Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 192

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 185←Archive 190Archive 191Archive 192Archive 193Archive 194Archive 195

Disgusting anti-Israel propaganda on Main Page!

1) For errors or suggestions on ITN, see WP:ERRORS. 2) The blurb is taken from the article, so if you disagree with it, it's a content dispute which belongs on the article's talk page. 3) This thread appears to be a magnet for personal attacks and political commentaries, none of which belong here. Isa (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

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

"Israeli troops kill more than 50 Palestinian protestors in the Gaza Strip, on the day the United States moves its embassy to Jerusalem." It should say today is the State of Israel's 70th anniversary, and the United States moves its embassy to Jerusalem today. These were not even protesters! They were terrorists trying to invade Israel and were throwing bombs and causing arson attacks inside Israel using flaming kites. If you want to even mention them, you should say, "More than 50 Palestinian terrorists and rioters working for the Islamist terrorist organization Hamas are killed while attacking Israeli soldiers." Otherwise you just sound like an Arab or far-left propaganda mouthpiece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.114.234.186 (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2018‎ (UPC)

And guess what you sound like? freshacconci (✉) 04:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Your ideological bent is so obvious it's laughable. Sorry that the reliable sources don't agree with you.--WaltCip (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
If WP was leftist, we'd say they Israelis massacred them. Terrorist is a value-laden label in that it has no objective definition, and is only used by those the oppose the "terrorists'" agenda. Fighting groups such as the Continental Army in the US, the Irish Republican Army, and the Mossad in Israel have been accurately labeled as terrorists. But all those groups, including Hamas, see righteousness in their actions. If you're going to build a fence across your neighbor's lawn and kill him for standing too close to it, don't expect us to join you in spitting on the dead. ghost 18:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Guess what, if my neighbor was trying to cross my fence, carrying explosives, with the intent to kill as much of my family as possible once inside, I'd shoot them dead. So would you. And you're literally justifying Hamas's actions because "they think it's righteous." Israel isn't perfect but the fact is that people like you actually fall for Hamas's PR stunt and SYMPATHIZE with them, should make all of us really wonder where we've come. Goodbye Wikipedia, it's a real shame. Kyle (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not justifying anything; as you quoted me, it is Hamas that feels their actions are justified. I do not. I feel that the mass murders inflicted by Jews, Muslims, and Christians in service of the negligible difference in how they worship the same god is tragic. I'm saying there are two sides to every story, and WP in it's infinite wisdom, admonishes us to write with a neutral voice. I'm sure Israeli Jews view Palestinians as terrorists, so do the Palestinians view the Jews. As for the wrong side of history, it seems it is you who is unwilling to see that truth in such matters is never so neat. Both sides are guilty of horrific crimes against innocents; that is objective fact. ghost 00:42, 17 May 2018 (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.

[Untitled]

I hate hate HATE the new feature of the content of linked articles popping up if the cursor goes over them, thereby interrupting my reading of the article I'm reading.

Please let ME decide which links I want or need to follow up on.

Thanks, Awien (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • At the bottom of the preview window that pops up, there is a gear icon. Clicking on the gear icon brings up a menu that explicitly allows you to disable this feature.--WaltCip (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Aha! Thank you! Awien (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Title.

Hello. Just a question please. How can you edit an article's title? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Unknown contributor123. This is called Moving a page; see that article for details. Eman235/talk 17:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
You can also change the display title of a page, by changing the capitalisation of the first word or adding underscores, using {{DISPLAYTITLE:(new title)}}. See this for help: WP:DISPLAYTITLE.  Nixinova  T  C  05:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Columbia river 340000 years ago and also in the 1940s

The Main Page currently contains two mentions of the Columbia River being dammed or un-dammed, one in the 1940s and one 340000 years ago. Was this juxtaposition intentional? Many thanks. MPS1992 (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Vote of no confidence

One doesn't lose a vote of no confidence one loses to a vote of no confidence. Should be changed.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC))

It appears you are wrong. The phrase lose a vote of no confidence seems common, while "lose to a vote of no confidence" is essentially unheard of. When a phrasing gets 2 google hits compared to 46,900, then you're wrong. --Jayron32 02:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
'A vote of no confidence' is a process/activity rather than a noun (to which 'to' would apply). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
A word for a process or activity is a noun, and can have "to" in front of it, as in "the days leading up to an election". However, the indirect object of "lose" identifies the winner, not the contest. "He will lose the game." "He will lose to John." Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
In the context is what is being discussed the analogue of 'Definite and indefinite conjugations' in Hungarian verbs? (I know languages do not always compare - and Latin infinitives are single words which cannot be split, but English equivalents can - besides 'to go boldly' sounds weak.)
So why does UK English have 'I will write to you' and US English 'I will write you' (which in UK English means writing the word "you")? 21:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Usually, differences between UK and US English are a result of either:
Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Most languages (and regional versions thereof) will have their 'quirks, conventions, historical and other usages, and colloquial and formal versions' - and some alternative versions sound/read better than others.
There is a (probably apocryphal) story about a spy being caught because his English was 'too perfect.' Jackiespeel (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio on main page

I've nominated the image of Damien Chazelle appearing on the front page for deletion. Albeit, being on the front page, I can't add the deletion template on Commons.

This image is from https://www.flickr.com/photos/121941453@N02/32617148752/, which is within the folder https://www.flickr.com/photos/121941453@N02/albums/72157671680033042, which claims that screenshots from the film itself and various other films are public domain. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Overlapped images

Perhaps it's my display scaling but the main images on the home page seem overlapped over the text etc. Anyone else see that? 2600:1702:1CD1:2CC0:AC3F:3E1B:FB50:B5D6 (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Desktop or mobile? What kind of device? What browser? Window size? Screenshot? Isa (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Main Page pictures

Four of men, and the painting mostly ditto (apart from the Virgin Mary).

Whatever the 'logic of the sections not working together' this does seem unbalanced - WP normally manages a more diverse range of images (allowing for 'themed days'). AL Pluribelle (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page history shows it is unusual not to have any non-human pictures, although interproject monitoring for this "problem" would be a pain. 50% female (or 50% children, animals, aliens or robots) would be unusual. Art LaPella (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Mentioning it #because# it is so unusual not to have a collection of 'persons, animal, vegetable, mineral, constructed things.' (And not objecting to themed days - perhaps robots (generic name anyone?) for Isaac Asimov's 100th anniversary etc.) AL Pluribelle (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
A reasonable criticism; that all-male image showcase did look rather bad. However a day later we have one male (who was also on yesterday), one female, and four inanimate objects. It's unfortunate those weren't mixed up a bit more over the two days, but hard to see these things coming when each section is scheduled separately. Modest Genius talk 12:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Logically a 'full house' will occur unintentionally on occasion (along with various other Main page 'hands') - and 'just mentioning it.' It is when such things occur regularly that there is 'an issue.' (Video games do seem to be rather less frequent than they were a while ago.)
What is the collective noun for robots - and should IA's centenary be so celebrated? AL Pluribelle (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
(1) "Cog", if Wiktionary is to be believed; (2) Definitely not; we don't even accord this treatment to the anniversaries of genuinely world-changing events like the centenary of the First World War, let alone to a relatively niche writer (albeit one with a disproportionate number of fans among the Wikipedia editor base). ‑ Iridescent 06:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
And, probably, 'an argument' of sentient computers. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Turn the default headings at the bottom into styled headings, to match the rest of the page

I made a mockup of an alternate Main Page in my userspace: User:Nixinova/Main Page. This is what the bottom of the page looks like:

Extended content
Other areas of Wikipedia
  • Community portal – The central hub for editors, with resources, links, tasks, and announcements.
  • Village pump – Forum for discussions about Wikipedia itself, including policies and technical issues.
  • Site news – Sources of news about Wikipedia and the broader Wikimedia movement.
  • Teahouse – Ask basic questions about using or editing Wikipedia.
  • Help desk – Ask questions about using or editing Wikipedia.
  • Reference desk – Ask research questions about encyclopedic topics.
  • Content portals – A unique way to navigate the encyclopedia.
Sister projects

Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other volunteer projects:

Wikipedia languages

This Wikipedia is written in English. Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below.

(I replaced the <h2/>s with <h3/>s so the contents won't get messed up)

I just used orange as an example (edit: please note I said *example*) but that could be any colour. I think that this looks much better than default ==headings== which have been on the main page for over almost two decades now. Wikipedia is now one of the biggest websites on the internet and it should look professional. Feel free to suggest any changes to this but I do think that this would be very beneficial.  Nixinova  T  C  05:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that it looks worse, personally. The extra frame isn't needed and just causes color clashing. We're not making ourselves look more professional by doing this.--WaltCip (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Personally I agree with the concept since the lower sections look like they were added as an afterthought rather than flowing with the design. That being said, I feel that it has been implemented in a way designed to bring out all its cons. I would prefer a simple #f6f6f6 background for the headings with out any border(not even the defaults)
Extended content
Other areas of Wikipedia
  • Community portal – The central hub for editors, with resources, links, tasks, and announcements.
  • Village pump – Forum for discussions about Wikipedia itself, including policies and technical issues.
  • Site news – Sources of news about Wikipedia and the broader Wikimedia movement.
  • Teahouse – Ask basic questions about using or editing Wikipedia.
  • Help desk – Ask questions about using or editing Wikipedia.
  • Reference desk – Ask research questions about encyclopedic topics.
  • Content portals – A unique way to navigate the encyclopedia.
Sister projects

Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other volunteer projects:

Wikipedia languages

This Wikipedia is written in English. Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below.

103.215.54.53 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
That looks nice too. I just want anything to replace what is currently on the Main Page.  Nixinova  T  C  03:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the second one fits much better with the first half of the current page too, there shouldn't be that style divide between them. --Jessietail (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm usually sceptical of attempts to redesign parts of the MP, but was pleasantly surprised to discover that this second example looks rather good and would fit with the existing design of other sections. Is the code behind it the same as the other section headings? That would ease compatibility/testing concerns. Modest Genius talk 17:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Modest Genius-Yes122.163.32.8 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I like the frame being there on the bottom, just like the other sections - don't really care for the orange-y color. — xaosflux Talk 15:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I have created an implementation of the idea here.Nixinova, if you really want to change the main page you need to create (what you people all call a "Rfc") to generate consensus. Only then will the admins of the site change the main page.--103.215.54.53 (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The spacing between boxes and the text style of the "headers" should match that of the other sections but otherwise yeah that looks like a good improvement so far. --Jessietail (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the spacing needs to be fixed, and the header fonts need to match the rest of the page, but I really like this proposal. I think that the current header style needs to be updated, and this idea is a really good one. --haha169 (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Well I implemented the feedback here103.215.54.53 (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your hard work! That looks a lot better. I hope someone with a better understanding of Wikipedia's processes and any historical discussions on this topic can bring this up for comment to help build consensus for a Main Page redesign.--haha169 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I made a slight alteration to your second implementation by adding a border around the headers to match the one found around the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box. Sample here. --haha169 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I also think that adding the frame at the bottom would make it look better. The use of headers right now just stands out from the rest of the page. SemiHypercube (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree; the new design looks better; in the previous the bottom part just looks out of place Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Good idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.155.2 (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion continues at #Request for Comment.  Nixinova  T  C  22:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"A lone gunman"

Long gone from the main page. Isa (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Perhaps we could change that line to say "a single gunman" to allow it to not dramatize murder? Thanks for the response. LordLimaBean (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am unclear as to how swapping one exact synonym for another reduces drama. --Jayron32 21:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
What's wrong with a simple "A gunman"? Moriori (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The article's lead says "a lone gunman", so it's consistent. But I'm with Moriori. I'd like to see the word "lone" removed from both. Singular usage of "gunman" tells us he was alone anyway. In fact, I'd probably prefer "shooter". It sounds less exciting. We shouldn't be glorifying killing people by using wild west style descriptors. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Lone gunman is just fine, this is a lot of fuss about nothing. As for "shooter", you can keep that, an abhorrence of the English language. Deary me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Given the common perception of these perpetrators, using 'single' might be seen as an allusion to their relationship status. Best to just use 'lone', or just don't use a qualifier. Oppose 'shooter' per above. Cesdeva (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Also 'lone gunman' #is# a conventional term (and distinguishes 'person operating on their own' from 'the one person from a group who does the shooting' (eg Gavrilo Princip). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised this is being defended. "Lone gunman" is a very extreme romantification of shooters, and it should be done away with. It may be technically correct in definition, but it's horrible optics. WaltCip (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
But nothing like as disgusting as "shooter", for the love of GOD!! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
And we treat English as one language, eh! I prefer "shooter". HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Never, ever, EVER, in BritEng. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
In UK used for the computer game genre. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Shooter states "A Shooter is someone who shoots something." So, an archer? Or slinger? Gunman gives the precision needed. Bazza (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I see no hint of romanticism at all in the phrase "lone gunman".--Khajidha (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright, If one word won't change much, why not change "gunman" to "wolf"?--Americanfreedom (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Just because two phrases use the same adjective does not mean that they will have similar connotations. A "lone gunman" is a statement of fact, a "lone wolf" is a metaphorical description (unless you are actually discussing a wolf). --Khajidha (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
"Lone gunman" has inextricable idiomatic ties in USEng to the Kennedy assassination and is used almost exclusively in connection with conspiracy theories (see also "hanging chad"), or those looking to throw shade on an opposing opinion by casting it in a similarly dubious light. ghost 11:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
That's funny, because this American sees it used all the time as a simple description of a shooter who is acting alone. See: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2017-10/03/content_32785340.htm , https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html , https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dallas-police-ambush/suspect-dallas-sniper-attacks-believed-be-lone-gunman-n606336 , https://www.redding.com/story/news/local/2018/03/01/lone-gunman-robs-gas-station/384591002/ , http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dallas-police-shooting-live-shooter-was-the-lone-gunman-in-this-1468017544-htmlstory.html . It was used in descriptions of the Florida and Santa Fe school shootings earlier this year. --Khajidha (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say some don't use it to be cutesy (seriously, what about any of those stories necessitated the adjective "lone?"). Try a google search; all results related to Kennedy, aside from the TV series, which itself derives from the same. ghost 15:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
How is it cutesy? "Lone" is a perfectly normal word to mean "single", "without companion". "Lone gunman" distinguishes these situations from those like Gavrilo Princeps where there were many people armed but only one who fired and from situations where a single assassin was working for a larger conspiracy (like John Wilkes Booth). It's perfectly normal English. --Khajidha (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2018 (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 in other languages"?

The phrase "Wikipedia languages" doesn't make too much sense. I think it should be changed to "Wikipedia in other languages". Maybe slip this in with the RfC above?  Nixinova  T  C  04:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not (this) Wikipedia in other languages. Each other WP is, in effect, a site on its own, with its own styles and ways of doing things. If anything, it's "Other languages' Wikipedias" which is too clumsy for a heading for my liking. (And you should not start "slipping in" additions to the so-far successful change above; a little at a time is more likely to succeed. See the reaction to the mistaken wording of "Wikipedia's sister projects".) Bazza (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I just meant that if we're already changing the main page we could change other things too, but yeah okay.  Nixinova  T  C  00:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Might "Other Wikipedia language editions" sound less clumsy? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how "Wikipedia in other languages" implies that those other languages are simply translations of this one. But I also don't see the need to have Wikipedia in the header at all. As I said about the "sister projects" heading, the fact that it is here implies that these are Wikipedia related. I support changing to "Other languages" and "Sister projects" without any qualification. --Khajidha (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Front page representation for women

Just a note that at this time the front page has links to 23 biographical articles and every single one is male. There shouldn't be a need for a compulsory link to a woman in each section, but having no women mentioned in all sections should not really happen either. Possibilities are Kate Spade for recent deaths and born today Lisa Cholodenko (director/writer of an Academy Award-winning film). SFB 20:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

By all means get involved with the various sections of the main page where items are selected for inclusion. As a regular reviewer at WP:Selected anniversaries, I frequently see three female births/deaths at OTD in a single day. RD operates via consensus and quality control at WP:ITNC, feel free to go there to vote for items you consider ready for inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Erm, you can't say that "(t)here shouldn't be a need for a compulsory link to a woman in each section" and in the very same sentence also say that "having no women mentioned in all sections should not really happen either". The two statements are mutually exclusive.
Also, I see a link to Julie Andrews on the mainpage - and a link to the admittedly fictional and joint article of superhero Rogue & Gambit. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no link to Julie Andrews – the link is to Star! (film). As for the logic, these are clearly not mutually exclusive statements: the first statement is saying we shouldn't have rules to always link to a female in each section. The second is saying it's not desirable to have an end result of no women across all sections. A healthy outcome would be for all section curators to keep in mind to regularly feature women and the statistical likelihood of having a page with 23 male biographies and zero female ones decreases dramatically. SFB 21:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
No, what happens is "curators" pick from what's available to them, and that's predominantly male-oriented right now. If you personally want to work to change that, please do so. The section "curators" have a hard enough time as it is getting reasonable quality onto the main page without trying to hamstring them with tokenism. We need a step change in content, not a rule to ensure that one item, no matter how crap, has to appear because it's about a woman. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Sillyfolkboy, there is no conspiracy in the English Wikipedia against women. It's hard to find a work of reference for any period, including national collections of biographies, in which women aren't heavily outnumbered. Until less than a hundred years ago women had few opportunities for notability, it's just the way things are. As The Rambling Man says, do please get involved and do some work to promote links to more women, if you believe you can do better. Moonraker (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
And, as was said above 'particular over-representations of one topic' are more noticeable than 'the usual general mix.' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Utterly missing the point, but thanks for dropping that bit of casual sexism in there. WaltCip (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
My argument is for 'more diversity of subjects on the main page' (and encouraging the hinterland of article development lying behind it) - allowing for my other comments above and below. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
It is not sexism, casual or otherwise. It is stating a fact. People who deny facts citing some "ism" are guilty of another "ism" themselves. 86.191.155.52 (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC) And, by the way, the "utter" feebleness of your "utterly missing the point" comment, in response to something exactly on point, will surely not be unnoticed.

Four chaps and a waterfall today. Most people accept that MP clustering will occur and is likely to draw comment (and would be for #any# category). However if the same comment occurs three times in as many weeks then there is something that needs to be addressed. 'The general mix' pages may well have many men in them over time but they are less noticed.

And some of us are engaged in Original Research and subjects that are too obscure for Wikipedia/more appropriate for specialist wikis. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup, Wikipedia reports the academic consensus. so by that standard, sky-is-blue comments on gender differences are original research. Oh well, Wikipedia is a good place to look up statistics and such. Art LaPella (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The simplest solution is for 'someone involved' to check the layout as it changes over and if there is a visible imbalance (pictures, entries) swap a couple of entries - and let the MP reader-commentators note when 'topic X has surfaced 3 times in the last two weeks.'
Wikipedia is a good 'point of first resort' (and 'if it does not have a Wikipedia mention it might be an original topic for a thesis'). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Sadly given the way the current sections of the main page are selected by different entities entirely (by individuals, by committee, single entries, multiple entries etc), there is not overall "someone involved" who would be able to "swap a couple of entries" across the various main page projects without a clamour of disgruntlement. Axe DYK and you're making a good start. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
In the sense of 'anyone involved.' The chief function of the MP is to provide people with a selection of to them 'unknown unknowns' (and even a few forgotten knowns) to which DYK (or something serving the same function) contributes.
And - if nobody complained about the Main Page for a long time there #would# be something wrong with it. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Clear consensus in checkY favor of the redesign proposal.No foreseeable grounds of opposition and it's snowing.....Thankfully,~ Winged BladesGodric 05:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The above Main Page redesign proposal (previous discussion here, this is my first RfC so I don't know if the previous discussion will be transcluded) made by @Nixinova: with some adjustments by @103.215.54.53: and myself have generated a bit of traction. I'd like to post a formal RfC in order to gain some sort of consensus about whether or not this redesign proposal should be implemented, or at least generate some discussion on any possible alternatives. --haha169 (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is the proposed main page redesign: Permalink/843614703--haha169 (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The above but moved to its own page: User:Nixinova/Main Page.  Nixinova  T  C  22:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The redesign with just the changed sections: User:Nixinova/Main Page/Transclusion.  Nixinova  T  C  22:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The proposal is just changing the bottom of the main page from default headings to styled headings which match the rest of the page. And I used orange as an example; I think the grey would work better.  Nixinova  T  C  22:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

I think Ahecht looked at the wrong link(the orange and purple one). The correct link is here or here(for only the redesigned sections). As far as I know grey does not affect the color-blind users or else most of the Wikimedia interface would have been unusable110.227.70.112 (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
By the way, does anyone remember the horrified opposition to suggestions that images should have captions? All kinds of silly objections raised and persisted in? And now it's been done, and the improvement realised, what was all the fuss about? If only someone could learn the lesson and apply it to wider design issues. 86.191.146.125 (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
There's a difference between content (e.g. the picture captions, which are great) and style, which is entirely subjective. One person's unliked pastel headings are another's clear-and-legible design. The supposition that because something has been around for a while it needs changing is a false one. Bazza (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
What a lot of rubbish. People who cannot see that boxy pastel headings are shitty style in 2018 should have no sway here. 86.191.155.52 (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • The current design of the main page looks as if the lower sections were added as an after-thought rather than flowing with the design. This change seeks to remedy exactly that. The default headers in the lower section have been replaced by grey headers and a border has been added around the lower sections. All this has been done keeping in mind the aesthetics of the design as a whole. The rest of the main page remains unaltered, untouched. Most of the code has been replicated from other parts of the main page and thus is proven to be compatible with a large number of devices. I believe this a small step towards making the Main Page of the world's fifth most busiest website better in terms of looks.122.163.11.63 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This RfC would probably go more smoothly if the introductory paragraph gave a brief indication of what changed in the updated design and why, rather than hoping editors will go off and read the discussion from almost two weeks ago and which will archived imminently. Modest Genius talk 18:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Probably a wise idea - would ease the process, and stop people thinking it's becoming orange. Perhaps also worth putting a current main page link right next door just for ease of comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 19:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I have done that and spammed "THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE WE'RE NOT MAKING IT ORANGE" around every mention of it.  Nixinova  T  C  22:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Good idea - I had provided a link to the previous discussion but I should have spent a minute describing the changes in more detail. This is a learning experience for me as well :) --haha169 (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there a rundown somewhere of the changes, looks the same to me. Thanks, cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I almost feel this kind of subtle change is something that could have been handled and implemented through edit fully-protected request, but I suppose it is better to be on the safe side. No opinion on this either way. Alex Shih (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2018 (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.

@Winged Blades of Godric: I concur with the outcome, however, BADNAC #4 applies; you can't implement the change because you can't edit a fully protected page. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Godsy:-Nah.....I hardly implement the outcomes of RFC closed by myself.Anyways, make an edit-request an point to the RFC.As simple as that:)

Can an interested admin please implement the consensus of the Rfc and update related documentation — FR + 09:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Done; I assume that Permalink/843614703 is the markup that was wanted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Typo

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.

<div id="mp-sister-conent" style="padding:0.2em 0.4em;">{{Wikipedia's sister projects}}</div> – says "conent" instead of "content" (I didn't spellcheck my transclusion sorry).  Nixinova  T  C  02:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Stephen 05:21, 12 June 2018 (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.

Please do add the main page link of Malayalam wikipedia in the language section. The URL of main page in malayalam wikipedia is: https://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/പ്രധാന_താൾ Adithyak1997 (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That procedure is at Template talk:Wikipedia languages. Art LaPella (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

...

Consensus is to remove the ellipsis from OTD — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Both DYK and OTD have ‘...’ in the section title. TFA and ITN do not. Logically OTD doesn’t need it if ITN doesn’t. Only DYK should because the sentences follow on. Sorry if this has been discussed before - I’ve just never noticed until now. violet/riga [talk] 23:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a good point. This is a subtle change with solid logic behind it. I support your suggestion unless I hear a good argument for why the status quo was decided this way. --haha169 (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Did you know... and On this day... are phrases that start sentences which are the blurbs. For example "Did you know that despite having no official role, the British town crier Tony Appleton (pictured) is internationally famous for his announcements of royal events such as the birth of Prince Louis of Cambridge" where the ellipsis bridges the repeated phrase before each blurb. It serves the same purpose for On this day. In the news is a stand-alone clause and is not intended to be read before each blurb, and neither is Today's Featured Article. For that reason, I oppose any changes to the current structure. --Jayron32 01:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I think Violetriga is suggesting the removal of '...' from OTD. While OTD does sound like a blurb, (On this day...someone did something), in reality the structure doesn't quite turn out that way because the years get in the way. --haha169 (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
...And I opposed the removal of the ellipses from OTD. That's why I used the word "oppose". And put it in bold. I have a hard time understanding how to make my opposition more obvious. --Jayron32 03:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

So just changing to look like Special:PermaLink/844922890 ? — xaosflux Talk 03:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Xaosflux. violet/riga [talk] 10:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Support sure, I think it looks better with out them there. — xaosflux Talk 11:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The WP article on ellipses suggests many uses for the character, including "indicat[ing] … a leading statement", applicable in this case. Bazza (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Support- As an ordinary reader "On this day...2008 – A Japanese man drove a truck into a crowd of pedestrians in the Akihabara district of Tokyo, then proceeded to stab at least 12 people before being apprehended." makes me pause for a second to understand the meaning of the sentence before moving on. Given the current trend of internet readership I believe this small pause can cost us quite a lot in terms of readership122.163.26.105 (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Support as the phrasing of OTD doesn't flow into a sentence the way DYK does. --Khajidha (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made this change since it seems pretty non-controversial. — 🦊 05:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies, I didn't see Jayron32's opposition above; I'll go ahead and undo. — 🦊 05:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I support this idea in and of itself. — 🦊 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Support - Xaosflux version - FlightTime (open channel) 15:59, 11 June 2018 (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.

Change "Sister projects" to "Wikipedia's sister projects"

Discussion continues below — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

I propose this heading change, as it didn't gain any consensus in the above discussion, or at least people didn't realize that it was proposed. The RfC nominator acknowledged that it was a mistake. wumbolo ^^^ 12:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: the correct version is located at User:Nixinova/Main Page/Transclusion. The permalink version you copied over is a slightly oudated one. Just a minor error, thanks for implementing it! --112.25.220.90 (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Ummmm, I thought the comment above was about the new format having changed TO "Sister projects" FROM "Wikipedia's sister projects"? In other words, I think you've got this backwards and need to correct it before the voting starts. It's hard for me to check what the current form actually is as I use a custom Main Page with just "Sister projects". I support the plainer form "Sister projects". --Khajidha (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Khajidha: Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm a decade-old consensus is definitely not a mistake. wumbolo ^^^ 12:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I think we're all a little confused here. From the above discussion I thought the mistake/accidental oversight was leaving out the word "Wikipedia's". Was the form prior to the RFC with or without "Wikipedia's"? Is the current page with or without? --Khajidha (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
No, wait. Apparently the version without "Wikipedia's" was implemented without the change to that header being explicitly agreed to. My support for the simpler form stands. --Khajidha (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I got it now? I got confused because [1] and [2] were claimed to be the same text in the RfC but actually have different content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Both of those use the simpler "Sister projects" phrasing.--Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
And this is why Keep It Simple is the only way to go. Who knows what this section is proposing? I suggest striking it out completely. If someone wants to change the wording on the current and standard main page, then say what is there currently, what you want it to change to, and why. Then people know what they are commenting or "voting" on. Bazza (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

An administrator already fixed the issue yesterday, which might be causing the confusion as to what's supposed to be changed because it's already been done. --112.25.220.91 (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2018 (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.

The Donation link leads to the German site https://spenden.wikimedia.de/. For English readers, having to read German or translate will most likely put them off from donating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xuramaz (talk • contribs)

When I click the donation link, I get English. And when I go to German Wikipedia and click Donate, I get Jimmy Wales in German. Your link asks you to donate to something that claims to be collecting for German Wikipedia. I wonder if you have some malware. Art LaPella (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Then again, this page has existed since 2010, so at least the organization sounds legitimate. Art LaPella (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Xuramaz: all of the donation links on Main Page should go to donate.wikimedia.org. Can you provide some more details of exactly what you are seeing? Is this happening here, on the English Wikipedia, or on another project? — xaosflux Talk 03:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, are you referring to the link in the left side bar, or is this a big banner on the top of the page (a CentralNotice perhaps). — xaosflux Talk 03:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

hmmm, it must be something funky on my end then, as going to donate.wikimedia.org by typing it in still gets me to that German site, but typing it in on my phone works fine. Opening it in Firefox instead of Chromium works fine. Turns out deleting cookies for the German donation site fixed the issue, although it is strange that this happened to me in the first place. False flag I guess. Also, I was initially talking about the sidebar. Xuramaz (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 North Korea–United States summit

Is this still news? Granted at the time it was major, but it happened 6 days ago. Without wishing to become embroiled in an "If you want changes get involved with the decisions" type of discussion - at the very least isn't it time the picture was changed to something more recent and notable? Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Certainly -- if a free image exists. Most of the time, images that are suggested are non-free and cannot be used.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass shooting in Charleston, SC

I really like that this item never mentions the name of the shooter. (It is in the articles, for those interested.) But not including it in the item here on the main page is great -- don't give any publicity to people like this. T bonham (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to tell whether or not this is a tongue-in-cheek comment, but 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.--WaltCip (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure that the comment was not tongue in cheek, but a genuine sentiment. There's a growing push for the media not to publicize the perpetrators of mass shooters so much in reporting on the events, since that gives such people exactly the attention they crave and increases the likelihood of further such acts.--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Change in section headers

I propose that the current section headers "Wikipedia's sister projects" and "Wikipedia languages" be changed to "Sister projects" and "In other languages". The fact that these sections are on the (English) Wikipedia Main Page, combined with the introductory sentences in each section, makes the current headers redundant. I have created separate sections for each below.

"Wikipedia's sister projects" to "Sister projects"

  1. Support as proposer. --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - no need to remove clarification. Using "Wikimedia sister projects" (see Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects) might be something to consider, but I am not sure I would support that. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose to preserve clarity. — This, that and the other (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Don't really see much point of changing it - and currently it's clearer.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia languages" to "In other languages"

  1. Support as proposer. --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Chris857 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC) moved to support in next section
  4. Oppose - Again, no need to remove clarification. Furthermore, it is not this site translated as that implies, but rather they are separate entities.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    Considering the location on Wikipedia and the introductory sentence reiterating that these are Wikipedias I have to wonder about how much "clarification" this really needs. And I fail to see how this would imply that the other Wikipedias are translations of this one. --Khajidha (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Godsy. --Joshualouie711talk 21:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  6. Oppose for clarity. If I see "In other languages", then I'd expect choosing one will give me a translation of the main page, which it doesn't (today, it includes a featured article on Norma; whereas clicking Nederlands has something about California). Bazza (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia languages" to "Wikipedia in other languages"

  1. support as proposer. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. Some have opposed this on the basis that this is like saying "This wiki in other languages", suggesting that the other language editions of Wikipedia are merely translations of this wiki. However, Wikipedia is an overarching project with many manifestations. This is the English Wikipedia, and it is as much a part of the Wikipedia project as is French Wikipedia, Tagalog Wikipedia and so on. So it is not incorrect to say "Wikipedia in other languages"; we would simply be referring to other parts of this project. In any case it is certainly clearer than the ambiguous "Wikipedia languages", which is an uneasy juxtaposition of two nouns without any clarity as to how they relate to each other. — This, that and the other (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Not sure how to clearly convey the intended meaning, however, this change is not an explicit improvement (though it may be equal).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support. Clearer and makes more sense, also This, that and the other has good points. See below--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support, much clearer. — 🦊 23:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia languages" to "Wikipedias in other languages"

  1. Support as proposer. Same as immediately above, but pluralising "Wikipedias" better emphasises that these are seperate entities, and not translations of a single "Wikipedia". --LukeSurl t c 19:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    This sounds like a good idea; I'll have to ponder it a bit though. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    @This, that and the other: What do you think about plural as opposed to singular Wikipedia. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. Bazza (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support. Moved my support to here.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, per our article, Wikipedia is the complete entity of articles in multiple languages. There are no “Wikipedias”. Stephen 21:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  5. The plural situation is complicated. It is used in various places, such as List of Wikipedias, meta:List of Wikipedias, and wikimedia:Press releases/Wikipedia Academies. wikimedia:Our projects#Wikipedia says "The largest Wikipedia is in English", which implies that each language is its own Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself says "language editions of Wikipedia (also called language versions, or simply Wikipedias)". As for the current wording on the Main Page, there is a long history of changes during the 2006 redesign - see [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12] (and there are probably other edits and discussions I haven't found). There are two different uses of the word "Wikipedia" - one is to refer to the project as a whole, and the other is to refer to individual language editions, though there is clearly debate on whether the latter is correct. — RockMFR 01:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Leave everything as-is

  1. Support as proposer. No changes need to be made.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    Is this really needed as a separate option? Won't the Main Page stay as-is if none of the current proposals gain consensus? --Joshualouie711talk 18:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, while failing to gain consensus results in this outcome, it can be useful to record this option anyway. An explicit option to make no change, if it gained significant votes, is different that failing to gain consensus for the type of change. One means that people want a change, but couldn't agree on how, the other means they don't want change at all. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 21:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Koko

On the main page in the recent deaths part, Koko is listed as Koko (gorilla), shouldn't the parenthesis be removed as it is not needed in this case. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's been fixed. In future, these reports should go to WP:ERRORS. Optimist on the run (talk) (no relation!) 07:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic, but there is a great deal of optimism going around in this thread –FlyingAce✈hello 15:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Cannot edit ITN from mobile?

ITN, which has no subsections btw, i could not open from mobile. Tech? My question would be: why is the Trump child separation not in there? (What search to find the article at all?) -DePiep (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC) DePiep (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

If you refer to Template:In the news then it's fully protected so it can only be edited by administrators. All main page content can only be edited by administrators. There is a nomination of Trump administration family separation policy at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Ongoing: Trump administration family separation policy. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
no i do not want to edit that base template. I want to note: here on my mobile, i cannot open that Talk:main page (this talkpage, a subpage), to enter my question.
i am not here to ask for a link. I do think the link should be on our mp btw. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
?This page is not a "subpage", exactly what page are you trying to open? Are you using the mobile site or the mobile app? — xaosflux Talk 00:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Reproducing: on mobile (iPhone), mobile view. I am on page Talk:MainPage (via T:MP). I see the main sections. Opened (=uncollapsed) level-2 section "Main page error reports". I see subsection "Errors In the news", with the pencil symbol there (ok). Tapping that pencil does not give a response (well, it does show it has been tapped). More investigation: while testing now, it appears that *none* of the pencils in that section respond (level 3, level 4). However, pencil with section "General Discussion" does work (and is how I could post my OP here). - DePiep (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, that link is to WP:ERRORS, but you don't want that page because you're not reporting an error - you want WP:ITN/C as pointed out above. As regards the failure of the app to respond, you might want to report that at WP:VPT. Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. I see that the mobile version cannot edit transcluded sections. It's the same elsewhere like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 21. I don't know whether this is a bug or intended. The desktop version makes a section edit link to the page the section was transcluded from. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
OK (& archive). btw, I wasn't using a Wikipedia-app, just the regular browser. re "you are supposed to go to WP:ITN/C": fair enough, but that is what I may expect the edit-redirect should do. - DePiep (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
(Can be archived IMO) DePiep (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I have reported it at phab:T198011: "Transcluded section edit links are broken in mobile". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

History merge discussion

Clicking on photograph of the Japanese destroyer Yamakaze

I have no idea how to correct some information associated with today's front page.

If you click on the photograph towards the bottom of the front Wiki page, some of the detail given includes the co-ordinates of the camera at the time the photograph was taken in 1942.

If you follow these co-ordinates through, you get a location south-east of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea.

This cannot be correct!

I trust that someone knows of the corrective mechanism for this (relatively minor) detail.

Quartic (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

commons:File:Torpedoed Japanese destroyer Yamakaze sinking on 25 June 1942.jpg is currently protected and can be edited only by Commons administrators. The wrong coordinates 34°34′00″N 14°26′00″E / 34.56667°N 14.43333°E / 34.56667; 14.43333 were added in [13]. The description "110 km southwest of Yokahama harbour, Japan" is approximately 34°40′00″N 139°10′00″E / 34.66667°N 139.16667°E / 34.66667; 139.16667. The source [14] says "approximately 75 miles Southwest of Yokahama Harbor". That is 120.7 km and should be rounded to 120 km. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The article on Yamakaze says that she was sunk approximately 60 nautical miles (110 km) southeast of Yokosuka at 34°34′00″N 140°26′00″E / 34.56667°N 140.43333°E / 34.56667; 140.43333 (note the extra zero in the longitude). However, I can't find a source for the location or those coordinates, and I don't know whether southeast or southwest is correct. (As you said, the Navy page for this photo says "75 miles southwest of Yokohama harbor", which would be about 65 nautical miles (120 km). Regardless of whether southeast or southwest is correct, the change from Yokosuka to "Yokohama harbor" would account for this difference in distance.) Based on the geography, either direction is plausible; southwest would be hugging the Japanese coast, southeast would be further out to sea. It would be nice if a reliable, definitive statement of the location could be found. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The Official Chronology of the U.S. Navy in World War II by Robert Cressman says: "southeast of Yokosuka, Japan, 34°34'N, 140°26'E".[15] I suggest using that if there is a Commons admin here. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The file is no longer on Main Page so the protection has ended. I have changed the completely wrong coordinates to 34°34′00″N 140°26′00″E / 34.56667°N 140.43333°E / 34.56667; 140.43333 and mentioned both claims.[16] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Redesign padding adjustments

Please adjust the CSS padding for #mp-sister-content, #mp-other-content and the Wikipedia languages section (no current HTML id) to match that of #mp-tfa (padding: 0.1em 0.6em;). TheDragonFire (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire: Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Tomorrow styling

Could a friendly admin please update Main Page/Tomorrow to match the new styling used for the lower sections on Main Page? Simply copy the code from 'SECTIONS AT BOTTOM OF PAGE' in the source of Main Page to the same part of Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. Modest Genius talk 11:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh and doing the same thing for Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday would be sensible. Modest Genius talk 11:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done for both Fish+Karate 11:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Editconflicted with Martin there. Fish+Karate 11:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks both! Modest Genius talk 12:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

unlock editing for home page

please let me edit the home page please. thanks.207.242.49.130 (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure which page you mean, but WP:RFPP is the place for such requests. Deli nk (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean the Main Page? Only Wikipedia:Administrators can edit the Main Page. Others may request specific edits. Art LaPella (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, jsyk, due to the extremely high traffic of the main page (400 million views a month) and the fact that it would be a very high target for vandalism, it's highly unlikely that it would be completely unprotected so that IPs can edit it. Feel free to request that an uncontroversial edit be made to it using {{Edit fully-protected}} or if it's likely controversial, you can start a discussion (usually a request for comment will get more traffic).--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 22:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Not a good idea to unprotect the article as vandals would attack it I think it is fine fully protected Abote2 (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Add {{Documentation}} template at TFLfooter

I created the documentation of this template, so can have a documentation.Nhatminh01 (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nhatminh01: this is  Done — xaosflux Talk 03:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Admin attention needed regarding AFD for a current Main Page article

Term in featured article

"Saw action" is a term from the military and its usage as an encyclopedic term may be questionable, because of its prevalence in British and American military articles, and its scarcity in others. Previous discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_144#"Saw_action" -Inowen (nlfte) 17:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There was little support for your opinion in that long discussion. Art LaPella (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The term is readily comprehensible - and all languages have their idiomatic usages (including (un)split infinitives). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Updating cave rescue

Can we update the In The News entry for Tham Luang cave rescue now that everyone has been safely rescued? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That has already been done --Danski454 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Tham Luang rescue

If I may ask, why is Tham Luang cave rescue posted again on ITN? —Angga1061 13:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It was removed to make room for newer items, but later added back to ensure the two sides of the Main Page had similar lengths - the Mandela blurb today is longer than the one for Anastasia yesterday. It will be removed again once a newer item is posted or if the length of tomorrow's page is slightly shorter. Modest Genius talk 13:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks for the information. This is new to me. —Angga1061 04:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
No problem. Adding and removing (old) items from In The News or On This Day is a routine part of balancing the Main Page. The cave item has been removed again because today's featured article blurb is shorter than Mandela's was. Modest Genius talk 11:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia lending its credibility to state propaganda messages at youtube

This is not related to the Main Page, and frankly, I agree with Ian.thomson's concerns regarding competency.--WaltCip (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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

I noticed the Wikipedia link in the US state propaganda message below the video box on Youtube pages with videos from RT (Russia Today - specifically recent On Contact program videos). Is Wikipedia lending its credibility to advance the authoritarian agenda of the US state, to misdirect attention and inflame hate in Americans? Rtdrury (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Is this something you find on the Main Page? This talkpage is not for general discussions. --Tone 14:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Plus, Youtube is part of Google and has nothing to do with Wikimedia; we have no control over—or interest in—what external links a third party privately owned website chooses to host. ‑ Iridescent 14:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Rtdrury: Wikipedia sticks to mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Youtube is an independent company that chose to add links of its own accord (not because of any sort of gov't order). Russia Today is state propaganda, and one that's been noted for spreading conspiracy theories, misinformation, and outright lies in favor of the authoritarian Russian gov't and against the US gov't. Frankly, that you get this so backwards raises serious concerns about your capacity to edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2018 (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.

Moon Landing

I think that's enough. Isa (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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

I know hating America is in vogue right now, but it’s still disappointing that one of mankind’s greatest achievements isn’t on the main page today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.15.91 (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A fact from the Apollo 11 article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on July 20, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013. That's nine appearances. Other things happen also. Fish+Karate 13:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Like my birthday!--Khajidha (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Please provide a reliable source for making this claim. Fish+Karate 13:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
One wonders what happened in 2011. No Whitey on the Moon availble that year?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC) p.s. not sure the hating really extends beyond one particular person there.
Maybe next year considering that it Will be the 50th anniversary. Long after the irrelevant events of "On This Day" are forgotten, America's first landing of man on the moon (indeed the world's first), will remain significant & remembered. Please keep Wikipedia relevant by including significant events in the future. Like the first moon landing. Ferencmerenda (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
According to WP:CRYSTALBALL, we cannot include most events in the future, regardless of their significance. MPS1992 (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The first future moon-landing would probably see a shoo-in, to put it bluntly?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
To expand on "other things happen also" -- without the Battle of Britain we might have ended up without an independent USA to carry out the moon landings program, without the Normandy Landings we might not have had the Nazi scientists whose removal to the USA enabled their work in making the moon landings happen, without the United States Declaration of Independence or various battles in the American War of Independence we wouldn't have had a USA to carry out the moon program, without the Louisiana Purchase the USA would have been a minor state in a huge continent split three or more ways and thus probably unable to sustain such a huge space program, without the discovery of the Americas the Columbian exchange would not have happened in the first place, without all manner of religious and cultural and geopolitical changes in thousands of years preceding that in Europe and Asia, all of the above might not have happened anyway. If you don't like such things, there's Galileo and Newton and David Robert Hayward-Jones and all the rest of them, and what each of them discovered and when they discovered it, all relevant to the Apollo program. And if all of each of these significant events and turning points and achievements appears in On This Day every single year, then the readership of On This Day would eventually be only those people seeing it for the first time, and that would be bad. MPS1992 (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
You mean Newton, right? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC) ...and yes, thanks to David, there is life on Mars.
I must admit, I do not know much about U.S. politics. I had heard the fellow's name, but I never understood why he was named for a small slimy Republican creature. Is there some popular music reference here also? MPS1992 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, slime or no slime, you may wish to check who you've linked to there. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
They landed July 20 but walked on the moon July 21 UTC. 2011 and 2016 said: "1969 – During the Apollo 11 mission, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin (pictured) became the first humans to walk on the Moon." 2014 July 20 and 2017 July 21 the story was Today's featured picture. So it has been on the main page for last 14 years except in 2015. It's not scheduled for tomorrow but seems certain to be on one of the days for the 50th anniversary in 2019. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It was a huge failure for Wikipedia not to post moon landing or moon walk this year I won’t be surprised if Wikipedia is owned by Russians or Chinese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.230.223 (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but did you notice the US based items in FA, ITN and OTD currently on the front page? 86.28.195.109 (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2018 (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.

Late to the party, but FYI Apollo 11 was being held for appearance next year on its 50th anniversary. Nothing more mysterious than that. —howcheng {chat} 03:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Color of "Featured List" section

I hate seeing the Wikipedia Main Page every Monday, with the pink glare of the "Featured List" section. I understand this section was not part of the original design and has been added at a later time. The selection of pink brings the total number of primary colors used in the page to a whopping four and makes it appear like a children's website. Why not just put it inside the purple "Featured Picture" section, which is in line with the design of the page of having two sections per color? Indeed, lists and pictures do have something in common: both are complements to the main unit of the encyclopedia – the article. Jrmde3 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

For most of us, there are only three primary colors. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I know that. I used the adjective "primary" in the graphic design sense (meaning non-accent; main), not in the color modeling sense. I am surprised that you chose to nitpick on a single word and leave aside the primary point of my message. Jrmde3 (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the colors around the section headings "primary" in that sense either. --Khajidha (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
For most of us, section headings and the backgrounds of the content beneath them are shades of the same color. Jrmde3 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
For me, the backgrounds are so lightly colored that they are almost undetectable (when I actually use the standard Main Page view), so that the color on the section headings is just an accent color. Of course, I generally set my Main page to this and avoid the colors entirely. --Khajidha (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I can see that this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. However, @Jrmde3:, I generally share your concerns in that TFL feels like it was inelegantly shoved in. I would support combining TFP and TFL into one purple box, but I'd like to see a real life implementation of it first and I'm afraid I'm not very good at wiki markup. Especially when it comes to testing TFL edits when such edits are only visible when there's a TFL. --haha169 (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I too think that this change would be an improvement. I would support any proposal to make this minor modification to the Main Page. Deli nk (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I also agree that this will be a welcomed change given that very recently Nixinova managed to push through a consistency update of the lower portions of the main page. What is lacking or sorely needed here however is a mockup of the proposed change. — FR + 11:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Did you mean something like this? – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I think that looks worse than what we already have. I'm not seeing the problem with FL being a different colour. Modest Genius talk 10:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ianblair23: Thanks, but you missed combining TFL and TFP into a single box/frame. I have changed that now. @Modest Genius: If you still think that the proposed change, after my modification, is a change for the worse, do you mind explaining how? It's perfectly consistent with the rest of the main page. Jrmde3 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it would look better if featured list and featured picture were split vertically, mirroring the sections above. Wouldn't have a clue how to mock it up, though. Fish+Karate 11:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I think that would break the page for screens that use small resolutions, given that featured pictures are normally shown using a width of around 400 pixels. Jrmde3 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Isn't "Featured List" only on the Main Page one or two days a week? Placing it beside featured picture would require different set ups for days with and days without a list. Splitting list and pic horizontally means that it can just be slipped in or out as needed. --Khajidha (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Pictures on the Main Page

An observation - people never comment that the pictures on any one day, or over a series of days, are 'a random mix' - only if there is a particular 'over-seeding' (rather than a particular commemoration). 85.115.52.202 (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Reopen AfD disscusion

This topic is not related to the Main Page, so shouldn't be discussed here. Try Wikipedia:Deletion review. Modest Genius talk 10:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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

I want reopen the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Case Files: Ravenhearst Unlocked because of the arguments i put in the discussion after it end. 72.10.128.43 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the forum to request that. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2018 (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.

Yellowstone Caldera

The page is locked from editing to prevent vandalism. I searched tibkearn there is supposed to be an edit source icon with which to suggest an edit. I could not find one. Two volcanic events are being listed which are one and the same. There is no such feature as West Thumb Lake which is said to have been created 174,000 years ago. Later on in page West Thumb Bay of Yellowstone Lake is correctly named but with date of 150,000 YA. They are the same geologic feature. The correct date is 174,000 YA. I hope this is helpful. Jesse O’Connor Yellowstone tour guide of 26 years Local historian Jesseleeo (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jesseleeo: I don't know what you mean by "I searched tibkearn". Can you link to the page which said there is supposed to be an edit source icon? In the desktop version of the site you can suggest an edit to Yellowstone Caldera by clicking the "View source" tab at top of the page. If you are in the mobile version then start by clicking "Desktop" at the bottom of the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
That page is currently semi-locked, so only existing accounts in good standing can edit it.
If you click on the "Talk" page you'll get to a discussion page for editors improving the article. Your suggestions or corrections would be welcome there. ApLundell (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Great advice guys. I've copied the query over to Talk:Yellowstone Caldera for you. Clearly there is a problem using two names and two dates for the same feature. (I suspect Bay/Lake may be somewhat interchangeable, and 150kya and 174kya are not entirely inconsistent, but we should try to get this sort of thing right.) 213.205.251.81 (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian Navy

Featured twice on Main Page July 27 – in DYK and OTD. Sca (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

And yet, the earth has still not crashed into the sun. Very odd. --Jayron32 15:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Twice on DYK and Today's Featured List, not On This Day. Art LaPella (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Oops, Today's Featured List.
BTW, tomorrow will be the 104th anniversary of the bombardment of Belgrade by the Austro-Hungarian Navy's monitor Bodrog, which according to our article were the first shots fired in WWI. No doubt we'll want to feature that in several ways, too. Sca (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
For what it is worth, SMS Bodrog says "on the night of 28 July", and July Crisis specifies 1 a.m. on the 29th. Pesuambly local time not UTC. 213.205.251.81 (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw where different dates are cited in different articles. Sca (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

phonetic language (reading)

Not a question for the main page. WaltCip (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello, anyone know why English is not phonetic? The reason that i asked is that English is a world wide language and that they are more people in england, usa that have dyslexia then countries with cyrillic alphabet. --Maxie1hoi (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Blame William the Conqueror and the Normans. – Sca (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Madonna.

... but can we not have two photos of her wearing the same outfit on Mainpage at the same time, please? --PFHLai (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Just switched the TFA pic to Eva Peron's portrait for now. Please feel free to make further changes. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk)

Aretha Franklin

Since she's a Level 4 vital article, surely her death counts as major news, and not a footnote in the "recent deaths" section?--Leon (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion about if the article is of sufficient quality. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Currenly on the Main page. —Bruce1eetalk 06:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Star trooper man You are welcome to participate at WP:ITNC, where nominations for the ITN box and RD are discussed. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Death blurb syntax

We've had numerous blurbs saying Person-X "died at the age of XX." It would be shorter and more news-like to say "at age XX," the and of being redundant. Sca (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"at the age of" sounds more correct to me. Or even just "aged". I may be wrong though.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
"Aged" would be better than "at the age of," but "at age" is succinct and the the and of parts are instantly understood as being implied. Sca (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
"died at age 99" looks strange to British eyes. "died aged 99" is normal. Bazza (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, and while this may be the In The news section, it doesn’t mean we have to resort to writing it like a cheap American tabloid. It’s still part of the encyclopaedia after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
As opposed to a cheap British tabloid? "Dies at age XX" is used generally in U.S. media, not just tabloids. But "dies aged" would be fine, too. Sca (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
How about indicating the year of birth in brackets? Saves space (no need to mention age anymore), and consistent with the list under OTD/SA. Maybe we should do the same in RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a non-problem. The verbiage is currently not excessive, space is not at a premium, and truncated news-speak is not encyclopedic. Let's find a real issue to deal with. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Should "Did you know" appear in mobile view?

I was looking at the main page in mobile view, and I realized that you can't see "Did you know..." in mobile view. I think it should because it helps showcase new content to more people and could attract new editors. Anyone else think so? SemiHypercube ✎ 16:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Appears to be an open issue for this but cannot tell what the status is:[17] Jmar67 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Deaths in wrong spot on main page

Someone keeps putting deaths on the In the news but the person appears to forget there is a Recent deaths section Abote2 (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I agree it's confusing having deaths on In the news and Recent deaths at the same time. Kind of unprofessional 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:C4 (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
No, individuals who are "transformative" can be blurbed. It's all over at WP:ITNC. Feel free to join in, there are several active discussions going on there about this very subject! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Lol, what... Wouldn't it make more sense to just have them all in one place... What's so transformative about a singer 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:C4 (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Lol, what? As I noted, there are plenty of conversations about this, just join in there if you want to make a difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
What is transformative is that there was WP:CONSENSUS that that particular singer was transformative. If you disagree with such things, you can contribute towards consensus by contributing to discussions. Complaining about the results of things you chose to not participate in is not helpful. If you want to fix the problem, you need to contribute. --Jayron32 16:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
It's much more likely that they did not know of the discussion than that they knew and decided not to take part. --Khajidha (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I understand that Kofi Annan is a transformative person, but 11 days seems long for remaining in the "In the News" section. Which news medium is this story still "in the news"? It seems that the long shelf life of this understandably important news story may be crowding out newer legitimate news headlines.Probablynoteworthy (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
News stories are sorted by date. A story remains until there are enough new stories to replace it, regardless of how important it was. Art LaPella (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
A week or so ago, we had only two RDs listed, seemingly because of age. As an ITNC contributor, I know we generally have 4 and bump the oldest when a newer is added. Is it appropriate to also bump for age since we don't do that with blurbs? ghost 16:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The standard is that the oldest RD should not be older than 1 week old. We've been doing so for several years now, probably since RD was implemented. --Jayron32 16:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK

... that Wikipedia has a rule allowing its editors to "ignore all rules"? Which is universally ignored. Don't believe it? Just try ignoring all (or even any) rules...please just try it...dare ya.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.42.138 (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2018

The existence of such a rule does not mean that everyone follows it. (Which it perhaps implies itself). It's easy to document that the rule itself exists.
Anyway, if you genuinely believe that the DYK item is factually incorrect, the appropriate place to report that is at WP:ERRORS, not here. You would probably need to bring more compelling evidence than "please just try it", however. MPS1992 (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
There are two categories of Wikipedia rules - those that 'must or should' be followed ('grammar and style', factually correct information, being courteous to all etc) and those which can be adapted or ignored to suit the requirements of the particular article/context. ('This is a rule up with which I will not put.') Jackiespeel (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This isn't really correct. *All* of Wikipedia's rules, from the most important WP:PILLARs down to the smallest of guidelines or standards, are subject to IAR, but the key thing is whether the action improves the encyclopedia. If breaking the rule doesn't produce any benefit then the rule stands. If it does bring benefit, and you can persuade others that it brings benefit, then the rule will be ignored.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
"Ignore all rules" is actually a sort of misnomer. It certainly doesn't mean it's OK to ignore rules whenever you see fit. The actual wording of WP:IAR is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." The key being that improving the encyclopedia is more important than the rules. But most rules are there to benefit the encyclopedia, so breaking those rules is not likely to be accepted.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
'Factual information that can be verified and is not wholly Original Research' (this would include plot descriptions of fiction in whatever format) #should# be the aim (with the talk pages being slightly more flexible and allowing for opinion and link); and clarity enabling WP to be a point of first resort/provide an overview of a topic, while being courteous to all, should be the aim. Most other rules can be adapted when appropriate to achieve these ends (though Wikipedians may well disagree on the way and extent to which this can be done).
Like some of the other entries on the MP the above statement was put there to startle and intrigue readers (rather than just interest them in things that fall into their 'unknown unknowns category.') Jackiespeel (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, this is exactly right, and thank you to everyone that has offered opinions. Perhaps rather unexpectedly, resurrecting this topic from its early death.
Everyone worries about the declining number of editors, but we get many of our editors from people who see something on the Main Page and just want to say "that's not right because my boyfriend's aunt said so!". We can point them to WP:ERRORS or we can blank their posts or we can tell them that they're "nothing to do with the main page" (which would be incorrect), but we do ourselves a disservice if we don't at least try to answer their concerns (trolling or otherwise) in good faith. If the Main Page startles people enough that they come here to express their surprise, that's not ideal, but it's not a bad thing either. We can all try to keep this page as empty as possible, or we can realize that actually there's a few hundred words of discussion without making it a forum. Let's welcome potential new editors of any variety they might be. Let's answer all questions, even ones we hadn't thought of or ones we don't like.
And I apologize to everyone who didn't want this topic allowed on this page at all -- it really will be gone very very soon (in the grand scheme of things). MPS1992 (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussions of what 'should be allowed' on the MP (and that 'X is too insignificant/lowbrow/distasteful etc to appear') are a regular part of the MP talk page.
The Main Page serves many functions - and over a period of time will showcase/lead its visitors on to many of the areas that Wikipedia covers. For most readers most entries on the MP will suffice to satisfy their curiosity/interest in a particular topic - but there will be some things that they choose to pursue further (for all the reasons we can think of), and there will be the occasional topic that generates much discussion ('too trivial', 'not work safe', 'too firmly on one side of the argument', 'too many entries in a particular field (it not being a Special Commemorative Issue), and, in this case, 'WP being too self-regarding and referential' etc).
As I have said before - if this talk page did not contain such discussions on occasion then the Main Page is probably not serving its purpose. (However if there were regular discussions on specific issues then there might be something that needs addressing.) Jackiespeel (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Excess

All FAs are eligible, sure, but two episodes from the same series with barely days separating them? Episodes, not even the main article. And here it seemed Wikia was created specifically for these minute details. But this is a couple's politics being fanboyed over day after day, surely at some point this site will look like shills for the series' creators.

And sure, any other article for series can be improved etc. except in most cases if ones for episodes specifically are created they're just redirected to the main article as redundant, but here somehow a passionate fan can find so much info about a single episode and crucially bypass any restrictions other series have over in-universe articles.

At any rate why is spacing not discussed? If there is an article for all the hundreds of episodes and they were all FAs does that mean we can have one for every day of the year and then the next? 86.169.38.227 (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

If you'd like to prevent this problem from happening in the future, your input is desired at Wikipedia:Today's featured article; there are several places where you can help choose future TFAs, and if it matters to you to prevent these problems in the future, its a place you can have an impact on improving Wikipedia. --Jayron32 17:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Given the DYK conversation directly above this, this response seems dismissive. Clearly we have an issue with the queue at TFA that is conspicuous to non-editing readers. WP:CHOICE would seem to suggest that a person can point out a problem without being expected to fix it themselves. If TFA cannot produce acceptable results, there should be discussion about removing it from the main page. ghost 11:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
It is not dismissive. If there is a problem, it only gets fixed because people who care fix it. It appears that the OP cares about the problem. The only thing left to do is for them to fix it. There is not some mythical Wikipedia governance board, or some group of paid employees who respond to problems here. ALL there is at Wikipedia is random people who find problems and fix them. The OP found a problem. The OP can fix it. That's it. There is literally no one more qualified to do so here. No one. --Jayron32 12:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
You're right about the "mythical governance board," and I think that's a sentiment that should be expressed to the uninformed. But also perhaps something more specific to the IP's point: the contributors at TFA do discuss spacing, but will not reject one good article because a similar one is accepted. In the hypothetical presented, YES, we would see South Park episodes every day of the year. Hopefully the consensus would then decide to change the process, but perhaps not. ghost 15:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, the point I was making is that information the OP has on spacing should be shared at the TFA process page, on a regular basis, so that the same problem does not happen again. --Jayron32 15:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

POTD and article quality.

There is a discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria#Verifiable blurbs which is looking at establishing minimum quality standards for the bolded article in FP blurbs on the main page. Since it materially affects MP content, if you are interested in taking part, please do so there. Thank you. --Jayron32 13:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Schematic maps

Today's featured "picture," a schematic map of the Madrid Metro – which dates from 2004 – is the least visually accessible TFP I've yet seen. Such maps have EV for their subject articles, but are of scant interest to most Main Page readers. Sca (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

If this is the sort of thing that concerns you (at least, preventing it from happening again), then you should definitely take a more active role in discussions at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Complaining remonstrating after-the-fact about the results of a process you could have involved yourself in, but chose not to, isn't really going to fix anything. Instead of doing that, take an active role in choosing the pictures. They've been begging for more volunteers at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures, and your input there would be most appreciated! --Jayron32 17:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC) edit for clarity per below. --Jayron32 15:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I've been active regularly at WP:FPC for years, but I wasn't around when this FP was promoted in '04. In a quick glance at the talk pages you mentioned I didn't see much discussion. Am I missing something? – Sca (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
PS: Characterizing my comment as "complaining" seems disparaging. Sca (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how. You had a comment by which you expected someone to fix a problem. That is called a "complaint" in any English dictionary I have ever found. If you have another synonym for complaint which means the exact same thing, but which does not offend your sensibilities, I will change my comment to that word. --Jayron32 14:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The point is that decisions need to be made as to which picture to make POTD, and no one appears to be helping with that. --Jayron32 14:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Nope, I didn't "expect someone to fix a problem" at this stage of the TFP game. It was simply a critique of Main Page content; others could agree, disagree or ignore as they saw fit.
As to (euphemistic?) synonyms, I guess you could call my comment a remonstrance, although that seems somewhat archaic. Sca (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you didn't expect anything to be done, why even have this conversation? That seems rather odd that you'd make a comment about something that you wanted to not be changed in any way, or fixed, or corrected. Seems like a waste of time, to me. --Jayron32 15:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

1. It certainly wasn't something I "wanted to not be changed in any way, or fixed, or corrected." I viewed it a very poor choice, but (as noted above) realistically it was too late in the game to effect a change.
2. My critique was intended to promote user thought and/or collegial discussion of the points raised regarding accessibility of visual information in TFP choices. Sca (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess my main point was then that collegial discussions of visual information in TFP choices are most effective when they happen in the discussions of which TFPs to choose before they are chosen. --Jayron32 16:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Which is what I try to do at WP:FPC. – Sca (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
You certainly were active when it was actually promoted in 2010. ‑ Iridescent 16:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The '04 reference was based on this. – Sca (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Question about award for Wikipedians

I think that I saw that there is an award somewhere for a Wikipedian who has content shown on the main page at least once in all of the following categories: FA, FP, ITN, and DYK. This is different from the Four Award. Does anyone know the name of this award? --Pine✉ 16:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

What about OTD?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't recall OTD being included, but it's certainly possible. --Pine✉ 16:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
You might be thinking of the WikiCup, although that is different. Art LaPella (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not the Wikicup. --Pine✉ 16:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Found it. Art LaPella (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

TFA's inconsistency in date of birth and death

Just to point out that in this month we put date in year only and in the next month we put them in full date. --Hddty. (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The full date goes in if there's a particular significance to running them on that date, so it's clear to readers why the article has been selected for that date. All the ones next month that have an full date listed have a particular significance to that date (either the birth/death date, or the anniversary of the event in question). ‑ Iridescent 17:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

TemplateStyles

TemplateStyles have been around for over a month now. What do people think of using them on the main page? We could get rid of some of the duplication on the main page, separate styling to its own page, and even do some fancy responsive design stuff, like putting the right panel underneath the left panel when the user's screen isn't wide enough. See example. Thoughts on this? --Yair rand (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The flexibility seems great. As long as there are no technical reasons not to do this, I think it's an improvement the main page should make. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 12:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
could you also add flexibility to the portals section? 🌸PinkPinkPin🌸(talk) 15:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Pinkpinkpin: Good idea, but I'm not sure what would be the best format. There are nine portals listed, which means that organizing them in two columns would have one awkwardly sticking out at the bottom, and having them all in one column looks kind of ugly. Maybe they could be placed underneath inline and centered... (Tests this.) What do you think? --Yair rand (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
it looks good with the portals underneath. 🌸PinkPinkPin🌸 ^ 06:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Yair rand: what do I suppose to see at your example page ?. I am just seeing normal mainpage. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ammarpad: The change is to have the main page adapt to different screen sizes. If you shrink or enlarge the size of the browser window, you can see how it would look for other screen sizes. --Yair rand (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
OK. I see that. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Semi-Support - I like the idea and the concept however, there are flaws with the design:
@FR30799386: Fixed the portal links. I'm not sure what you mean by the border on the right side of the blocks, though. --Yair rand (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Yair rand Here is a screenshot of the issue. — fr + 10:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Screenshot of templatestyles mockup of the Wikipedia main page
@FR30799386: That's on the mobile site, which is special-cased and strips out much of the content. This change will not affect the display of the mobile site, even though, when viewed on the test page, it appears as such. --Yair rand (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that, looking with the mobile view, the colored bars don't span the full distance behind the words "In the news", "Did you know..." etc. But it does work for "From today's featured article". I don't really know how to explain it. Try using these links [18] [19] to see. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 19:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hameltion: As I explained above, the mobile main page is special-cased. This change will not affect the appearance of the mobile site. --Yair rand (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I understand that. I suppose my concern was about if a mobile user navigated to the pages for Tomorrow or Yesterday or several other WP:Main Page alternatives. It's not an issue with your mockup – it's how these pages currently appear when you look up MP alternatives on a mobile device. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 19:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Homepage views

Hello team, I'm assisting a journalist from The New Zealand Herald with writing an article about today's featured article (Kate Sheppard) and her question is – how many views does the entire homepage get in a day? That is, not an individual article but the homepage as such? I didn't know how to get that out of the Pageview Analysis tool as that requires articles as its input. Schwede66 03:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Answer no longer required as the article has already been published. Schwede66 05:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Too late, but you can enter in the main page into the pageviews analysis tool - [20] Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, the "Pageviews analysis" tool is available (along with several others, such as the "Page statistics" tool) under the "View History" tab on every page.

From that tool, the Main Page got 1.3 billion pageviews over the last 90 days, on average about 14.4 million per day, always more than 10 million but less than 18 million. (The numbers are somewhat down on the first few months of 2017, when it was between 20 and 30 million most days.) Most weeks, there is a noticeable pattern, with most views on Monday, gradually decreasing through the week to the least on Friday, and intermediate numbers on Saturday and Sunday.

The New Zealand Herald article linked above gives some numbers for page views for today's featured article itself, on Kate Sheppard. (Congratulations to Gadfium (talk · contribs) and collaborators! And congratulations to New Zealand for showing the world the way to universal sufferage.)

WP:TFASTATS is a bit out of date - there are reasonably complete lists with statistics for years up to 2017 and then January 2018 and February 2018, but a project there for someone who wants to compile similar pages for March 2018 to date - which show that the TFA gets a bump of page views of several tens of thousands - typically 20,000 to 40,000, but often up to 60,000. Under 20,000 is uncommon, and more than 100,000 is unusual too: see WP:TFAMOSTVIEWED. 213.205.240.202 (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: it seems that Kate Sheppard got a bump in daily page views within the usual range, from around 300 or less on a normal day to over 35,000 on the day (and nearly 7,000 yesterday). The Main Page got over 10,000,000 views on each day, so the click-through for the TFA was about a third of one per cent. And the article got about 50 edits. 213.205.240.217 (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, everybody, for the various responses. Much appreciated. Schwede66 10:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sept. 23 holidays

So this year, Celebrate Bisexuality Day and Saudi National day are joined with the beginning of Banned Books Week, for an extra bit of irony. It brought a smirk to my face at least.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

How does it feel to be named after a battleship? – Sca (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
He isn't. His user page alludes to Bellerophon the ancient superhero. Art LaPella (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if he bellows on the phone? Sca (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Pings for edit on Main Page

Greetings, does someone know why I keep getting "thank-yous" for this edit this summer despite it not being the last edit? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

You get thank-yous when somebody goes to the diff and clicks the 'thank' link. That doesn't have to be the last edit; the opportunity to show appreciation remains for any past edit. Schwede66 08:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Er, I know how the thanks function works. What I am wondering is why I am receiving so many for that edit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I get it as well. Eventually our edits will drop out of the last 50, and hopefully the pings will dry up. It is annoying though. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 12:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I get these all the time, I think it's just newbies testing things out. — 🦊 06:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate style parameter

In line 59, "overflow:auto;" appears twice, one of which could be removed. Also, the id "mp-lower" appears twice (ll. 52 & 59), which might cause issues with older versions of Internet Explorer. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 11:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done duplicated overflow:auto; has been removed. — xaosflux Talk 13:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 On hold I'm not seeing any styling associated with 'mp-lower', will change second instance to to 'mp-other-lower' if no objections. — xaosflux Talk 13:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)`
 Done - thank you for the notes @Lordtobi: — xaosflux Talk 23:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Simple spelling mistake

"From today's featured list" has the page "Accolades received by Call My by Your Name" 's word "me" misspelled. --NowIsntItTime 02:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Schwede66 02:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Naked woman painting on main page?

WP:SNOW close: picture is okay, discussion degenerating. Isa (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Just want to check if people think the painting File:Angelo Bronzino - Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time - National Gallery, London.jpg should be added to the unused list, or if it's OK to go on the main page as Today's Featured Picture? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using this featured picture. Schwede66 00:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Think of the children! --184.248.185.81 (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be on the MP. Modest Genius talk 12:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
No, his cheeks. Suggestively rosy. Sca (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2018 (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.

Death of Jamal Khashoggi

Why does the Main Page link to [[Jamal Khashoggi|Death of Jamal Khashoggi]] when we have the article Death of Jamal Khashoggi? Surtsicna (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why a death can be considered as "ongoing". It was an event, which now has a confirmed date and location. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
At the time of the discussion on ITN/C, the target article did not exist. There's also a new discussion about upgrading ongoing to a blurb. Isa (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Rapidly replacing with a blurb would seem sensible, if consensus permits. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

TemplateStyles

The prior discussion on this was archived without being closed: Talk:Main_Page/Archive_192#TemplateStyles. Reopening. The proposal is to use TemplateStyles to add responsive design to the main page per this example. --Yair rand (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus seems pretty clear to me there... — 🦊 16:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep. So... --Yair rand (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Per the previous discussion, the following changes should be made:
Thank you. --Yair rand (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Why did all the box headers go from 120% font size to 150%? Isa (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Isanae: ...I don't think they did? I don't see any changed headers, after checking multiple browsers. The stylesheet says 120% explicitly. You're talking about the headers with "In the news", "On this day", etc right? And in the desktop site (which is the only place this change will appear)? (Temporarily removing editrequested template until this is figured out.) --Yair rand (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yair rand: I've been trying to understand what's going on for about 30 minutes now. Yes, I'm talking about headers like "From today's featured article" and "In the news", desktop, Firefox 62, Windows 10.
I'm getting 120% when logged out, but 150% when logged in. The current version of the main page is an <h2> that has a font-size:120% inline in its style attribute. Your version is also an <h2>, but it has no inline style.
When logged out, it picks up a 120% from .mw-parser-output h2 that's inline in a <style> tag. I'm not familiar enough with mediawiki to know where it comes from, but it's generated inline in the page. When logged in, this is overridden by a 150% that comes from the vector skin. When I look at the source of the main page logged out, I don't see this css file being included in any <link>, but I have it when logged in (where modules actually has more gadgets from my preferences, but they don't affect this particular output).
Sorry for the confusion. It's probably something on my end. Isa (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see the issue. The gadget MediaWiki:Gadget-VectorClassic.css ("Vector classic typography (use only sans-serif in Vector skin)") overrides the font-size set in Template:Main Page/styles.css. I've fixed the new CSS to override that, so there shouldn't be an issue for people using that gadget anymore. (Re-adding editprotected template.) --Yair rand (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks fixed. I'm not seeing any other obvious problems. Responsive design is nice. Isa (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support-A long overdue improvement to the main page.- — fr + 05:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done but the border on From today's featured list looks wrong. Have you got a quick fix or shall I revert? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • arrow Reverted for now. Presumably it wasn't a Monday or Friday when you tested this, so TFL didn't appear :) And unfortunately I did not notice it until deployed. Waiting for fix before redeploying. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    And while you're at it, on my browser the spacing above Other areas of Wikipedia is slightly wider than the spacing on other blocks on the page. Could you look at that as well? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    @MSGJ: Ah, sorry, when I was fixing the issue above with the VectorClassic gadget I forgot about the featured list and accidentally broke it. Changing line 63 on Template:Main Page/styles.css from #mp-upper h2, #mp-lower h2, #mp-other-lower h2 { to #mp-upper h2, #mp-middle h2, #mp-lower h2, #mp-other-lower h2 { should fix it. Re the spacing above "Other areas of Wikipedia", the extra padding is currently an explicit extra bit of code, so I assumed it was deliberate and didn't remove it when switching to TemplateStyles. (It could be removed by removing line 146 on Template:Main Page/styles.css.) --Yair rand (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    Okay redeployed. I'll leave the other issue for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering if Template:Main Page/styles.css is in the right place, as it is currently a subtemplate of nothing. Unless there is a reason for it to be a subtemplate, could it be moved to Template:Main Page styles. Does it need the .css? Would the content model need to be changed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

See #Requested move 24 October 2018 below. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Vertical spacing of "Other areas of Wikipedia"

@Nixinova: as you were involved in the June 2018 redesign please can you comment on the spacing of this block? Is it intentionally wider than the other blocks on this page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to but to my knowledge the spacing or padding isnt (wasn't or shouldn't-be) any different to anything else on the page.  Nixinova  T  C  23:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nixinova:, the vertical space between the top of dark grey box that contains the heading 'Other areas of Wikipedia' and the top of the light grey surrounding box is slightly taller than the corresponding space between any other header box and its surrounding box. Stephen 23:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

So, any objections to removing the 4px padding on top of this block? Proposed version at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

No issues...that was probably caused by a collective oversight due to the multiple c/p which occurred during that redesign Rfc. — fr + 12:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Picture in Today's Featured Article

Is there a reason why Today's Featured Article blurb on Fragment of a Crucifixion, has a portrait of the artist as the main picture instead of the painting itself? It seems to me that would be far more informative. Jaxcab (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

My guess is, when the painting itself is shrunken to that size, so much detail becomes invisible that its inclusion is no longer useful. 99.203.55.167 (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The image of the painting is not freely available for the Main Page. See File:Fragment of a Crucifixion.jpg. It's fairly used on the article about the painting, however. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 01:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
That being the case, and given that the best resolution that is available is ~200x300 - which is tiny on modern screens - maybe it was a poor choice for featured article? "This painting, which you cannot actually see, is awesome because..." 82.13.91.100 (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Main page is broken

The main page appears to be broken. Instead of a 2 by 2 grid, it is now appearing as a 1 by 4 grid.

Normal
TFA ITN
DYK OTD
Current
TFA
DYK
ITN
OTD

This needs fixing urgently. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Still works fine for me and looks totally normal?? (Windows 10, Chrome) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks fine to me as well (Windows 10, Firefox 62.0.3). Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mjroots: MSGJ made a change earlier in the day, which seems to make the display dependent on browser width: I, for instance, still see it normally. Vanamonde (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah this is intentional. See #TemplateStyles above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Nowhere in that discussion did it say it would rearrange from 2x2 to 1x4. I'm using the latest version of Firefox too, at 170% expansion. This change has not been properly explained and therefore people have not been given sufficient chance to comment on it. It should be reverted and a full RFC held. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
For info, it's normal at 150%. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I explained right from the start that the proposal included "putting the right panel underneath the left panel when the user's screen isn't wide enough", in my original post here about the topic. The proposal was open for several weeks and also linked from the Village pump. --Yair rand (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
(why are you using such a high level of zoom, by the way?) At-least for me, it seems perfectly reasonable responsive design to switch to 1x4 at >150% zoom in (same for me - 175% is 1x4) because of how squished the text is. Vast majority of views are not affected since this is the desktop site viewed on large screens, and where it is changed it seems correct to do so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
It's at 170% because I prefer it that way. My user page displays just how I like it at that level. I see that the original propisal did state that, but what was meant by that was not explained. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Note that the reason the layout changed is because of responsive design: it rearranges the various boxes in a way that best uses the space available in the browser window. It makes the site mobile-friendly. I understand your frustration at seeing something familiar change unexpectedly, but you might be able to tweak your font size and browser window width to get back the original layout. Isa (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Or you can use User:Yair rand/OldMainPage.css to put the layout back. (It doesn't put back the other changes, but I can add some code to do that too if you want.) --Yair rand (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Given the warning, and that I hold admin privileges, I'll pass on that suggestion. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: What Yair rand meant, I think, is that you can create your own CSS file and paste the content into it, which would bring back the original main page just for you.

In your preferences, Appearance tab, click "Custom CSS" next to your selected skin. For example, if your skin is vector (the default), "Custom CSS" would create User:Mjroots/vector.css. Just copy/paste the content of User:Yair rand/OldMainPage.css into it and you'll get the old version back (or most of it, some things might still be different). Isa (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

...Or simply add importStylesheet( 'User:Yair rand/OldMainPage.css'); to User:Mjroots/monobook.js to get most of the old version back. — fr + 12:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


Finding it funny that anyone would consider that "broken", my main page has been single column for a LOOOOOOONG time. Standardizing on one column would do away with issues of balancing the two columns and allow for the pictures to be made bigger. We have many articles that are MUCH longer than the main page would be as a single column, so why do we force this silliness onto the main page? --10:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khajidha (talk • contribs)

Countries in blurbs

Since this has now been removed from ERRORS, raising it here, although it's relevant to the blurbs currently on the main page. We have four ITN blurbs, two of which mention the country they relate to, two of which do not. Should we standardize this moving forward? To be clear, (and pinging Stephen, since he replied to me via edit-summary at ERRORS) I'm not referring to links, but to whether the country is named at all. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that the most internationally recognizable cities should be able to stand alone. New York City and London would be the quintessential examples. Istanbul, currently on the Main Page, should be able to as well. If there is a desire to make an informal or formal list, I think the AP's international list, which includes roughly 50 cities around the world, provides a good list of contenders to pick from. Modulus12 (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Apply common sense but understand that the majority of our readers aren't aware of most of the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
That list includes no US cities (which the article considers "domestic"). Do non-US sources use the state when referring to US cities? My recollection is the BBC doesn't use the comma formatting at all, preferring plain "San Fransisco" for the biggies and "the American city of Ames" or some such for smaller ones. That might work for us? ghost 12:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The Beeb uses the comma formatting for places in the U.S. when needed to disambiguate common city names, or to localize relatively unknown places. Some U.S. names are major cities in multiple states (Portland, Springfield, Wilmington, etc.) You can see the BBC using "Portland, Oregon and not just "Portland". Similarly, Springfield, Massachusetts. For unique, but obscure place names, they still include the state: Nashua, New Hampshire for example. This reflects common practice in the U.S. State names are skipped when a) the context makes it unneeded (For example, news sources in Massachusetts would just say Springfield unless they meant one of the ones outside the state), or it's one of the biggies (San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Miami, etc.) For cities outside of the state in context, and except for probably the top 20-30 largest cities, most U.S. writing always includes the state name, often because a) city names are frequently duplicated or b) for obscure places, it isn't always readily well known. --Jayron32 23:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@GreatCaesarsGhost, Modulus12, and Jayron32: If we're doing states within the US (a country of 300 million and 50 states) it does seem that we should also use sub-national divisions within other similarly large countries; and we typically haven't. Provinces in Brazil or China, states in India, or oblasts in Russia are all comparable in size and population to states within the US. So the analogue to "Springfield, Massachusetts" would be "Sagay, Negros Occidental", rather than "Sagay, Philippines", which we have on the main page at the moment: conversely, if we want to keep the current form, we should be using "[[Springfield, Massachusetts|Springfield]], United States" I don't have a clear preference, but I do think we should be consistent. Vanamonde (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Only if common usage, as can be demonstrated in reliable sources, does similarly. In the context of U.S. placenames, excepting for the largest, well-known, unambiguous cities, the use of the state name alongside the city is ubiquitous. If English language sources do similarly for places in other countries, I would agree with you. I haven't seen that usage in my own exposure, but if you have style guides or major non-U.S. English-language outlets that do so, we can start a discussion based around those. --Jayron32 03:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I can talk about what my ear likes, but that's hopelessly biased by consumption of American media sources. For what it's worth, I hear states/provinces for the US, Canada, and increasingly India, so that's what I'd lean towards. We should follow what the non-domestic sources use, as most of our readers are non-domestic to any story (US is a borderline case). ghost 11:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree. --Jayron32 14:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Why not use alpha ++ and + cities? Howard the Duck (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Too few cities. Jerusalem is in the lowest level with a ton of cities like Santa Cruz and San Pedro Sula. I've looked at US and world atlases a lot and am from the same continent yet still don't know if those are North or South California/Hemisphere respectively. This is because that list is based on accounting, advertising, banking/finance and law firms as a barometer for advanced producer services and thus integration to the world economy which makes Tel Aviv an Alpha- city and Jerusalem like a Delta-. Cause Israel's advertisers, bankers and law and accounting firms prefer to not be in Jerusalem due to that country's situation. Also Makkah (Mecca) is an Epsilon city or lower while its port 70km away is Beta- and the its nation's capital Riyadh is Alpha-. And Vatican City is not on the list either. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

On my mobile (but using the desktop view with responsive design disabled) the portal links at the top of the page are all on top of each other instead of being arranged in a grid like they should be. Double sharp (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you supply a screenshot? Do you see the same or different when you make your PC browser very narrow? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I see the same on my iPad: I was about to come here to say I see the portal links appearing beside a single bullet point, with all of text overlapping and unreadable.
Also, the sister projects are listed one after the other down the screen in one column, not in multiple columns.
All this in desktop mode, not mobile. No idea how I would enable or disable responsive design, so I assume I am getting whatever is the default.
Peculiarly my iPhone shows both properly - separate bullets for the portals, and two columns for the sister projects. But on my iPhone (but not my iPad) the text size in the ITN/OTD box is noticeably smaller than in the TFA/DYK box. The different font size has been an issue for a while, but I've not bothered to complain about it before.
Neither of these change if I change screen orientation (i.e. wide or narrow).
How many pages impressions does the Main Page get every day? How much testing was done before the redesign was deployed? 213.205.240.133 (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I can reproduce the font sizes pretty easily on chrome's device emulator on iPhone X, portrait. My guess is that the lack of a viewport meta activates font scaling on certain browsers, which causes issues because the columns are set to 55% and 45%. I'm also getting very inconsistent font sizes below the table, starting from FP.
I can't reproduce the issue with portal links on any configuration of chrome's device emulator from Windows 10 on desktop, including playing with various responsive resolutions.
I don't think the responsive design was tested much on mobile devices using desktop mode. At this time, I would suggest a rollback until these issues are fixed. Isa (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Noting that the responsive design is not responsive in Moto G running Chrome for Android (~360px*~480px). — fr + 12:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Error on Wikipedia main page on Ipad2

I took a picture of the error on ipad2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Automaticacc (talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yair rand: I don't think this thing is ready to be live yet. Fixing bugs piecemeal while it's running in production by copying stuff from your sandbox is not exactly professional, and you seem to be the only one around who knows what's going on. I would again advise that the main page be reverted and that this new implementation go through a lot more testing before it's allowed back live. Isa (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Isanae: The OS in question has so few views on the desktop site that it's literally not even listed on the stats (which usually cuts of at about 0.03%-ish, I think), but looking at the relative stats of other versions we're probably looking at 0.0003% of views. In retrospect, there definitely should have been more testing, but I think we're fine now. --Yair rand (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I have sandboxed the fixes. Can everyone please confirm that Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox looks okay in all of their devices and browsers? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope, the fixes don't work for me on my BlackBerry Passport (BlackBerry 10). I still see all the portals on top of each other in a very similar manner to the screenshot. If I go back into the page history and see the last version before today's changes, the portals appear correctly. Maybe the issue appears on small screens and isn't related to browser/OS limitations? I think that the main page changes should be rolled back until the issue is fixed.
I also noticed that on my Passport, only the first row from "Wikipedia's sister projects" appears. I hadn't noticed that before, so I think that this is also new, but going back into the page history doesn't force all the sister projects to list properly. --JECE (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
arrow Reverted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@JECE: Thank you. Does the "In the news" section appear to the right or below the "From today's featured article" section on your BlackBerry? --Yair rand (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The portals now appear correctly after the rollback. However, I still only see Commons, MediaWiki and Meta-Wiki under "Wikipedia's sister projects". I took a closer look and it seems that the problem is related to line breaking. It's hard to describe, but you can actually scroll the page 'off-screen' to see the other projects after you first scroll down the page to the relevant section.
@Yair rand: To the right. The screen is wide enough to use the 'Desktop view' version of Wikipedia. --JECE (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@JECE: Could you provide a screenshot of Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox from your Blackberry? Also, do the colors on this test page appear as described? Thanks. --Yair rand (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yair rand: I can see the red, but not the blue or green. Any quick guide on how and where to upload new images? I don't think that I've done that before.--JECE (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@JECE: WP:WPSHOT — fr + 13:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@JECE: Okay, so Blackberry doesn't support complex nth-child/nth-of-type selectors. Reworked a bit. Does WP:Main Page/sandbox display correctly now? --Yair rand (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yair rand: The issue with the portal links has been fixed on my BlackBerry 10 device, yes. However, see below. The columns still appear off for Wikipedia's sister projects. --JECE (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Isanae: could you also comment on the version in the sandbox and describe any issues you see? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
All I can really test is Chrome's mobile device emulator, which anybody can do. I still see font scaling issues with a variety of devices, but it's really a losing battle because we're trying to get responsive content within a non-responsive page, which is never going to work correctly. As long as the whole page isn't converted to use the viewport meta, we'll have to accept that unpredictable font scaling and layout will happen.
Apart from font scaling, I can't see any problems on my side, but Chrome's device emulator is not a replacement for real devices. Other users seem to be reporting problems above that I can't reproduce. I still don't think it's a good idea to put this in production. To me, this is going the wrong way about it: as long as mediawiki doesn't get a proper responsive design overhaul, this whole thing is pointless. Just my 2¢. Isa (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)information Note:I have made some minor changes to Template:Main Page/sandbox/styles.css with this edit. The layout is now responsive both in Chrome DevTools and on my Motorola handset. Regards. — fr + 12:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@JECE: Does this version of Sister projects display as expected for you ?122.163.93.133 (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@122.163.93.133: Yes. Huh, I can't believe it took me a year to notice that issue. Maybe I had noticed it at some point and did not put two and two together. --JECE (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I see that this edit happened just a couple days ago. @MSGJ:, could you roll back this change too? --JECE (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@JECE: Could you take a look at Template:Wikipedia's sister projects/sandbox and confirm if it is working properly or not. I have changed the code to use Template:Wikipedia's sister projects/sandbox/styles.css which gets rid of some of the newer, probably incompatible code. — fr + 18:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@FR30799386: Yes and no. Your code changes do fit all the sister projects into columns, but only two columns instead of the three that used to fit fine. In the old revision that the anonymous user shared above, I see three columns. --JECE (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Any further comments on Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox? @FR30799386:: I made your changes to styles.css live. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@MSGJ: See above regarding the columns issue.--JECE (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I've edited Template:Main Page/sandbox/styles.css to also avoid the portals problem in IE7/8. I'm not sure what browsers are considered sufficiently relevant here, so... --Yair rand (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It's possible to generate content (including links) that's only visible to administrators; if you are one, try viewing the Main Page source code logged out and look for the big red "Administrators! Yes, you!" warning or the edit-this-editnotice link that you get when you edit the page while logged in.

With this in mind, could we add little "edit" links, only visible to admins, to the dynamic sections of the Main Page? I'm thinking TFA, ITN, DYK, OTD, and the featured picture and list. DYK and ITN are of less importance, since one can always go to Template:DYK or Template:ITN, but since the others use a daily subpage structure, the only ways to reach them are to scroll down and find them on the transcluded templates section, or memorize the naming structure (which isn't the same in all of them) and go to today's date, e.g. Template:POTD protected/2018-11-10 or Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 10, 2018. You can't just go to the abbreviations: Template:TFA is somehow stuck on a featured article from two weeks ago, Template:OTD is a redirect to Template:Update (maintenance template), Template:TFP doesn't exist, and Template:TFL redirects to a navbox for transport in London. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think {{Main Page toolbox}} has all the links you're looking for. It's at the top of Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, which is also transcluded to this talk page. Modulus12 (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
So can we add admin-visible-only links from it to the right parts of the Main Page? Having them on a template that's on another page isn't significantly different from having them in the "pages transcluded on this page" section when I click edit. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Nyttend it should be noted that 'admin only'-links are not guaranteed to be admin-only. Alternate views, apps, things like wikiwand, screenreader, pdf print, etc are not guaranteed to know to hide such content. This is why generally we use them sparsely in things like maintenance templates, but not in main content. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I was unaware of that. I figured the settings to hide them from non-admins were done on the server side: the server detects if you're an admin or not, and all other programs are never given an opportunity to see that these links exist. I wouldn't have proposed this had I known that. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nyttend, I created a script User:FR30799386/Main Page edit.js(install by adding importScript('User:FR30799386/Main Page edit.js'); to your Special:MyPage/common.js) which I think will provide you with the edit links you want.  — fr + 05:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_192&oldid=939208782"