from 2001 and click "Previous revision" it sends me to a revision in 2010. Koopinator (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:VPP. I will note though that that's the very first version of the page; strange things happen on every article when you try to do that. ansh666 20:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Not every article. It only happens on very old articles where the first edits are usually missing but some other really old edits were imported into the current software. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess it loops around. It should return an error that alerts the user that the previous revision could not be found. UpsandDowns1234 (Talk to me) (My Contribs) 05:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Would 'whatever is being responded to' at the top of Talk:Boris Skossyreff that cannot be traced have the same issue? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the missing edits issue is for pages going back to 2001 and maybe 2002. The May 2006 post by Curps at Talk:Boris Skossyreff#Other opinions about the article is simply a reaction to this article edit a few days earlier. Curps also posted to the editor at User talk:Eekmo. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests

Folks, there are some requests that could do with more eyes and more discussion. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Easter missed On This Date

Was Easter's absence from the On This Date section accidental or deliberate. Can someone point me to the page on which it would have been discussed? Many thanks. 88.105.171.0 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, WP:ERRORS was where the fact that the article was way below the quality expected of main page articles. You'll need to check the history of ERRORS because no archives exist. In future years, it would be helpful if people that actually care about the observances work harder on the articles in question, we don't post really low-quality articles to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This version of WP:ERRORS contains the discussion. Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite. Found it. 88.105.171.0 (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The good news is that now it's been made clear, we have nearly a year to prevent its omission in 2018! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

... where it will go almost completely unnoticed because Easter Sunday is April 1st ... oh well. Black Kite (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kind of anti-funny. Although I find it funny. Either way, if the ardent Christian collective, or anyone else interested, want to see Easter featured on ... Easter/April Fool's/Day next year, they now have nearly a year to fix it up! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see it now... "Jesus exits the tomb and then sees his shadow, signaling 40 more days of Lent" - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep that one tucked away. I had "Jesus exits the tomb, sees the orange maintenance tag, and realises it's not quite as easy as he thought...". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Not forgetting the red links, of course? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It was deliberate, in the sense that some editors consider an article like Easter to be entirely unacceptable, woeful even; but not it seems in the sense that anyone set out with the purpose of excluding it. The rules at WP:OTDRULES require it to be "preferably ... a relatively complete and well-formatted article, free from ... article issue tags" (emphasis added). The rules do not specifically require any particular standard of referencing, whatever subjective shrubberies are demanded from time to time. Still, we now have nearly a year to ensure Easter meets the high quality standards set by for example Tax Day. Because, you know, we never post low-quality articles to the Main Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.171 (talk • contribs)

• I sure don't. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• By all means help out improving articles rather than simply bemoaning the fact that such woeful quality articles are pulled late simply because of the way the process works. That way everyone wins. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• By all means help out improving articles rather than simply bemoaning the fact that they are of a woeful quality. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not interested in most of these topics, I am interested in keeping crap off the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean that Easter is crap, or that Tax Day is not?128.214.163.201 (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Both, in OTD terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey buddy, just lay off the "ardent Christian collective", will ya? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for finding a place where the documentation was not updated. It's now been changed to say "must be". —howcheng {chat} 16:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, very good. I applaud your boldness in simply changing the rules to achieve the result you want. But perhaps there should be some discussion leading to a consensus for a change to such a widely accepted rule, one that has been in place for more than 13 years? (Did you know, that part of the OTD rules has been in place and unchallenged almost since the first version of that page back in February 2004? More of a guideline, no doubt.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.239 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
    • If you really are interested in quality control and such articles, it would be better to spend your time improving these articles rather than complaining about their absence from the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
      • This is not just me arbitrarily doing this. If you have been a frequent visitor to this page, you should have noticed the number of reports/requests to remove substandard articles with little objection (I think the only substantive one was an objection of removing an article once it had already been included on the Main Page itself, not that we should include those with maintenance tags on them; basically the argument was that we should have removed it earlier). And yes, this is a honestly a case of the documentation hadn't been updated to reflect the newer reality, so thank you for that. —howcheng {chat} 19:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Venezuelan protest

Why did this get removed from In the news? B137 (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@B137: A valid ERROR report raised questions about the article's sourcing. Please see WP:ITN/C for the discussion page for In the news. --Majora (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sergio Garcia image

Sergio Garcia's mug on ITN has been staring me down for over a week now. Do we truly have no other image we can use?--WaltCip (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Has Fernando Lugo done nothing newsworthy in the past week? --Jayron32 15:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear lord, I think that would give me painful flashbacks.--WaltCip (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"... a clean image that will not fade"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The golf blurb is also about to rotate off. Could we use File:Recep Tayyip Erdogan 2017.jpg to illustrate the Turkey item? Modest Genius ^talk 15:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Emma Morano.jpg also has a clean license. --Jayron32 15:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a better option, though unknown source and author make the licence tags a little suspicious. Modest Genius ^talk 16:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

So where are we on this???--WaltCip (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this now looks really bad without an image. Modest Genius ^talk 16:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, never mind. The Serg is back.--WaltCip (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

He's like a slasher movie villain - unkillable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see the slasher/golf movie now - Friday the 18th. Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Lugo!!! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, in these dark hours, let's go Lugo. Maybe put some purple text around it. And a jaunty angle too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Coincidentally, Lugo is in the article pool for April 20's OTD, but I didn't include it this year as it will be a round-number anniversary next year. —howcheng {chat} 19:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Lugo is to Wikipedia as Meryl Streep is to the Oscars.--WaltCip (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing

Curious, why no Oklahoma City bombing in OTD today? Is it merely a matter of "we didn't have room for it with all the others", i.e. an editorial decision that the other topics were more important to feature than this incident? It's an FA, so I doubt that the frequent exclusion reason of "it's poor quality" wasn't relevant here. Or maybe it appeared a year or two ago, and there's a rule against featuring the same thing too many years in a row? Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Many OTD items are circulated between years. The page history is at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 19 where the bombing is currently listed as eligible in the staging area. It was shown on the 20th anniversary in 2015. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thank you! Virtually every time I notice the absence of a specific event, it's a matter of the article being of poor quality, so I had no idea how we handled eligible articles. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no rule preventing articles from appearing in consecutive years. April 19 just happens to have a large number of US-related articles and Lexington/Concord hadn't been on since 2013, and we try have geographical diversity when possible, so the bombing just made way, that's all. —howcheng {chat} 18:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Should we delink all articles with maintenance issues from the main page?

When a nomination goes through one of the processes (TFA/ITN/DYK/OTD/etc) there is a tendency to review the highlighted article and then add links (regardless of standard) to the description that features on the main page. That usually leaves many links that would normally be unsuitable for the main page. Several, in fact, on the main page at the moment.

Those who frequent WP:ERRORS may be familiar with highlighted articles regularly being removed because of maintenance issues, such as a lack of citations or POV concerns. My question here is whether this should extend to articles that are not highlighted - ones that are used to give context to the reader. Fuebaey (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking about the common problem at ITN, of whether all links in a blurb need to pass stringent quality review or whether this requirement only applies to the "bold" link; then I am opposed to this. It's impossible to review such a large number of articles and still post blurbs in any sort of timely fashion. Even moreso when the mere act of nominating an article at ITN brings on a flurry of tagging and "oppose on article quality" !votes. This can be dealt with for a single bold link and for subjects that generate interest, but for 2-4 other links this would stop ITN completely. I don't think de-linking the non-bold links in blurbs is the answer, either, because it deprives readers of easy access to complementary information. Putting those non-bold links up in the state that they are might even generate some interest to improve them.

Tangentially, I was extremely disappointed to see that there was no mention of Easter at all on the front page last Sunday, not even on OTD. The reason given was that the article quality was poor. I took a look, and it is not the best article, but it is extremely informative and well composed and almost all of it is sourced. Today, the US Tax Day article is featured in the same space, and it is garbage. There is obviously a problem with assessing quality, and further of striking a balance between quality and impact.128.214.69.166 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well if you disagree with the OTD rules, and don't like the items selected there, please feel free to comment at WT:OTD. We don't make exceptions for any religious holidays if the article is woefully under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I take your point about further discussion at OTD on this narrow issue (seriously though, take a look at Easter and Tax Day and tell yourself that the latter is higher quality; I even wager the latter has a higher proportion of controversial and unreferenced claims). I mean to make a broader point that even bold links aren't getting well evaluated, so extending this already-misapplied standard to non-bold links is impossible.128.214.69.166 (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I review the bold linked articles at DYK, ITN and OTD every day, and apply the rules of each section accordingly. Once again, if you disagree with those rules, the respective project's talkpages is the place to start. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

What has changed since the article on Easter was mentioned on the Main Page in 2016? The criteria at WP:OTDRULES have not changed: number 5 simply says that articles should "preferably" not include article issue tags, not that the absence of any such tags (or related issues) is a mandatory requirement. (Tactically adding such tags just before an anniversary or observance comes around seems to be a neat way to torpedo any such article appearing on the Main Page, though; not that anyone would stoop to such malign and disruptive behaviour I am sure.) Was there a debate somewhere about imposing more stringent requirements? For what it is worth, the article on Easter is a good example of Wikipedia content. It is certainly not "woeful". Aber Befehl ist Befehl, nicht wahr?

What has changed is that someone is now actually working to check each OTD article and conscientious admins are working to implement the rules. Most of the Easter article was unreferenced, hence failed OTD rules. We don't post such woefully unverifiable material to the main page, it's not a good example of Wikipedia work. As for "tactics", the OTD selection isn't made until sometimes the actual day before, so there's not an option other than to do it just before an observance or an anniversary. All religions, incidentally, are treated identically in this regards. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Over the last few years, I was generally giving holiday/observance articles more of a pass. Consensus within the past year has changed to require improved quality on all articles. —howcheng {chat} 18:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've always thought that each blurb should only link to one article. I see no difference between a bold link vs a non-bold link, each is calling attention to an article. If any article would not be considered good enough for a bold link, it should not be considered good enough for any link from the Main Page. If the blurb does its job of taking readers to the article, they will have all the access to other articles that they need. --Khajidha (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

We had a discussion similar to this at DYK, it was generally agreed that minimising wikilinks in blurbs is a good thing but eliminating them altogether is to do a disservice to the reader. That may apply across all aspects of the main page, particularly if some areas contain more technical terms that may be of interest. After all, the main page is just a way to get readers to click into Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln, Wikipedian - you can please all the users some of the time, some of the users most of the time (and others none of the time) but you cannot please all the users all the time. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That's true, TRM, but as a counterpoint, directing readers to an incomplete, incorrect, or otherwise dreadful article on a technical term is not really a "service". It's more of a disservice than not linking at all, as linking implies the reader could find something useful by following the link. No link is better than a bad one. --Jayron32 17:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And, as I said, if the blurb's bold link has done its job they will have "clicked in". --Khajidha (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that's a non sequitur, the "bold link" may be brilliant, but the hook, or the the blurb, may contain words, sayings, phrases which are open to interpretation or ENGVAR. Most of the main page is not DYK. Jayron, as a correction to my previous (undone) post, I'm almost with you. But as I've said, I check almost every bold linked article across most of the Main Page every day for quality. If we're now talking about every "linked" item, then TFA would be the place to start that fight, as most TFA blurbs have a dozen or more links. I'd suggest talking to that project directly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And clicking through to the bold article would give them access to those terms in a larger context that might make visiting their articles unneeded but would definitely have links to those terms that they could then follow. To me, it seems logical that if you don't understand a term in a blurb that you would first read the larger article to see if it makes sense there and then go to the unfamiliar term's entry if needed. Entries are pulled from or barred from the main page because the main linked article is not of a quality that we want to call attention to, but EVERY link from the main page calls attention to that article. I cannot see how you can hold some links from the main page to a high standard, but not others. Either all need to meet the standards or none do, and the "none" option is completely untenable.--Khajidha (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You're forgetting there are two types of link from the main page, bold "target" links and associated links. Every bold link should uphold each section's standards (and they are different from section to section) but associated links should be there to help the reader. And today's reader may become tomorrow's editor and get stuck into some of the poorer quality articles. Win-win. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm pointing out that that distinction does not exist for the general reader. To the general reader "Today's Featured Article" is just an article we have featured, "In the News" is just a list of news stories, "On This Day" is just a list of things on this day, "Did You Know" is just a list of quick tidbits, and a link is just a link. They don't know these standards and distinctions so that any link becomes an example to them of what Wikipedia is like. By linking multiple terms but only holding one to higher standards we give them many more examples of substandard material than we do of material that meets these standards. Hardly a win for anyone. --Khajidha (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the bold helps our reader distinguish between the target of the hook/blurb and the auxiliary links, otherwise we wouldn't have it in bold. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It may distinguish which one is more relevant, but gives no indication that that one is held to higher standards of quality. --Khajidha (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a non-problem. I don't see any readers complaining, the main page has a steady-ish 20 millions hits per day, where's the big issue? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I started this discussion in response to this edit. I actually agree with Khajidha in that most readers don't give two hoots about the perception of "quality" defined here. One could easily say, to use the same argument above, if we don't see any readers complaining there's no reason at all to pull any article from the main page at all. Fuebaey (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Not really, we should apply the guidelines of the respective main page sections accordingly, and if it says we should discourage templated articles, we should try not to run them, and cherry-picking ones which are tagged to run them regardless is true systemic bias. If you wish to change the guidelines applied by TFA, OTD, DYK, ITN, TFL, TFP etc, that's a discussion to be held at the specific projects. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping someone would point me to the (ITN?) guideline that would justify that edit then. It seemed reasonable to discuss this here because, like you said, there has been discussions at DYK and now an active edit at ITN with regards to this issue. That seems relevant to the main page if you ask me. Fuebaey (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

OTD: The article should be rated B-class or higher and like blurbs, must be free of yellow-level or higher maintenance tags.

ITN: Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link.

DYK do as they please, the other areas are featured areas so maintenance tags, low quality targets, shouldn't happen. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood my comment. The edit above was made to a (still current) ITN blurb; the link was not bolded but removed nonetheless. None of what you have written or quoted addresses that. Fuebaey (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh sure, in that case then I'm unaware of any main page regulations across all sections that precludes shit quality articles being linked as auxiliary links. I think it's usually a good thing, to encourage improvements etc, but I can also see that if we have a hugely embarrassing one, e.g. on with {{unref}} or {{copyvio}} then we'd need to unlink it. As usual here on Wikipedia, it's more of a case-by-case basis thing rather than just a "one size fits all" approach, which usually ends with "one size fits no-one". Hope that helps! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Earth Day March for Science

Thousands of people around the world have organized & marched, surely that is something worthy of making the ITN section? The article seems fleshed out enough to be featured under ITN.

Being discussed here. ansh666 00:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

And thousands isn't enough. So this is likely to not be posted due to sorely lacking in notability.--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

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.

---

Blocked users cannot edit Wikipedia. Can there be an asterisk so it says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit*" and at the bottom say "*not blocked users"? UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) (My Contribs) 21:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Asked and answered here: [3]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2017 (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.

Green on black skin fix

Special:Permalink/777332855 contains a fix for the Wikipedia:Green on black skin. — Dispenser 15:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. and a few other minor changes that should make it easier to override some of these properties. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sports hooks

Really, really glad that Sergio Garcia has finally progressed past the main page. I cannot overstate how much joy this brings me. The pictures need more frequent rotation than Sergio got after winning the Masters three weeks ago. Yes! Stormy clouds (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, there's not a lot we can do when there are not free images available from the other stories on ITN. In this case, there weren't - and then it took 8 days for a suitable story to arrive there. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Should the entry on Selby followed the path adopted by most media and specify that this is his second consecutive title, as this is one of the most remarkable things about his victory? Just wondering Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope, ITN isn't "most media", it's unnecessary embellishment. As List of world snooker champions will demonstrate, there are plenty of people who have won it two consecutive times, Ronnie did it only five years ago, before him Hendry, Davis, Reardon, Pulman, Davis, Davis.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Turkey blocking of Wikipedia

No mention of this on the Main Page? 86.146.100.119 (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

See WP:ITN/C#.5Breopened.5D Turkish authorities block Wikipedia. Aiken D 09:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It's mentioned on the front page in the 'Turkish Purges' link in ITN's Ongoing section. While it doesn't have a blurb, it's position in Ongoing in somewhat more privileged than a simple blurb, and banning Wikipedia in Turkey is part of a larger story than would be poorly served by singling out Wikipedia's role.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It was mentioned specifically in the news (and WP-ians are likely to notice 'WP is blocked in ...' type newsfeed.

Redesign the Main Page suggestion number (whatever) - have a 'Wikipedia ITN' link to a separate page - which then places events, activities and happenings in their wider context (and include a running commentary on the Wikipedia News Channel). 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The "Did you know" section

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.

---

Objection to the mention of "... that the Dutch admiral Cornelis Speelman called the Javanese Muslim nobleman Raden Kajoran a "prophet of the devil"?" Because it basically promotes racism and Islamophobia. One may argue the intent of showing this is to discredit Speelman but I think it does more to elevate the bigotry of what he said. I have never heard of Speelman until this. And hopefully everyone is aware that Muslims have been under attack by many governments around the world (ie. Germany, France, The Netherlands, the US, etc.)

(Is it okay I made this comment?) TenorTwelve (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments are always welcome. I would raise this at WP:ERRORS for more attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2017 (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.

South Korean election

I think the results of the South Korean election should be included, especially as it's more significant and more recent than the horse racing or snooker results. Thoughts? --Bowlhover (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:ITNC where items for inclusion in the ITN section of the main page are discussed. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK errors

I recently posted an error report on today's DYK at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors where it currently shows up. However, when I come over to this talk page, the Talk:Main_Page#Current section doesn't show my report in plain view, but it does show up when I attempt to edit the section as if it should be there (even though I only posted at the errors subpage and not here). I'm not sure what's going on, but just a heads up that error reports made at the Errors subpage may not be visible at this talk particular page even though it looks like they are supposed to be linked in some fashion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Very likely you just needed to WP:PURGE this talk page to see it. Changes to transcluded content do not show up immediately, which is intended behaviour for MediaWiki for performance reasons. It can take quite a long time sometimes, if the server is busy with stuff and has a long job queue. Murph9000 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've haven't worked with transclusion much, so I was hoping it was just something simple like this. Everything shows now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The Main Page toolbox - orange box on the right of this page - has a handy 'purge this page' link which can be used to flush everything through and ensure that the latest errors report is appearing. Regardless, anyone watching WP:ERRORS will see the change immediately. Modest Genius ^talk 10:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

TFA subheadings

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.

---

Today, the "Today" and "Tomorrow" subheadings have been added to TFA, at least twice, even though one of the sections is blank. Is there a recent discussion that led to this? It hasn't been done in my 2.5 years at TFA, and I don't recall blank, unnecessary subheadings at TFA before that (though others will have a better memory about this than I do). Bottom line: I can't look through hundreds of edits marked with nothing more than "Today" or "Tomorrow" in my watchlist to find the occasional ones relevant to TFA. I have a lot of other wiki-jobs, and I don't have that kind of time to invest in this one. If people want this change, there are other ways to handle it, such as spinning off and transcluding a separate TFA page. (I don't want to speak for anyone else, of course, but I imagine others who want to keep an eye on just one or two sections will see the issue the same way I do.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a harmless bit of organizational help for many people; having a section for "tomorrow", even if blank, reminds people to look for errors BEFORE they become errors on the main page. If its blank, it's still useful as a reminder. If its presence is at worst harmless, and possibly useful, then there's no reason to remove it. --Jayron32 20:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think also that there's more emphasis on checking on the future of the main page (certainly I'm doing that for OTD and DYK) rather than just waiting for errors to be dumped onto the main page. I see no harm at all in having two headings. As for the watchlist issue, are there really hundreds of edits per day on ERRORS? It's more like 30 or so per day. Many of them are "Errors in In the news:" or "Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day: " or "Errors in the summary of today's or long}}|tomorrow's featured article". I don't think it's that difficult to check in once or twice a day (rather than check every edit) to see what's relevant to TFA. Of course, if it's too much, please ask for help from some other admins who I'm sure will be happy to assist keep errors from the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

And actually, if the only objection is that of a non-explicit highlight in a watchlist, just change the headings to "TFA today" and "TFA tomorrow". It is still (and always has been) possible to add an error report by editing the whole ERRORS page which doesn't then even list the sub-section, so that can't be solved, and that's just something we'll all have to cope with. But this problem appears to have a trivial 8-byte fix. Done; moving on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That will work for me, as long as people remember to do it that way, and as long as there aren't a lot of silly edits adding and subtracting the subheads. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, it's been like this for quite some time, and as I said, if you're only looking for things under the TFA heading, you're probably missing out because people can edit the ERRORS page at the top-level, so your method of determining what's relevant to TFA and you is already flawed. We can't account for "silly edits", but this is the way it's been for a while (particularly on other sections of ERRORS), it's helpful to our editors and readers who wish to report issues, so it's better to get used to it and work with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine to me (as someone who reads and responds to errors reports in all categories). Any particular reason why this thread is here rather than WT:ERRORS, since it only really affects those who regularly edit WP:ERRORS, as opposed to the general readership of T:MP? Bencherlite^Talk 21:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

ERRORS isn't archived. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

WT:ERRORS, I said. Bencherlite^Talk 22:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Well, I didn't put it there because I haven't usually noticed these kinds of discussions going there, but I have no objection if you want to move the thread to that page. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 17 May 2017 (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.

World football

Should something be added about one of the European soccer leagues. Lots of notable world news - Real Madrid win La Liga, Chelsea FC are crowned Premier League champions, retirement of Xabi Alonso and Philip Lahm etc. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate these items at WP:ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

If you would like to help out, add some prose to the articles over at ITN/C. Every single one of them is nominated and currently held up for a lack of season/game summary.128.214.53.104 (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Balance on the Main Page

Pictures of two chapesses and two chaps - might as well mention it. 31.49.115.245 (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If you or anyone would prefer to see something not there currently on the main page, please participate in the processes that determine what is chosen. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Roger Moore

Can someone add Roger Moore to Recent deaths.

Already nominated at WP:ITNC#RD: Roger Moore, but the problem is that the article is not (yet) of sufficient quality to be put on the main page. If you can help improve the article, that would help. Bencherlite^Talk 22:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Need actualisation

Finance Minister of the Czech Republic. Andrej Babiš was removed today. New minister is Ivan Pilný. I can not edit that page, it is very diffucult. Hello from Czech republic and sorry for my not good english. --89.103.96.92 (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Your English is fine! 184.69.121.154 (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Marawi Crisis

The bold link in the In The News line links to Battle of Marawi which has been moved to Battle of Marawi (2017) which has been redirected to Marawi crisis. Can the link just be changed to Marawi crisis? uhhlive (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Uhhlive: You will get a faster response at WP:ERRORS. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it. Thanks. uhhlive (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)