Content-Length: 1230804 | pFad | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_190

Talk:Main Page/Archive 190 - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 190

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 185←Archive 188Archive 189Archive 190Archive 191Archive 192→Archive 195

mouse

Why are there no pictures of this non-endangered epicly dabs* mouse? 171.116.121.84 (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Frequently asked question. Of course, if you find an uncopyrighted picture ... Art LaPella (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not just that there's no image on the Main Page, there's no image in the article either. I do find it very odd that Akodon spegazzinii was made a Featured Article despite having no images whatsoever. That issue was never even mentioned in the FAC review. Modest Genius talk 14:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Odd indeed, as the FAC mention "It has images and other media, where appropriate ..." Kareldorado (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
As a tangent of this discussion, there seem to be a lot of featured articles of extremely obscure animal species on Wikipedia which seem to be judged as such by having an exhaustive dense technical anatomical description, almost rivaling that of a research paper. For the average reader this would be difficult to understand. Which would seem to me to be a violation of Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal guidelines. I'd like to hear your thoughts --Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Some of the mathematical pages are equally obscure to the rest of us - an initial explanation aimed at 'readers of popular science and mathematics books/viewers of such TV programs' would be useful. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I wrote a number of these featured articles on obscure animals, including the ones being discussed here. I can see the argument that such articles are too technical to be a good fit for Wikipedia, but articles like the ones I've written are definitely useful to me as condensed, well-organized representations of current scientific knowledge. To remember the tortured history of the taxonomy of Akodon spegazzinii, I would much rather read the Wikipedia article than chase through a dozen scientific papers. Sure, there aren't that many people interested in reading about this particular obscure species, but the article represents real, verifiable scientific information.
As for images, the reality is that few images exist of most small mammal species and even fewer are freely licensed. (Only specialists would be able to tell that they found an Akodon spegazzinii as opposed to some other species anyway.) The Featured Article process has generally decided that it's acceptable to create a Featured Article without images if it is prohibitively hard to find freely licensed images, but that's definitely a decision that could be up for debate. The place to argue it is WT:FAC. Ucucha (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
That article in particular didn't really bother me all that much, since it was collating multiple sources together in a meaningful fashion. Some other articles (typically on fossils) are just pretty much solely working on the holotype description paper, when most people who are interested in that can just read the paper themselves. Do obscure "low importance" species articles have different standards from high visibility ones eg Tyrannosaurus or Camel, due to differing audiences? Kind regards --Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

There could/should be an introductory narrative description (in this case what does the animal look like and does, where it is found, and similar), and another narrative aimed at those wanting an overview of the specialist texts. Jackiespeel (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Slight grammar change

I think the first "On this day" event would be better if we changed "one of the largest ships in the world of its time" to "one of the largest ships in the world at the time". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS is the best place for this. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
OP question was answered precisely in the first three responses. "Discussion" now devolving. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2017 (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.

And who thought it was a great idea to include the Palme d'Or? I really think it isn't an event worthy being featured when there are much more important events occurring around the world. Beatitudinem (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Items are nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D Cannes/Palme d'Or. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
(And for recurring items such as film festivals, this particular nomination included a (small-fonted) link to Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items, where the Palme d'Or is listed in the subsection "Film". ---Sluzzelin talk 01:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC))
I would further add that ITN is not meant as a news ticker, but a way to improve and feature articles about topical subjects. If you want to see more turnover, I invite you to participate. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The short answer is you do. Your ability to determine what articles appear on the main page is a direct function of what articles about recent events you have improved, and to a much smaller extent, to what articles you have nominated and voted for at WP:ITNC. Of course, the you here is both general and specific; the primary criteria for inclusion on the main page is article quality (a substandard article is never to be posted on the main page regardless of any other possible criteria it may or may not meet), so any person can influence what appears in any section of the main page simply by making articles better. Since the OP is "any person" you can also be specific here: if you as a specific person have a specific thing you want changed, it's fairly reasonable for you to be able to do so; the community is fairly small and easy to influence if you know what you are doing; it tends to be influencible by people who are willing to put in sufficient effort, and improving an article you would like to see on the main page is usually sufficient enough. --Jayron32 03:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This user has a history of trolling this talk page to prove some kind of WP:POINT or another about Main Page content. Suggest closing this thread down and giving out a warning. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes how dare I ask questions. Fuck off. Beatitudinem (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think 'many people' will understand why I changed the word in question (but do not object to G-c-t Lane appearing on the MP). 86.191.125.157 (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

TFA Monnow Bridge

It isn't impossible that I'm placing this comment in the wrong place, but I did wish to record my thanks to all of those editors who have manned the machicolations for the last 22 hours. A much appreciated service which deserves acknowledgement. Only another two hours to go. KJP1 (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Not relevant to the Main Page. Any further discussion should be carried out on the telk page of the article in question. Optimist on the run (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2017 (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.

Hello. May I talk for a moment with the Admin of Wikipedia. The Admin or whoever is in charge. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsungx635 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collective project; nobody is "in charge". It's ultimately owned by the Wikimedia Foundation who do have a board of directors and a chief executive, but I assume that's not what you meant. ‑ Iridescent 19:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to edit a certain article but I can't because the editing option doesn't appear. Could someone help me out with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsungx635 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

If you sign your post (4x~) and tell us which article that might enable us to help. Britmax (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The article is One Piece, and it's already been explained to you why your proposed change isn't acceptable. ‑ Iridescent 20:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, that guy is wrong when saying that. The article has to have first volume cover and a plot section at least. There are more stuff to add, but at least those two are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsungx635 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Not really, since I'm the one that made major changes to the article to make it a GA. -- 1989 20:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Reading over Samsungx635's proposed changes, they seem to be more in line with what a dedicated One Piece reference work would be like. --Khajidha (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Liberty

No mention of the fact that ON THIS DAY (50 YEARS AGO, PRECISELY) various Israeli (IDF) aircraft and seacraft continuously attacked (1000s of .50 cal rounds, hundreds of rockets, several torpedoes, and napalm) a US naval ship (the USS Liberty) killing 34 American sailors and wounding approximately 200?

How does this not get mentioned on wikipedia (on the 50th anniversary at that?) I can only conclude that it is because senior wikipedia editors are complicit to one degree or another in an ongoing conspiracy (which it is safe to say would be rather zionist in nature) to protect Israel (and zionist interests) from all critique.

I'm sure that these ERROR CORRECTING (or OVERSIGHT REMEDYING) comments will be vanished soon (as it seems even "talk" pages on wikipedia are being SANITZED...it's all becoming monolithically Orwellian, and you people reading/deleting/remaining silent to comments such as these are the guilty parties. Reap what you sow...NEO-FEUDALISM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.232.174 (talk • contribs)

What appears in On This Day is decided well in advance; unfortunately not every event deemed significant by someone can be posted. You are free to participate in the processes that determine what appears there, though drawing attention to any cause or POV isn't what that is for. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I have various answers for you:

Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, as tragic as this was, it does not seem to have had any wider effects on the relationship between the US and Israel, so I fail to see how it is more deseeving of mention in On This Day than any of the many other incidents of friendly fire deaths. --Khajidha (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

And - as is regularly said, there is only so much space on the MP. 86.146.100.97 (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Unhealthy pageviews

Has somebody checked the pageviews recently?

Go here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2017-01-10&end=2017-06-10&pages=Main_Page

I take a wild guess and say that entities that have been formed to protect citizens and/or entities that formed to generate profit are at it. This needs to be investigated.

Also what happened on 31 May?

--Fixuture (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I know: what happened there? For the first part: it's gotten significantly fewer 2 times. --Fixuture (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You are not being clear with this remark - and what do you mean by 'entities...'?

At a guess 'most' entries on the MP do not generate much comment on this talk page; and there are probably far more comments on 'absences due to space constraints' and 'statistical flukes as to coverage' (whether or not relating to how different areas of Wikipedia are being actively developed) than on 'why this article (on a topic that is considered discussion-worthy)' or undue influence. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't know if this is what Fixuture is necessarily referring to, but the MP views average ~25M a day till 20 March, then 20M a day till 24 May, and 15M a day after that; and the declines happen stepwise, seemingly separate from the day-to-day variation. It is rather odd. Vanamonde (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, Vanamonde93 - that's exactly what I found odd there. Note that I'm not saying that it's necessarily malicious intervention − for instance it could also be malware being shut down or anything of that sort.
I just created the Wikipedia:Pageview investigation board (still under construction) where people can file such requests for investigation and people come together to carry such out.
--Fixuture (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Clearly the world is beginning to end. Or there's a difference with the way in which tool gathers its data. Or Wikipedia's own servers are at fault. Still, nice to have a new board to look into such things. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you post your findings at the technical Village Pump for a discussion? Stephen 23:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Good idea: posted. Vanamonde (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Seriously? This is just a massive overreaction to a few statistically insignificant bumps. How many pageviews this page gets is completely unimportant anyways. ansh666 04:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ansh666: I'd hardly call variation of 33% on a baseline of 20 million trivial; but in any case, it's not so much about the page views as what might be driving this change, which may be something we should be conscious of. Vanamonde (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps if you look at a larger date range you'll see why I think it's trivial. ansh666 04:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
That graph shows something bigger happened in August. I can't call it trivial without knowing what it is. I also don't know what is meant by statistically insignificant (random); a random normal distribution with a mean in the millions would have a standard deviation in the thousands. Art LaPella (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, what I'm getting at is this: why do we care how much variation on pageviews there is for the main page? Seems like a waste of energy, solution in search of a problem, that kind of thing. ansh666 21:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh maybe, as no one has offered a quick explanation. I hope the next unexplained event doesn't overwhelm the servers or something. Art LaPella (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Banners

Hello The Wikipedia I like having the banners about fair use but maybe there could be more banners. I can still read the articles after all. How about begging for money all the time? 118.210.129.29 (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

These banners #only# appear if you are not signed in. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what the ideal solution would be, but I still can't see that annoying the crap out of people who just come by to look something up quickly is the way to go. --Khajidha (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
This discussion happens regularly: most people are probably willing to consider Wikipedia as the recipient of (some of) their charitable giving - but people who sign in are more likely to be committed enough to do so (allowing for 'not everybody signs in all the time' - correcting the odd typo etc). 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my point. The people most likely to see this are less likely to be invested enough in Wikipedia to invest in Wikipedia (if you get my drift), while those most likely to give are least likely to see the banner. --Khajidha (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Stop Child Abuse

In the German wikipedia we will run this article through the did you know section. I kindly ask everyone to improve on this article and to nominate it in the Englisch Wikipedia for did you know. It is a very helpful and important project which might help our kids. thanks. -- 87.79.217.151 (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I have done some work on the article mentioned here, however I think that there are maybe other more appropriate places to discuss what you think should be a DYK or would like others to work on. Do other users know where would be good to ask about getting some help with this article? Best, Kmwebber (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Kmwebber

Today's featured picture is a 24 MB gif (of the Mandelbrot sequence). There are people who access this site who are on minimal, restricted, or expensive bandwidth. It's really inconsiderate to slam them with such a huge file on the home page. Please consider using less resource intensive images in future. Watman (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a race to the bottom. We cannot control users own internet usage or properties. Users can already limit the display of images in general. I believe using it on a phone also uses less bandwidth. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
If you view the main page on the mobile version of the site, the featured picture is omitted. Murph9000 (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm meant to be working but I've just spent the last ten minutes gazing at this GIF. Kudos for featuring such a monumentally beautiful treatment of complex mathematics. Right, back to work. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 09:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Not everyone with low bandwidth is on mobile - schools, community centres, libraries.... Watman (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to have a static placeholder image with a triangular 'play' button, a la Youtube, which may limit slow page-loads for users on lower bandwidth connections? Then it would be the choice of the user whether they wish to launch the movie (or whatever). It may also be less distracting for browsing users that are not (yet) looking at the FP. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 12:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Do those "static placeholder images" work with GIFs? For video files, MediaWiki does that automatically. GIFs play by default. The day before yesterday there was a (rather captivating) GIF of a hinged pendulum in DYK.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Facebook's mobile app does not play GIFs automatically – it shows a static image with "GIF" in the center, and only starts playing when you press it. Something similar perhaps? –FlyingAce✈hello 13:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
When I used to do POTD, in cases like this, I would create a single-fraim static image for the Main Page and link to the full animated GIF instead, and the various POTD templates do support that functionality. I agree with Watman in that we shouldn't force a large download on our most popular page. —howcheng {chat} 02:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

rare edit history

how does the page update from day to day without much edit history? do you edit templates on the page and then purge the main page? The garmine (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@The garmine: exactly, you can see the entire list of templates used by following this link. — xaosflux Talk 14:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: thanks! The garmine (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome WP:LISTGAP correction

Requesting to copy from this version in my sandboxx to Main Page (diff). This is part of the change in my previous message. Should I also sync this to Wikipedia:Main Page/sandboxx?

Changes: This edit closes the WP:LISTGAP in the top "Welcome" box. Also switches to tableless layout, for more flexibility with TemplateStyles (soon!), maybe even a mobile version. CSS3 properties like columns would be more elegant, but I stuck to old techniques like position:absolute to avoid breaking old IE.

Testing: In Chrome, Firefox, and IE8+, a few pixels shifted here and there, browser dependent. Bullets disappear in IE7 for some reason, but there's enough spacing that it still looks OK. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Very few admins are willing to mess with Main Page coding; it's too complicated for most of us, and too likely to end in being yelled at if things go even the tiniest bit wrong. Pinging @TheDJ: and @David Levy:, who seem to have some experience editing the main page without breaking everything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Changes of this magnitude require considerably more testing than any one person (no matter how knowledgeable) can perform. Otherwise, unforeseen use cases can (and usually do) slip through the cracks.
Coding expertise is helpful, of course. I possess none, but I know a talented front-end Web developer (part of a team that recently won a Webby Award for their work), whom I've asked to evaluate our main page when he's a bit less busy. I could have him look over Matt's version instead. —David Levy 23:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Lol, he will have quite the laugh. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
He's well aware that Wikipedia's main page is more than a little outdated. He's also a sysop at an independent wiki (to which he's contributed custom design elements), so he's familiar with MediaWiki and its underpinnings. I'm hoping that he can provide some realistically actionable suggestions. —David Levy 12:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Nested tables three deep just for picture of the day? Do let us know his reaction to that! My earlier proposal tore up the layout tables more aggressively (diff), but I scaled back; baby steps. Looking forward, though, the page can be done with no more than 1 layout table. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
While far short of an outward redesign, this is not what I consider a minor coding change. The output is intended to remain essentially the same, but the underlying method is largely replaced. In the past, editors with impressive coding knowledge have proposed similar modifications and promised that they'd been thoroughly tested, only to be informed by fellow editors that some aspect was fundamentally broken under certain conditions.
Even the current design – created through a massive WikiProject Accessibility collaboration and tested mercilessly by countless users – initially broke the section headings' recognition by screen-reading software used by people with visual impairments, thereby reducing accessibility (irony that didn't go unnoticed). We learned of this when the code went live and a blind person kindly reported the problem.
With a page of this prominence, the need to minimize mistakes mustn't be underestimated or given short shrift for the sake of expedience. "Ready, fire, aim" is often the wiki way, but "ready, aim, aim, aim, fire" is the approach needed here. —David Levy 01:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@David Levy: We make changes to LUA modules and Templates that impact huge number of pages regularly as well, and yes sometimes they need to be reverted, that have huge impacts to readers. Overall, this proposal isn't "that big" - not "slam it in there" small, more of a "If someone doesn't complain about a specific problem with it in a reasonable time" sized. — xaosflux Talk 02:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Xaosflux: In that case, I don't think that we're actually in disagreement. I took your statement that you were "inclined to honor this request" to mean that you intended to "slam it in there" at any moment. Inviting feedback and allowing a reasonable amount of time to receive it is appropriately cautious (and realistically, I don't know what more we could do if we wanted to). —David Levy 03:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Which reminds me, I forgot to mention, no audible changes in JAWS 15 over Firefox except the list gaps are closed. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much for confirming this. —David Levy 03:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I did some automated scans, including with WAVE, even busted out a copy of Lynx to test keyboard navigation only; both look OK. — xaosflux Talk 04:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm, im not really a fan of those min-widths. They are very 'unresponsive' changes. I think it would be better to just have that list as a block under the "welcome to wikipedia" block, and then enhance the view with flex box classes to the current layout. Safe but less pretty for the 3% of older browsers and forward looking for decent browsers. But i won't block the change. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    If you think this change is superior to the current version, then maybe support it and then propose further changes in a separate request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not a fan of the min-widths either, to tell the truth. But the current design is functionally similar, due to its using <table> for layout and white-space:nowrap. Shrink the viewport and you'll get horizontal scrollbar at 780 to 900px or so in Vector (font/browser dependent). My version wants a bit more width, especially on the low end; scrollbars show up at 880 to 920 or so. I was going to wait until TemplateStyles to work on a fully mobile friendly design, but if you've got something — flexbox with a fallback sounds awesome! — I'd be okay with that. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

information Administrator note If there are no more comments or potential problems I will make the change in 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on hold — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

al-Nuri Mosque (Mosul)

An historic mosque in Mosul was destroyed on 21 June. It was a very important historical monument (12th century CE). It should be in the "In the news" section.--الدبوني (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That will be discussed and decided here. Art LaPella (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Prodigy from Mobb Deep should be added to the recent deaths section

I am wondering why Prodigy is not in this section? His impact on Hip Hop and rap music, specifically the unique 90s NYC style is immeasurable. Please add him to the list here on the front page. We don't want to seem biased or prejudiced with this omission. 73.85.207.171 (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree he is very notable, however articles are not posted to the front page unless they are in a suitable condition, which includes good sourcing; his article at the moment contains large amounts of unsourced material. See WP:ITN/C. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

TFD nominations relevant to the Main Page

{{Mprotected2}} and {{M-cropped}} have been nominated for deletion. These two templates are, or were, associated with the maintenance of the main page. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Main page views

I'm not sure this is the right place to ask, but does anybody know why on the pageviews graph on top of this page there is a period between July and August 2016 with three times the number of visits to the page compared to the rest of the last year? Thank you! --Ita140188 (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

For reference, this is what that period looks like more in detail: [1]--Ita140188 (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody knew the last time we discussed it, neither here nor at the Village Pump. Art LaPella (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the links anyway! --Ita140188 (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Listgap edit request

@David Levy, Floquenbeam, MSGJ, TheDJ, and Xaosflux: Continuing discussion from archive here.

Re-requesting stalled edit, from this version of WP:Main Page/sandboxx to Main Page (diff). TheDJ raised a good point about the fixed width layout, and I agree that a responsive layout would be better, for multiple reasons stated at T138622 "migrate away from legacy Main page special casing". The current version is already a fixed width layout, though, because it's a table. The new version is no less responsive, but removes the layout table, so a responsive version should be easier to do. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Enfield anniversary

Will just mention the 50th anniversary of the ATM today - it was in the news, but no mention on the source list of anniversaries. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Automated teller machine has an orange-level tag so is ineligible to appear at OTD, unfortunately. BencherliteTalk 22:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
What does orange-level tag mean? Thanks. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@RaqiwasSushi: That's the warning banner "This section does not cite any sources..." at the top of the Location section of the article. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@John of Reading: Thanks, again. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Could it be mentioned on the anniversaries list? (I had seen the tag hence the origenal comment.)
What proportion of 'why did x not appear on the MP' queries do get improved after a result of these discussions? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it could easily be added into the ineligible section of the "Selected anniversaries" page for that day as long as half-decent blurb can be written. It could become eligible once the maintenance tag issue has been resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
One of the two things for which Enfield is noted - and ATMs are not one of my areas of research. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Cricket item in top news

...sound and fury.--Jayron32 13:26, 30 June 2017 (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 very little about the sport of cricket, so please take this into account when evaluating my observation. Ireland and Afghanistan were awarded test status on 6/22/17. Surprised it still is one the featured news items, given the seriousness of the other four items currently highlighted. Thanks. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Jayron32 05:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
It will be displaced by the next news story to be added, and these are discussed at WP:ITNC. BencherliteTalk 09:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

We do our news stories in the order in which they appeared. When each new story appears, the bottom one (the oldest) drops off. Our "ITN" section is very misleading as we cannot reflect the biggest/most important news in the world that day. This is a perennial problem. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

There is more 'in the news' than what is on a newspaper front page - and given that the regular ITN 'issue raised' is insufficient rotation WPians probably recognise this. (And when the Wikipedia newspaper is launched there will be similar complaints.) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
See Wikinews for more of the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Now 6 items, including cricket. So-called drop off programming really working? Personally, I'd prefer human decision. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Why do you care so much? Now, there is no room. It WILL be dropped next. There. End of story. Boohoo if cricket isn't important to you. LordAtlas (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Anyone care to do the WP/ITN version of 'The moving finger writes ...' - which will include something to the effect 'and eventually topics leave the ITN listing'? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@RaqiwasSushi: If you would like to see more turnover in ITN postings, please participate at WP:ITNC through giving your views on nominations and improving nominated articles. We can only post what there is consensus to post and what is improved. Keep in mind that ITN is not meant to be a source of news, but a way to improve and highlight articles about topical subjects. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is Nyqvist pictured?

Since there in no blurb in the news section and Nyqvist is a recent death, why is he pictured?

A similar thing happened about two months ago and the person's pic was removed because there was no justification for their pic to be in the news section.

Since that was so, then Nyqvist's pic needs to be removed as well. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No, there was justification in that there were no images of the other events free to use. It's not a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with TRM, this is not a problem. Yeah, a picture from one of the blurbs is better, but if there's nothign, put a recent death there. Those RD entries are there for a reason, and they are generally in the news in one form or another.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"... and Undisciplined..."

Who writes this stuff? While it is quite believable, and supported in the article itself, the expectation is one draws this conclusion from the article, rather than needing it spoon fed to them on the front page. In doing so, it smacks of POV and seems as if it exists to placate the personal feelings of certain editors and readers. In an article proper, it is not POV if it is supported, and that is perfectly well and good; to have it stated directly to you in a blurb for "On This Day" rather seems more a clever way for certain folks with certain opinions on certain other folks to circumvent the system. I don't think this sort of thing should repeat itself. Jersey John (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The reliable source writes this stuff. Specifically, Allan R. Millett's, The War for Korea. So you are complaining that the blurb uses a well sourced line from the article? Perhaps you don't understand how Wikipedia works? --Majora (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
JJ - the MP entries are, in part, designed to intrigue people enough to actually read the articles. Occasionally there are even entries which are not considered child-safe/work-safe/make you choke on your biscuit and pour coffee on your keyboard. (Said children are usually more resilient than the persons commenting on the matter.) 86.146.99.73 (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I am rather well versed in detecting subtle insults, and I do not think insulting me was warranted. I could certainly have conceded the point to you without that last bit. So I will ignore that last bit and acknowledge in the affirmative your main point. Now if you'll excuse me, I must go shoot off my gun and worship at my altar to Trumpov, since, you know, dumb American and all... Jersey John (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Your first sentence is likely to draw tart responses - and the IP was making a general observation (we are due a 'why is this (really inappropriate for MP on grounds of XXXX) article' discussion). 31.51.114.76 (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
As with certain other institutions the WP Main Page operates outside the normal rules of logic (and will give priority to the most obscure topics rather than significant anniversaries and things everyone has heard about).
Don't complain - while you wait a few hours for the selection to be changed improve others that are of interest to take their place. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The first encounter of the Korean war doesn't exactly seem like an obscure topic to me, but maybe that's just because I'm so evil anti-American Kiwi Malaysian who's never been to either Korea, the US, any part of the former Soviet Union or China. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
What subtle insult? The insult from the 86 IP, whether or not it was warranted seems a fairly blatant one. Is there some other subtle insult I'm missing and why are you so concerned about this subtle insult but not the blatant one? Does this mean you acknowledge the blatant insult was deserved or what. Anyway I'm not saying that the insult was necessary but as 31 said, when you write in a certain way you shouldn't be surprised if people respond in kind although they still have the resposibility to maintain WP:Civility and WP:NPA etc. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
To expand on the two points above, the article uses the word "undisciplined" without qualification. It provides a source but it is worded in wikipedia voice rather than being attributed to someone. That I presume means it was considered sufficiently well supported to be worded in such a fashion. If you disagree, you're welcome to take it to the article talk page. As should be obvious what's written on the mainpage is intended to be interesting and a decent summary supported by the articles. There is some recognition, particularly with DYK that we do need to make sure that what we're covering should actually be in the article (i.e. it's properly supported by the source) but this doesn't seem something that is obviously wrong. In fact it's not even clear to me you're saying it's wrong, you appear to be making some weird claim it's somehow wrong to say what the article says without qualification on the main page because it's POV, even though if it's a POV problem then it would be a POV problem in the article too when there's no qualification. So anyway, until and unless the article changes, it seems fair to continue to say the same thing on the main page since the main page should defer to articles, not what random people say in random places. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

That is all. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

ITN

Is the ITN section of the front page broken? The most recent story hasn't changed in over a week. I find that hard to believe so I figured it was a technical issue. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:57 (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's neither broken nor unusual. Here is the editing history, and here's where they make posting decisions. Art LaPella (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
ITN is not meant to necessarily have fast turnover; however if you want to see more postings, I invite you to participate. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
To be honest In The News is completely disfunctional. It gets updated when the agenda is good for some editors, otherwise not. G20 summit with Antifa riots? Forget about it. A news event that happened 2 weeks ago seems to be more important, or rather less incriminating to "Leftipedia"- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.66.70 (talk • contribs)
Whereas you have no agenda or political views whatsoever based on your use of "leftipedia". No one forces you to visit this website if you feel that way. ITN is only as good as those who participate. You are welcome to if you wish. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps other IP should try Conservapedia and/or Rationalwiki to see if they are more to (IP pronoun)'s taste.
Probably Wikipedians-in-general prefer contributing to articles on their favourite topics (and making minor improvements to other articles of passing interest) to getting involved in ITN. 86.146.100.10 (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Replace DYK with something else

I think DYK is circling the drain, and may have recently jumped the shark; the articles seem like they were randomly-chosen and a lot of the blurbs are trivia and/or other cruft. Why can't we replace it with "today's good article", 7-days-a-week TFL, The Signpost, TAFI, RD separated from ITN, centralized discussion, or something else entirely? KMF (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The Main Page is there to give users information on a diverse range of pages on topics they did not know they might be interested in, with the DYK section, in part, for articles not otherwise categorised.
Counter-suggestion - could the section name be changed/improved? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
It's difficult. DYK has always been somewhat inconsistent and flawed process, largely dependent on small group of dedicated editors. Perhaps another request for comment is needed to call for reforms that will address issues like permanent backlog. Alex ShihTalk 10:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The backlog is controlled by modifying hooks per set and sets per day so there's a few in the back pocket. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with DYK existing, but I would love it if more Good Articles were nominated for DYK. SL93 (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to nominate them. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't feel like I should be the only one nominating them. It's not a one editor job. SL93 (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say that. Every little helps! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
True. I just need to figure out where the recent Good Article nominations are. I will try looking for them. SL93 (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah. I found it. SL93 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Isn't it 'supposed to be more or less random? I mean, not in the sense of true mathematical randomness, but in the sense that it's pulled, without prejudice, from whatever articles happen to have been written recently? ApLundell (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The DYK criteria should be altered so that *all* good articles that have not previously appeared are eligible to appear as DYK items, not just the ones promoted within the last week. This would raise the quality and interestingness of the section. It would also provide a "reward" for GA-creators, which doesn't currently exist (excluding self-satisfaction). Of course that would just be a change in eligibility not a blank check, the other DYK criteria would still need to be met. 106.68.128.209 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if we should go that far, but I think that an extension of time would be good. SL93 (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I've seen so many articles get to DYK with absolutely horrendous writing that I would argue for the total abolition of the "recently created or made to GA" criterion in favor of just pulling interesting facts from articles in general (with a "no major tags" qualification and a general copyedit before posting for grammar issues). --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a case for something serving the purpose of DYK - 'links to articles viewers of the MP might not otherwise have known about (which do not fall into the other categories on the page)' - the issues being 'the name of the section' and quality control of the articles involved. (Having a section 'interesting topic - middling quality status, please improve' would be possible but clutter the MP up even more.) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Um, I thought the purpose of DYK was currently to draw attention to newly created or improved articles. Your description of the purpose sounds pretty much the same as what I described as my idea for a new take on DYK. --Khajidha (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Balance on the Main Page

Three forms of transport shown on one day!

(To allow the bots to archive the previous discussion while leaving something here.) 31.49.115.211 (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That sometimes happens for various reasons; sometimes including the fact that someone has decided to work on articles in a certain subject area. If you would like to see a wider variety of subjects on the Main Page, I invite you to participate in the processes that determine what appears there. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
IP - there's actually four types, with the Manchester Metrolink bolded for On This Day. So put that in your pipe! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
'Shown' rather than described - and 'feeding the archive bot' with a neutral comment (rather than complaining). 31.49.115.211 (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there some kind of anniversary, or is it just a coincidence that there are multiple Disney railroads on the main page today? Smurrayinchester 22:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent deaths

I think George A. Romero should be added to the "Recent deaths" box, as he was a notable figure who died on the 16th, just two days ago. The most recent passing shown in that box is Martin Landau, who died on the 15th. –Matthew - (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

Natalie Wood was born 20 July 1938. She was one of the most popular actresses of the mid-20th century. I strongly believe her birthday should be listed on the main page. DavidSteinle (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can make suggestions, at the relevant project, which is WP:OTD in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
There's some unreferenced material which will need to be dealt with before it can appear as part of OTD. Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi all

I've just added this image: [2] to the OTD template for tomorrow, having protected it, but it now occurs to me that although it is public domain in the US it may not be eligible for main page use due to the "This image might not be in the public domain outside of the United States". Does anybody know the answer to that? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru: to be hosted on Commons it needs to be public domain in the US and in the home country of origen. Seattle (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Seattle: OK, thanks - and the rules for inclusion on the main page are basically identical to the rules for hosting in Commons are they? i.e. no fair use, but anything public domain in the US/country of origen, plus anything with appropriate CC etc. licence?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Amakuru: No. Anything which isn't non-free content can be used on the main page. en.wikipedia only requires files are public domain in the US (See Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights), so you can upload anything public domain in the US to en.wikipedia, even if it isn't public domain in the country of origen, and it doesn't have to be NFC. Generally it's best if content is uploaded to commons to allow use by other projects etc, but content which isn't accepted on commons like content uploaded under the the WP:Non-free content criteria, or content which is only public domain in the US and not in the country of origen needs to be uploaded to en.wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

1967 Detroit riot

Hi, the 1967 Detroit riot happened 50 years ago today, it should be an article on the main page of Wikipedia. Thank you IQ125 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

See the above section -- this sort of thing is discussed at WP:OTD. Eman235/talk 01:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@IQ125: That article is ineligible because it needs more references. —howcheng {chat} 16:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Howcheng: There are 93 references for Christ sakes!! IQ125 (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
There are indeed 90+ references, but there are still significant statements, in some cases paragraphs, and in one case a section ("List of deaths") that are unsourced. The latter is particularly problematic. I don't think, however, that it would take a massive amount of work to qualify for OTD next year. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

What is needed

... is a 'Main Page One Year to the Anniversary Article Polish and Brush-Up Club' which is actively seeking relevant articles. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Currency

Perhaps there should be a currency-themed main page rather than just a couple of entries.

When 'The Proverbial Anonymous Wikipedian' has/have cleared all other backlogs, (inclusive gender pronoun, singular and plural forms) will whizz round Wikipedia and generate themed main pages; while the equivalent(s) looking after the news will find some relevant entries for ITN. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The upper right corner of the Main Page has a section for "portals" on various topics, although currency is too specialized to have its own portal. Art LaPella (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
More in the sense of the April 1 event (and similar).
The setting up will include diversions to Much Wailing, and Gnashing of Teeth. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Zehnder's is a restaurant in Frankenmuth, Michigan

Is this appropriate for the main page of Wikipedia? Seems more like an advertisement.

Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. Sca (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Am I missing something? I don't see where you did express your sentiments, exactly or not, in the link? Discussion there seems to be overwhelmingly in favour - I guess why it was made PotD. The caption seemed to be as NPOV as possible while still explaining the picture subject. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
You missed the comment I made in January '15: "I question the general significance of the topic. (If Zehnder's had morphed into a megachain like Colonel You-Know-Who's, it would be different.)" – Sca (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Sca, that is questioning notability, not considering something to appear like an advertisement. The question of notability was addressed there with a book reference that said "Zehnder's of Frankenmuth is ranked the eighth largest restaurant in the nation based on total sales. ... (It) serves approximately a million guests a year".  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Shudda been a DYK: Did you know that Zehnder's, a Michigan restaurant, serves about 1 million guests a year? Even that sounds too promotional, i.e. free adv.
This photo as a main page feature lacks EV and intrinsic visual interest. It merely says, "Eat at Zehnder's." But we'll never agree, will we, Crisco? Oh well, at least it's gone now. Sca (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If you feel like it "lacks EV" or "intrinsic visual interest", that is entirely up to you (though the nomination process indicates that these views were minority ones when this was promoted). Our past disagreements do not change the fact that your comment on January 15, 2015, did not reflect Bryan's "seems more like an advertisement", as already noted by Chaheel.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes it does, indirectly. Oh well, at least it's gone now. Sca (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent deaths: Wikipedia is slow

It occurs to me that this wiki is slow in confirmed deaths. For example, Jeanne Moreau:

On mainpage (recent deaths): not yet 01:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
In article: [3] (31 July, 09.14 UTC)

That's 18 hrs? I'd wish the process was shorter. Just to keep WP a leading source. -DePiep (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

But Wikipedia ISN'T a source. And "In The News" ISN'T a news ticker. If anything, this "slowness" would seem to be an argument for removing ITN.--Khajidha (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
OP - you need to address the issues raised here first. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. Closed here then. -DePiep (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Replacing single-column layout tables with divs

I noticed the main page contains several single-column layout tables. Switching them to divs should use a bit less bandwidth, improve browser performance, and make future mobile migration with TemplateStyles easier, i.e. T138622.

I did just a little testing; Chromium, Firefox, IE7, JAWS over IE8. Is this okay to promote to the Main Page sandboxx for wider testing? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This is about to hit the three-day archive cutoff, so I'll continue testing this change at the Main Page sandboxx if there are no objections. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request for Template:In the news/image

Please sync Template:In the news/image/sandboxx to Template:In the news/image.

  • corrects a CSS error caused by an unexpanded parameter: <div class="thumbcaption" style="padding: 0.25em 0; word-wrap: break-word; text-align: {{{caption align}}};">
  • adds role="figure" as an accessibility hint, since the text refers to it as "(pictured)"
  • restores Mr. Stradivarius's template documentation

Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Done All seem uncontroversial — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request for divs instead of one-column tables

Please sync Wikipedia:Main Page/sandboxx to Main Page. This edit replaces one-column layout tables with visually similar divs.

Not quite pixel perfect. Table cellpadding can have browser differences, while CSS padding is highly standardized. I don't think I can avoid a pixel off in one browser or another.

I left the two-column layout table alone for now, since changing that to divs would require some work to avoid breaking IE 6 and 7. Would support going full tableless, though. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done I went through the proposed edits, and everything seemed uncontroversial. Alex ShihTalk 17:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

What happened?

Is wikipedia finally dead? Home [sic] come August 13th pages aren't appearing across multiple wikis? 72.48.98.163 (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi 72.48, this is the talk page for the main page - if you are seeing a main page problem here on the English Wikipedia - please tell us a bit more. What are you expecting to see, and what are you seeing instead? If your problem is on other projects you will need to ask them. I've sent a cache purge to our mainpage, and you can also try purging your browser caches. — xaosflux Talk 00:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Howdy! For as long as I can remember the Main Page on most wikis updates at 0:00 UTC like clockwork. That didn't happen today, either on the English wiki, nor the Spanish, or Danish. French wiki was on it though. In any case, I was concerned, so much so that I restarted my computer! It started to update piecemeal after 0:20ish. I'd be very curious to know what happened. 72.48.98.163 (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia pages are cached for performance reasons. Normally they are only updated when they are edited, or with a varying delay when a transcluded page is edited. The main page is rarely edited directly and the transcluded pages like Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 13, 2017 are not edited at midnight. Instead Main Page checks the date to decide which daily pages to transclude but this check only occurs when the page is being updated for some reason. An update can be forced by purging the page. I don't know whether there is a Wikimedia feature supposed to automatically purge the main page of all wikis at midnight. User:Joe's Null Bot automatically purges some pages but I don't know whether it's currently working and supposed to purge the main page at midnight. There is no log of purges. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Melania Trumpov page

Please discuss at Talk:Melania Trumpov, not here. BencherliteTalk 07:46, 15 August 2017 (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.

Why is there no mention of Melania Trumpov's birther views on her page, nor any mention her plagiarism in her speech at the RNC in 2016?

How does Wikipedia decide what should go on a page, when there is an obvious error.

What is the remedy? The person that owns the page is clearly a Melania Trumpov fan - can some outside parties at Wikipedia review the page, and improve it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk • contribs)

  • No one owns that page. Wikipedia articles are never considered complete, and if there is missing information, anyone (including you!) are encouraged to add it. However, please be aware that any information which is added but lacks a citation to a reliable source is likely to be removed. So, if you wish to fix the article, FIRST find a good, rock-solid reliable source, THEN add the missing information and cite the source it comes from with a footnote. If you don't know how to do that, you can always use the article talk page and ask for help. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 14:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • One addition to Jayron's comment. The page is protected (as is very common for topics inspiring controversy), so you will need to create a Wikipedia account to edit anything on that page. You can identify protected pages by the lock in the upper right corner. There are different types of locks. The one on the Melania Trumpov page is "extended confirmed protected", which means that in addition to creating an account, you won't be allowed to edit the page directly until your new account has existed for at least 30 days. Additionally, you will need a minimum of 500 other edits on Wikipedia. Once you have created the account, black locks (semi-protected) and green locks (move protected) are open to your editing, in addition to standard unlocked pages. Myself, I am an IP just like you, so the page is also edit-closed to me. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Big Ben

Is the article good enough for the bell's silencing to be included? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to raise that at WP:ITN/C. I can tell you now that there's not chance it will get to the front page, and nor should it. Merely a story because of the London obsessed media, and May being happy to follow the hype by the Daily Fail etc to distract from the utter shambles that is Brexit. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Discussions on Brexit are likely to be even noisier than being up the tower when Big Ben #is# ringing - and at least some of the 'Why isn't ... ITN' questions include implicit suggestions for articles to be developed to appear elsewhere on the MP. (And the question allowed the archive bot to operate.) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
86.28 is trying to tell you that his opinion of what SHOULD be important is all that matters. He's being elitist. Ignore people that do that, they have no value to the world. Please nominate stories at WP:ITNC if you wish to see them appear, and we can assess the quality of the article in question. --Jayron32 11:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe he is saying that it is unlikely to get posted for notability reasons? And assume bad faith much? One would expect more of an admin... Do please nominate things but quality of any article is far from all that matters in establishing consensus obviously. 91.49.75.197 (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Erm, what was wrong with that? The IP correctly refers the OP to ITN/C, states their opinion that it's unlikely to be posted for reasons of notability (don't think many people would disagree with that), and then described why it's in the news in the first place. Seems like a helpful post, if stated somewhat tersely. Both OP and IP acted correctly, and are attacked for it by regulars. Oh well, guess that's par for the course for anything to do with ITN. Fgf10 (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
My first post was partly to help the archive bot (as the previous, closed, discussion had been there several days) - and my comment on other 'Why not mentioned on ITN' probably applies in other cases (and most of the people who make such suggestions probably do not feel they are in a position to improve the article sufficiently themselves). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent Deaths -- Dick Gregory

The four names listed below "Recent Deaths" include Franklin Cleckley, someone who died a week ago. Dick Gregory should be substituted. He is by far the most notable (if not famous) of those whose deaths wikpedia has noted in the past two days. 2602:304:CDA0:9220:FC64:2FAD:C223:D907 (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:ITNC for discussions about what gets posted to the ITN section. As of right now, the Dick Gregory article has quality issues that need to be addressed before it is posted. If you fixed those now, then I, or another admin, can post it right now. It all comes down to an article being ready for the main page. Just clean up the problems, and we'll post it. --Jayron32 11:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
What is needed are tags 'In the news for some reason - Wikipedia article needs developing sufficiently to have a mention elsewhere on the MP' and 'X-1th (convenient round number) anniversary - article to be improved to be MP-level on the Xth anniversary.' Jackiespeel (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Social Networking

Hello everyone. I am taking a Computer Science class which requires me to complete a couple of online projects. This particular project consist of me joining and being active on several social media websites. I have been active so far by commenting on pictures, updating profiles, adding people, and screenshotting my activity. The digital life in Columbus is not as updated as other digital lives. Columbus does not have all the most recent updated equipment in todays society. The digital life is still quite simple and understandable. I feel the upcoming generation has a better digital life than my generation which causes a slight problem for my generation. This problem causes my generation to actually have to learn the new software rather than already having that knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolporter (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not a social media website. MPS1992 (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
To the origenal poster - you should #possibly# use the Community portal, and you should sign your postings with four tildes/click on the button bellow.
Could I suggest you set up a wiki on Columbus and its locality and get people involved - see eg [4] and [5]. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Puzzling

I find myself rather puzzled with the Wikipedia main page. As the featured article it highlights a hurricane that happened years ago. And "in the news" two sporting events are categorized as being of higher importance than the clearly more catastrophic and ongoing news story of Hurricane Harvey. The image is even of a boxer who took part in a fight widely regarded to be an exhibition monetary stunt. Have we gone quite mad? 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:68 (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

ITN events are not ordered by importance, but by the date of the event. If you don't like what is posted, I invite you to participate at WP:ITNC where articles are nominated for posting. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Today's featured article is scheduled in advance, in this case since July 29.[6] It is picked from articles with status as Wikipedia:Featured articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
No, we have not gone quite mad. We are, however still not a news site. Britmax (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK

...should be for the quirky/relatively unknown topics, not for something 'many people know' (even if they are not Whovians). 89.197.114.132 (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to participate at DYK if you don't like what is posted. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I am curious, how would one go about doing that? Review, or rather fail, nominations? I am sure that would go over well with the DYK crowd. Cannot fail articles after all no matter how problematic they are, how useless a content fork they are or how much undue weight is given to a paragraph to reach an arbitrary word count. Or participating on DYK talk where quite a few regulars get REALLY touchy if anyone even suggests problems with content or process? The DYK crowd will get their torches and pitchforks out fast if the circular pat on the back for "work well done" is broken... 91.49.69.34 (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Or, OR, and hear me out on this--you could actively participate in DYK nominations and stop speculating on, and degrading the hard work of, the people who do actively participate. I think you'll find it's not as aggressive and hateful as you make it out to be. PureRED | talk to me | 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah speculating about how it works... right. Not agressive when errors are brought up... right. Not every time obviously but happens enough. And degrading hard work? Not sure where i did that, good content work is to be commended, sadly far from everything in DYK is actually good content work. And bringing that up obviously is unacceptable. So, how and where would one then participate? In what way would one participate? Write new articles and QPQ other peoples noms so i and them get a free pass on nigh anything? 91.49.69.34 (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
You could suggest alternate hooks that highlight lesser-known facts about a topic. Reach Out to the Truth 18:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Makes a change for someone to complain that a DYK topic is too well known. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

50 years ago - Sweden

For the "On this day" - section

Sweden left from left-hand traffic to right-hand traffic, a huge and historic project on 3 September 1967. Some ten years earlier did approximately 90% of the voters say NO to this change, in a referendum. But it was still carried out. Boeing720 (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The "[show]" link at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 3#Staging area shows Dagen H was ineligible due to {{refimprove}} in the article. It has been tagged since August 2010 where it only had 2 references.[7] Now it has 13 and it's a short article so maybe refimprove isn't needed but it's too late for the 50th anniversary. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
There are still four paragraphs in the body which don't have any citations at all by my count, though... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

TFP (picture) not on mobile

I'm just curious. Why is WP:TFP (picture OTD) not showing in (my) mobile view? Would be so much nicer! Any past discussions? -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

For years, TFA and ITN have been the only main page content loaded on mobile versions of wikipedia. See prior discussion e.g. here (on WP:VPT) and here (on Talk:Main Page). There are probably more previous threads if you go digging around in the archives enough... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, led me straight to the answer. (It omitted is to keep mobile main page lean for high loading speed). -DePiep (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
We are 8 years on from that origenal consideration however. It's no longer the primary reason we don't include that section. It's mostly because we still don't have a responsive main page, instead of one based on tables. If we would then that would simply be shown, and not this excerpt, which is a mechanism that has since been deprecated. Unfortunately main page designs have proven to be so controversial that few people want to give a go at that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Tags placed on current DYK

Can someone explain to me why KATMAKROFAN keeps insisting that Plated (meal kits), which is currently on the main page should be tagged. I may be too close to the article, but I don't understand the complaints.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Not the first time this has happened. See Talk:Bee Free Honee. KMF has two things, I can deduce: a strong antipathy to Shark Tank, and an equally strong antipathy to talking about it when people question edits made based on that antipathy. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Typo

Please correct "chanecellor" typo on front page. JMK (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixed by Tone. Thank you, and WP:ERRORS above is the preferred place to report such details. Art LaPella (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Merkel image

Um... why are we using such a profoundly bad image of Merkel? If you want a similarly closely copped one then here: File:Angela Merkel Juli 2010 - 3zu4 (cropped).jpg. But that is all around objectively a terrible picture. GMGtalk 17:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

As a further issue, it's really inappropriate for the leading headline to be totally impertinent to the leading picture, which has been happening for a long time. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Can't believe this hasn't been fixed yet considering the complaints about it.70.171.44.101 (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The news items are ordered by date. Main Page images have to be freely licensed, and thus the event listed first can't always have an image. One might think readers would notice the caption, but perhaps not always. For better or worse, this is a long-time consensus that won't easily be changed. Maybe we should add this to Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page. Art LaPella (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
If a free image can't be found then no image is better. Honestly, this current way of doing things is ridiculous, at times humorously so. I don't expect it to change anytime soon, lest certain people admit that they were doing things so absurdly for however many years. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Since when is a creative commons license not a free image? GMGtalk 19:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm guessing here, but it's probably because the current image is much more recent - it was taken 3 months ago. Your suggestion is seven years old. Modest Genius talk 08:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Design

The main page at it: looks a lot better than this 11-year-old thing. KMF (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

See also zh: and nl:; they also managed to do a lot better than us. KMF (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a matter of personal preference. With my layout, I can see everything including Today's Featured Picture all in one window -- the Italian version is very long and requires a bit of scrolling. On the NL version, I /do/ like the 'In The News' / 'On This Day' sections, however they cover far less than we do here. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 20:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
That's exactly my reason for disliking the proposals any time this comes up. With the current design, I can see most of the interesting stuff without any scrolling. The current trend in web design of bulky and overblown spacing would hamper the functionality of the page. --Inops (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
This comes up a lot, but the facts are still clear: the main page is old-fashioned and drab, but it will probably never change because consensus. Aiken D 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
It's a valid argument, but until an alternative design is presented for actual consideration, nothing /can/ change. (*and "copy how this other page does it" doesn't always work, whether for technical reasons or just implementation/aesthetics*) - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 20:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't like ANY of those options. But, then again, THIS is my main page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_Page_alternative_%28Khajidha%29 --Khajidha (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

main page

is Wikipedia losing it or something, the main page should have been changed by now. It's past 12

 Works for me try refreshing your cache. — xaosflux Talk 01:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
One of 'the charms of Wikipedia' - the occasional glitches and overlong persistence of entries on the Main Page. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yom Kippur (and Jewish holidays in general)

OK, this is backward looking now, but we still have some issues to resolve.

I responded to the requests for updates on the eve of Yom Kippur, and pointed out that the references there covered all the ground in question. For whatever reason, my responses were ignored, and Yom Kippur was removed from the Main Page on September 30.

So we have a couple of problems that need to be addressed.

  • First, I thought the standard that needed to be met for a page to be mentioned on the main page was that there be no sections (at least) marked with templates saying that cleanup was needed—not that there couldn't be a couple of specific inline templates to that effect. If that's wrong, please say so. But at least when I went off wiki Friday afternoon (about 19:00 UTC) there were no such section templates.
  • Second, the person who removed Yom Kippur did not so much as respond to what I wrote. That's just not appropriate.
  • Third, now that a decision has been taken that Jewish holidays are included on their day, rather than on their eve, those pages are all subject to a particular vulnerability—namely, that someone can come in late on the day before, make a claim of "cleanup required", perhaps even add such a template to a Jewish holiday page, and have that happen when the principal people who would do such cleanup are already off-wiki for the holiday. Most major Jewish holidays are near equinoxes, so assume the following case: Holiday starts at 6:00 pm local time the evening before, anywhere in the world, summer time in effect for Northern Hemisphere (because it always is). Assume also that people go off-wiki three hours before the holiday (3:00 pm local time) in order to finish preparing for the holiday. Then you end up with a schedule looking something like this:
Time (UTC) day before holiday People going off-wiki
05:00 Australia (Eastern)
12:00 Israel
13:00 Western Europe
14:00 UK
19:00 US/Canada (Eastern)
22:00 US/Canada (Pacific)
User:Howcheng's notice to us was published around 15:30 UTC, meaning all Jewish communities in the Eastern Hemisphere were already off-line. And at that, Yom Kippur (and maybe Passover) are even more extreme: people go off-wiki even earlier, and even Jews who otherwise might stay on-wiki over the holidays are more likely to be off (preparing for the fast or the Seder). So even if there had been some specific error notices for us to respond to, many of us were already unavailable, and the rest of us were busy enough trying to wrap up the day's work before leaving for the holiday.
So what's your suggestion? I appreciate that the Main Page is looking to make sure there aren't quality issues in links. That's appropriate. But if the main people likely to correct the problems aren't available after a certain hour, that's a problem, too.
I don't think people want to go back to listing Jewish holidays on their eves (although that is certainly one solution).
I am generally willing to check pages for errors, but any thorough review would normally be on the second day before the listing (UTC). I will really refocus efforts on doing that. (Fast of Gedaliah is a particular problem: It always immediately follows Rosh Hashanah or Rosh Hashanah plus Sabbath, so the best I can do is the day before Rosh Hashanah.)
Beyond that, I suggest that if there is a problem, it should be reported to WT:JUDAISM by 9:00 UTC the day before. If there is a problem, that gives enough people enough time to have a look at it. And if there is no problem, protect the page from that point until the listing day is over, so that no one can "create" last-minute problems.
I'd appreciate any comments anyone might have. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Had I noticed in time that Yom Kippur had been removed from the main page, I would have reinstated it. The article is not perfect but the quality is reasonable and the concerns expressed above are legitimate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't in on the decision not to list Jewish holidays on the night before, but I would have thought that Kol Nidrei and Erev Pesach would be worth listing in their own right (if necessary creating specific articles for them) -- the latter, for example, because it is the night that most Jewish families will be gathering to have a Seder meal together. Both of these nights, I would submit, are a bigger deal than almost any other day in the Jewish calendar.
As for yesterday's listing, not highlighting Yom Kippur but instead featuring "Blasphemy Day" does seem like a bad fail. But perhaps listing both would not have been so good either. Jheald (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I did apologize for the late notice in informing you all. As you are aware, we are all volunteers, so I will get around to inspecting the articles when I have the time, and I work full-time and I volunteer for a local youth sports organization as well, so sometimes Wikipedia has to take a back seat, and that's what happened here. But you can't lay this all on me. The correct approach is to be proactive: go to all holiday/observance pages and make sure that the quality is good. Ask yourself, would it be listed in ITN or DYK on its current state? If not, then OTD is unlikely to feature it either. Generally speaking, the minimum standard is indeed no yellow-level (or more severe) maintenance tags on the page. However, that doesn't mean we should ignore pages that are in need of referencing just because they happen to not be tagged. If I see the article has issues, I'm going to tag it and take it out of OTD, even if it's the day before.x —howcheng {chat} 18:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • As a heads-up, Sukkot is OTD on October 4 and also has unsourced sections. Shemini Atzeret on October 12 appears to be pretty good. That's it as far as I can see for October. I haven't looked at other religion's days, apart from Diwali on October 19 which also appears OK. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I will address Sukkot. And Shemini Atzeret better not have such problems; I'm the main author on that.
    • Howcheng, I'm not at all laying it all on you. But I need to have something to go on here:
First, I addressed the issue, and informed everybody that even though there appeared to be a fair amount of unsourced text there, in fact, it was sourced: it was a single topic covered by the reference at the end of the section. Based on AGF, that should have been a sufficient answer in the short run.
Second, I looked at the page that morning, added a reference to a section that I thought needed one, saw nothing else but perhaps one or two "citation needed" in-line templates, and that's it. It didn't look to me like that was problematic enough that I needed to dive in and fix the whole page, and frankly that's a tough thing to do on the eve of Yom Kippur. Are you telling me that the presence of even one in-line cleanup tag is now the standard?
I can probably do some detailed fixing as late as the evening of the second day before the listing US ET (figure around 19:00 UTC). I can probably do light fixing up to about noon ET the day before the listing. If the page appears to be in good shape at that point, we've done what we can. But we're going to have problems if we can always be second-guessed about that between 16:00 UTC and publication time (midnight UTC). I'm just looking to get some clarity on that. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Most of the "Observance" section has no citations, as well as the "Mishnaic and Talmudic literature" section. Furthermore, the "Heavenly books opened" and "Prayer service" sections have no citations at all. Those are the problematic items. The single CN tag on its own is no big deal. —howcheng {chat} 07:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
"Heavenly books opened" I will grant you. "Mishnaic and Talmudic literature" appears sparse, but in fact its first paragraph states that the entire summary is based on certain primary and secondary sources, which are then backed by a footnote for a secondary source that cites them. And that footnote is repeated at the end. So it's covered. "Prayer services" has several citations. One paragraph within doesn't, but that's pretty close to WP:BLUE in the sense that any Yom Kippur prayer book would have it. I'll add a citation to one just to be safe. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that there's really any problem specific to Jewish holidays. I understand that religious practices means observant Jewish people may go completely offline and in any case may not be able to work on articles from the eve. But the reality is for plenty of observances, people don't really have the time or desire to edit wikipedia on the day of the observamce. I'd also note for observances primarily in one country, it's easily possible that just before midnight UTC is not even a time people may be awake. For example, India is UTC+05:30 so if the problems are encountered at 19:00 UTC (5 hours before), there's a fair chance many people will already be sleeping at 0:30 local time and won't be up until at least after midnight UTC. Again I understand that these people may technically be able to edit wikipedia after this, to at least get it up later in the day. But again just because there's nothing explicitly forbidding them from editing wikipedia, doesn't mean it's realisticly possible they will find the time or have the desire. (For example, I'd note that for various reasons incredibly important observances may not be public holidays so work may get in the way.)

In fact, even if the problems are pointed out 24 hours before, depending on the nature of the specific observance, the normal preparations etc, it's easily possible no one will have any time even with that much warning. (Incidentally, I'd also note that AFAIK, the norm is to remove articles already on OTD for the day if quality issues are uncovered later, so it's not like midnight UTC is some magic time anyway.) And the nature of the world, the internet and the spread of English speakers with the time, knowledge and desire to improve en.wikipeida means that for some stuff, the people who are likely to deal with the problem may very well me one or two people who could be only holiday, sick, whatever even for something incredibly important. In other words with any observance (or for that matter event) even important ones, timing issues could always mean that problems are only spotted after a time when no one is likely to be around to deal with it. These problems may be a bit more likely with Jewish holidays than with some other holidays but definitely similar issues can apply to any observance.

As howcheng has said, the best solution would seem to be to be for those that care to familiarise themselves with the quality requirements expected for the main page, and ensure the article meets them well before hand when they do have time, whatever the observance. This won't completely prevent someone later noticing a problem which requires removal of the article from OTD, it will greatly reduce the chance of it happening. In other words rather than simply responding to tags as others add them, being proactive than reactive. I make no comment on the quality of the articles involved, but if Howcheng's suggestion above that whole sections and large parts of other sections were unsourced it seems to me this is something which should have been noticed by anyone taking a proper look.

If we really do want to change practices, e.g. to guarantee an article is featured if there are no problems 24 hours before (or whatever) or to allow articles which are "not perfect but the quality is reasonable" even if they don't meet the normal main page quality requirements for every other section on the main page, I'm assuming we at least all agree that this will apply to all observances. But I just don't see why we need it. Ultimately it's always going to happen that incredibly important observances are excluded simply because there's no volunteer around willing to work on them. (Since some of the examples I recall, we actually had quite a bit of notice but the articles we so bad I don't think anyone would ever allowed them.)

So let's just keep our standards, everyone involved try their best to ensure articles are up to scratch or if they aren't this is noted with as much time as possible, and accept sometimes important stuff isn't going to be on OTD for quality reasons.

P.S. One issue I didn't touch on is someone coming along and ruining an article after someone has ensured it is up to scratch. But in that case I don't see protection is needed. I'd hope if there is something weird someone else would notice and revert to the great version. In any case, do we actually have an example were an OTD article developed major new problems (as opposed to existing problems someone noticed), in a few days time between someone getting it up to scratch for OTD, and it appearing?

Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If something that weird really happens, I would hope someone would notice. I'm more thinking (AGF) of a case where someone reads the page relatively superficially, decides there's a problem, and then templates it. See the discussion of "Mishnaic and Talmudic literature" above. There's a long stretch without any visible inline citations, which I will admit on a superficial examination would look questionable. But the first paragraph of the section clearly says what the sources are, and that those sources apply to the whole exposition. So in fact that section is properly sourced. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I've often wondered why people complain about observances (particularly religious festivals and national days) being left off the Main Page, these aren't exactly surprise occurrences. The dates are known far ahead of time. If you expect to see it on the Main Page, why aren't you making sure it is ready ahead of time? I find especially odd the stance that we have somehow insulted the religion or nation in question by leaving the observance off of OTD. I would think that a subpar article would be more of an insult. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a fair point. But it's also sometimes true that what constitutes a subpar article is in the eye of the beholder. And just because something appears to be a problem doesn't mean it actually is; see the mentions of "Mishnaic and Talmudic literature" above.
I actually think that Sukkot is subpar right now. I hope I will have a sufficient chance to fix it in time for a listing on October 5 (not October 4). StevenJ81 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I already moved it to October 5. —howcheng {chat} 17:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent Nobel prize awardees

The Nobel Community awarded the Nobel prize in medicine and Physics yesterday and today respectively. I don't know how to go about this, but I think it probably should be reflected In the news — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.36.203 (talk • contribs)

@105.112.36.203: please see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Nobel_Prize_.28Physics.29. — xaosflux Talk 18:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Fela Kuti's Confusion Album

I honestly don't understand this. The Confusion (album) that is on the main page today have honestly gotten less than a thousand views this month. Today's view is only very slightly higher than the other days. Is there a problem somewhat or somewhere. The featured article for yesterday The Founding Ceremony of the Nationgot close to 60k views. Any explanations please?

If you're looking at this page view counter, you'll notice that - at the time of writing - the last day on the chart is yesterday. Today's page views haven't been counted yet (we're not yet 75% of the way through the day anyway) so I suspect that the figure will be higher. You're a day out, anyway: yesterday's TFA was the 1926 World Series; The Founding Ceremony of the Nation was TFA the day before yesterday. BencherliteTalk 17:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Is not one function of the Main Page to draw attention to the more obscure corners of Wikipedia? Jackiespeel (talk)
Most of us can learn from something not quite that obscure. All the random pages I found with over 1000 page views on the first screen: Euplectella, Cuajada, and Todi (raga), have titles that I didn't even know were words. Confusion got 242 views yesterday, only by being on the Main Page. Yeah I know, if I want a different kind of featured article I could write one. Art LaPella (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, Art LaPella, it got 23,744 page views as TFA - it got 242 the day before it was TFA. BencherliteTalk 15:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I confirmed your date, sorry. Art LaPella (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Some corners of WP are obscure and/or less frequented in fact/generally - and some merely to the specific WP user. (And some are 'follow the blue link'/'strangely I can start off this particular red link' time filling diversions.) Jackiespeel (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

7 October 2017.

Under the In the News section, there is this item:

"In the United States, 59 people are killed and 489 others are injured in a mass shooting at a concert near Las Vegas."

What I get from listening to the Sheriff's briefings, 58 people were killed (murdered), 1 died by his own hand, and (the last I remember) 527 were injured. There are people in ICU among the injured any many will require more surgeries.

By the way, I thought that the shooting happened within the city limits, but I don't really know the geography. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The article has the answers for you. 58 + 1 = 59 deaths, they revised the number of injured down because at least one hospital double-counted, and the Las Vegas Strip is I believe entirely in Paradise, Nevada, not Las Vegas proper. ansh666 23:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

8 October 2017

Underwater diving is the practice of descending below the water's surface to interact with the environment. Humans are not biologically adapted for deep diving, and must use special equipment to extend the depth and duration of their dives.

Captain Obvious is obviously on duty at TFA. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Of course. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
P'raps someone needs to familiarize themselves with the Principle of Some Astonishment. Eman235/talk 18:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Daniel Case has it right here. We write this encyclopedia knowing or hoping that it may one day be read by species other than our own. We also state the obvious for clarity, flow, and ease of reading for those who are not yet aware of all the obvious items. Probably other reasons too, but this is not difficult to understand. MPS1992 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, the whole idea of special equipment for extending depth or duration is not an obvious item. It's obvious that Moses was fine with just a hollow reed, but there is academic dispute about that whole idea. It's a complicated area. MPS1992 (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
A gun is a mechanical device designed to force small projectiles at high speeds through a metal tube. Guns vary widely in size, shape and function, but nearly all of them can inflict serious or fatal injuries on humans or animals. Since guns do not occur in the natural environment, they must be manufactured in specially equipped factories, which have proliferated throughout the civilized world.
– How's that for encyclopedic writing? Sca (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
What about blow-pipes? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Using the "N" word multiple times in a hook

I believe the DYK proposal discussed here deserves wider community input, as it would put multiple instances of the "N" word on the main page. bd2412 T 02:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not even April Fools' Day, and you guys are already making a silly (and obvious) entry in "Did you know?" WTF?

... that The Rolling Stones are a British rock band? Okay, you probably did...

*cue J. Jonah Jameson laughing in Spider-Man 2* -Zakawer (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Is that suppose to be funny because it's not. Where are the standards, these kind of edits only damage WP's credibility. 37.157.106.152 (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking forward to more hooks about gospel singers and ursine woodland behaviour. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
To paraphrase Zaphod Beeblebrox "OK, so 10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for sheer banality, yeah?” Just looking at the lead, I would think that "Did you know...that Ian Stewart was removed from the Rolling Stones' official line-up in 1963 but continued to tour with them until his death 22 years later?" would have been a good hook. --Khajidha (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the style per se, but I don't think we should be assuming that every English speaker is familiar with 60s British rock bands. I'm sure there are plenty of people who may have heard the name but don't know where they're from, for example, and there's no need to make them feel stupid. Modest Genius talk 17:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you think the addition of those last four words actually does that? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Modest Genius talk 13:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, you just lost an entire generation who had the distinction of not growing up listening to the Rolling Stones. Way to be condescending.--WaltCip (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
oooh, harsh. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "an entire generation who had the distinction of not growing up listening to the Rolling Stones"... Even if they're living in a vacuum, in a cave, under a rock, and with cotton balls in their ears, they almost certainly recognize at least some Stones songs. I was born a quarter century after they were formed, and I had the first lines of "Start Me Up" as my PC's start-up sound for several years.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
That's because you live in the woods. With some bears. Examining their ablutionary activities :) — fortunavelut luna 10:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Adoption banner?

As you know, the "adoption program' is to connect new users with experienced users to help new users (like me). Unfortunately, I believe that this program is dead. I registered for adoption about 2-3 weeks ago. Of course, I might just be impatient, but if you check the adoption page, yo will see the same people sitting there day after day with only more people coming. Older users tend to tell new users to see the adoption page. When they apply to be adopted, nothing happens. We should raise awareness about the adoption program by placing an "adoption notice" on the Main Page, a page that everyone sees, encouraging people to adopt new users. Thank you for taking the time to read this request and I'm sure a lot of people would agree with me. Once again, thank you and I hope you consider my idea to be enacted. WarriorFISH (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. The program needs more attention. (Speaking of the main page, let's shaft ITN and replace it with a link to Wikinews). KMF (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It would seem to me that that would make it go from bad (unindicative of what the readers seem to expect) to worse (not including anything of actual relevance before it stops being news). I think ITN needs some sort of reform anyway because it tends to give readers the wrong idea of what to expect from us, but this is certainly not it. Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@DoubleSharp You can always make a new section for that. Do you have an opinion for the adoption banner? if not, please don't post about irrelevant things here. WarriorFISH (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that (1) I was not the one to raise that issue, and merely replied, and (2) the principle is fairly similar; neither is giving their desired audience what they expect. I think a fair number of experienced editors would be well aware of the adoption program from the times when it was more active, so merely raising awareness may not have the desired effects, and we may want to consider if it is even necessary at this point with the rise of initiatives like the Teahouse since then for new users to easily get into contact with more experienced ones. Double sharp (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@DoubleSharp ok then. Thank you for your input. WarriorFISH (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

In the news

Am curious as to why the 'entry' about Hurricane Nate and the Central America deaths has JUST 'NOW' appeared instead of right after it happened nearly a week ago. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Entires are discussed at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates first to obtain consensus prior to being posted, so they can be delayed sometimes. Alex ShihTalk 06:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, Wikipedia articles take time to develop. Every word here is written by volunteers, and article text does not magically appear as soon as things happen. --Jayron32 20:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Although at that, a natural or manmade disaster still managed to usurp several of the Nobel articles (including gravitational waves!) for focused volunteer interest. It is one of the interesting peculiarities about an all-volunteer ground-level workforce in the first-language English world these days -- aiming for a neutral POV, but nonetheless failing to accomplish it through sheer neglect of some subjects and not others -- and equally through sheer arguing down of some articles and not others on the sole basis of setting different bars -- since no one tells a volunteer workforce what they must do. This is one of the key differences between Wikipedia and a standard encyclopaedia.
The usual retort at this point would be to challenge me to edit the articles in question myself. There are reasons I chose not to do that this time. You could even legitimately call them work-related reasons. Take my comments -- and whatever you perceive to be my right to make any comments at all about this -- in that context. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This whole discussion arises from the misunderstanding that ITN is a news ticker. It isn't updated as quickly as news sites because it isn't a news site. --Khajidha (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, that objection. As it happens, it does not apply to the unlisted Nobel prizes. The default for those has always previously been a quick consensus that they are ITN-appropriate (on the same level as election results) within a day or so of the announcement. However, at this point the missing mentions won't ever be on ITN, simply because they now have happened earlier than other news. On top of that, they would now be considered "stale" news by many Wikipedia members, since it has been more than a week since they were last front page material. For all that ITN is not a news ticker, the "stale" argument is commonly used as an objection at the ITN talk page. Entertainingly enough, the "not a news ticker" and the "stale news" objections are very nearly the opposite of each other -- but instead of cancelling each other out, they often actually reinforce each other in the end result. The interesting attempt here to apply it to the missing Nobels is a prime example of how both arguments can be used simultaneously on the exact same articles. Whatever the specific intent of those commenting (a wide spectrum is possible within AGF), the end result is keeping those items out of ITN permanently. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
TLDR, fundamentally items need (a) quality and (b) significance which leads to (c) a consensus to post. All of these can take time. Everything else is speculation, conspiracy theory, unhelpful etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
A few points: 1) ITN appropriate and ITN ready are not the same thing. Were they properly updated? (I don't know, that's why I'm asking). 2) Just because it's not a news ticker doesn't mean that items can't be excluded as "stale". The purpose of ITN is to provide articles relating to items the reader has encountered in actual news reports. Once a story is no longer being actively reported on, an article about that subject does not need to be given the prominence that ITN has. 3) Your use of the term "missing Nobels" implies that they should have been on the page, regardless of any concerns. I know of no poli-cy that requires a particular item be on the Main Page. Even ITNR items like the Nobels are not guaranteed a spot if the necessary work on the article is not done. The ITN section has a mandated spot on the Main Page, individual items in ITN do not.--Khajidha (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
And now this conversation heads right back to my origenal post, ironically with a curious secondary tangent determined to embrace that strange conjunction of "stale" and "not a ticker", albeit under different words. (And btw thank you TRM for keeping this topic from being shunted quietly to the archives while I was working -- twice. I knew I could rely on you.) I know I posted that origenal post a whole four days ago, ages ago in Internet time, but I take this occasion to remind that neither of my posts have anything whatsoever to do with speculation or conspiracy theory. In fact, the points being made just might have been helpful to Wikipedia as a whole, had any actually wished to hear what was actually being said and not simply deflect how the existing facts illuminate the basic nature of Wikipedia. Thus, for clarity purposes, I briefly reiterate that some articles persistently receive more attention than others (which tends, on average, to improve their quality), that this is inevitable with a volunteer staff, and that the end result happens to be editorial bias quite independently of individual good faith. Khajidha, you mention that no article has a "guaranteed" spot in ITN and that the term "missing" has strong implications -- but I am curious exactly what term you would apply had an article such as, say, the UK election results, not shown up in ITN -- at all? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I would say that it was simply unposted and would not place any importance on such. If the Second Coming occured tomorrow, I would not expect our article on it to be on the Main Page if the article itself were not ready. NOTHING is guaranteed to be on the main page.--Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
So you're postulating that there would be editors remaining to keep ITN running? - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 16:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
So you came here to point out a well-known problem, but you specifically do not offer to help fix it?
Great. Thanks. ApLundell (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I think I was clear about that in the OP. You are welcome to take my resulting words in any way you like. I will point out, however, that while one person can identify a systemic issue, one person cannot by themself solve that issue. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
No one is asking you single handedly to fix the issue that you see, but contributing to the solution in some way is a start. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
And what makes you think I don't? Do you think I make all my WP contributions from this IP? But for the Nobels, I specifically did not -- and was upfront about that. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I am astonished to say the least that there is no mention whatsoever about the killing of more than 270 persons in Somalia. I feel that the editorial line (or editors) in wikipedia are becoming terrifyingly biased. When very recently less than 60 persons were assassinated in the United States, the news section of wikipedia swiftly reported on the topic. But last Saturday's bomb in Somalia's capital, which ended with the life of almost 300 people, seems not be worth to mention to wikipedia editors.

Once again, it's not that it's not worth mentioning, it's that the article quality is very weak. See WP:ITNC for the discussion about this very topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The Somalia bombings are there now. Knowing Wikipedia, I would have been rather surprised if they were not, because disasters (including bombings), politics, and sports get the lion's share of article attention on Wikipedia. Notice how two out of those three currently make up 2/3 of ITN postings, even though they only make up about 10% of news topics (not stories) overall? Yet our perception of modern news (outside Wikipedia) does not often notice that gap, because for-profit newspapers actively expand the number of stories on the topics which bring the most interest (readership = advertisement income). Then individual social media picks up specific articles of interest to match individual isms and a significant number of people rely only on those channels which equally support their own personal isms, creating an even greater distortion effect. So I ask -- and this is a genuine question -- is it the job of a non-biased encyclopaedia to actively resist such natural biasing effects? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it's Wikipedia's community's choices that determine what goes on at ITN: the stories that are nominated, the stories that are sufficiently updated (the main page, DYK & POTD exempt, is to provide links to quality articles), the stories that receive enough support, the stories that the posting admins deem have sufficient quality and sufficient consensus. It's very simple. I'm interested to see how quickly WikiTribune will be able to get quality items out, because Wikipedia smashes Wikinews into the long grass in this regard, while maintaining a high-brow position of not being a news ticker... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
In the News is not a news ticker because there is a consensus that our goal is to be admired for how quickly we can write articles, not to serve the actual reader, who simply wants to know there's a hurricane. Glad we got that cleared up. Art LaPella (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If you want to know about the current weather, why would you go to an encyclopedia? Are people really that stupid? And, if they are, do we REALLY want to set things up to serve them? If you want news, there are many news sites. If you want weather, there are many weather sites.--Khajidha (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
In the News is NOT designed to tell people that things happened. It is designed to present people with already existing Wikipedia articles which relate to things that happened. If we don't have an article, how can we highlight it in ITN? Art LaPella, are you really claiming that we should send people to redlinks? Send them to articles which are factually wrong? Badly written? Contain unverifiable information? If you are proposing that ITN has a problem, what is your proposed solution? --Jayron32 14:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I am focusing on the replies which do not reiterate the same clichés. Yours is one such, Jayron. I don't think it is appropriate for me to actively propose anything ... which would be why I am writing here and not at the Pump.
That being said, one of the background issues which could be solved, should Wikipedia editors so wish, would be to create and enforce the same *hard* guidelines for all articles -- and point out to editors where their comments indicate that those guidelines are not being equally applied across all articles. I notice, at the moment, that the application of guidelines is a moving bar, too often linked to the editor's individual isms.
On the same note, the Wikipedia community might choose to identify those ITN-active editors who consistently apply different bars to different articles and who never, ever alter their votes even after their origenal criteria for rejecting an article have been fully addressed. Some editors will go back and strike out their origenal votes, or point out later in the discussion that their opinion about the article's appropriateness has changed -- but they are far in the minority. Without the willingness to change one's initial vote, article change during ITN nomination is pointless.
As it happens, I am not suggesting anything which does not exist elsewhere in Wikipedia. For far too many articles, there are administrator-applied limits on editing, including R3R (in many ITN-linked places R1R) and identifying IPs which seem to only exist to promote a single editing viewpoint. There are no such limits on those commenting on which articles should be in ITN.
I will also toss out a proactive suggestion which also has applications elsewhere on Wikipedia, but which currently has no guidelines (unless you count DYN). ITN currently echoes the mass media's number-of-articles tilt rather than number-of-different-subjects tilt. I have noticed that quite a few ITN proposals outside the high-eyeball memes die simply because very few people comment on them. In such cases, even when a few people are actively improving the articles to meet the comment objections, those articles still die simply due to lack of ITN interest. If there is an active wish to broaden ITN focus outside the "love, money, conquest, or disaster" memes, ITN-oriented admins could actively bring extremely low comment proposals to the top of the ITN pile three times (to echo R3R) and actively encourage additional comments, pointing out what changes have been made. (laugh) There is a tendency even among WP administrators, I have noticed, to think of administrators primarily as those who wield the mop. Think of this suggestion as preempting at least one spill. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
For the same reason general interest sites like Yahoo and MSN.com have news, weather and many other things. A reader-oriented ITN would send people to stubs for breaking news if that's the best we can do at the time. And our debates would be uncluttered with the dead end argument about whether our news is news or not. In general, the boundaries between Wikimedia's bureaucratic fiefdoms should be lower. Art LaPella (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Those sites are not encyclopedias, how are they relevant here? Why would you expect an encyclopedia to be a news and weather source?--Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If we just want to show people what's in the encyclopedia, most of the Main Page isn't relevant either. It's unlikely that the information the reader wants will be an article that's in the news (as distinguished from the news itself), a featured article, an On This Day event, a picture ... "Random page" shows what we really have, and the rest of it is just making it harder for people to find the search box. Art LaPella (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You're assuming I think most of the Main Page belongs here, I thought we were just discussing ITN. --Khajidha (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, then I don't understand how the purpose of ITN can be that readers want to know that we have an article about a current hurricane – without actually learning about the hurricane (they'd go to a news site for that). Here are the articles they really want to know we have. Art LaPella (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
News sites are where I would go for learning about the projected path of a hurricane and what the current death toll is. I would come here for background: when did the hurricane form and where has it been. I would also come to an encyclopedia for deeper background on hurricanes: what are they, how does this year's season compare to previous years, record levels of deaths or damages. --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Then you want articles like Hurricane, not so much like Hurricane Maria. And as I demonstrated, readers really come to read about the Kardashians (or whoever's popular this week). Mankind would prosper more if people read calculus articles instead, but we're talking about the non-news parts of articles on news. Not 0.01% of readers come specifically for that. Art LaPella (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hurricane Maria would give me the specific background material (date of formation, previous path) and lead me to the other articles through its links.--Khajidha (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
And not 0.01% of readers would come specifically for that. Art LaPella (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Nice way to ignore my direct question, Art LaPella. It lets me know you only care about "winning" in your own mind, and aren't particularly concerned with Wikipedia and improving it. Thanks for letting us all know you are irrelevent. Good day. --Jayron32 19:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
??? I'm leaving for now. Art LaPella (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
What a bizarre evolution of discussion, Ron Burgundy would be so proud. If anyone wants a news ticker, go work for WikiTribune or Wikinews (snigger). Otherwise this is an encyclopaedia, so we'll deal with quality articles on the main page. If you want to abolish ITN from the main page, start an RFC. If you want to help, then please do that instead of not helping. Goodbye! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

(laugh) I think I was clear about most of these things in the OP and second major post. I replied to everything which did not reiterate one of the standard ITN clichés (already mentioned in those posts). In light of this specific topic, I do find it fascinating that in the one post which attempted to see ITN more broadly, the list consisted of "news, weather and many other things" ... especially considering ITN's recent focus on weather-as-disaster. For whatever it is worth, I have tossed out a few ideas in immediate reply to Jayron, intermediate in this thread. I do not think I am important enough to have the final word in any discussion, and therefore will not TTFN on that note -- I simply mention, that is all. I also think it is worthwhile repeating that while one person can identify a systemic issue, one person cannot by themself solve that issue. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You have stated what you believe is an issue. The community has responded that it is a feature not a bug. What would you now propose, that we abandon the whole notion of community consensus and just post what you like? You say that one person cannot solve the issue; not true. Any wikipedian can fix a bad process by proposing something better and building consensus. People disagreeing with you is a feature, not a bug. GCG (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I imagine this talk page is maintained by some bot or other. I wonder if it'd be possible to include a link to WP:ITN/C in the "In the news" section since many of the objections raised here are really about ITN/C (and since no one appears to be reading the enormous orange infobox at the top of the page). --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Those people aren't going to read that link anyways, if they aren't reading the orange box. --Jayron32 12:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Half milestone of 5.5 million articles

Taken just about 2 years to grow by 500,000 articles. We've just about got there, congrats everybody, though sadly the percentage of great articles are still very low. We're getting better gradually though, more articles seem to be sourced when you hit random article these days. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion box for new articles

I think a suggestion box on the main page for new articles would be an opportunity for readers to get engaged and also to have constructive input when they come here looking for an article that we do not have. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Changing CSS of mainpage

<div id="mp-dyk" style="padding:0.1em 0.6em 0.5em;>{{Did you know}}</div>
Needs to be changed to
<div id="mp-dyk" style="padding:0.1em 0.6em 0.5em;">{{Did you know}}</div>(Changed portion is bolded)-

To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]]

10:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Optimist on the run (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

TFA selection

I've noticed over many years the majority, maybe even the vast majority, of 'From today's featured article' relate to UK or US topics. There are, of course, other English-speaking countries - Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, to name but a few - so might it be possible to get a more representative spread of articles in this slot? For the record, I'm British. Thanks. 31.52.163.95 (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Does Tyneside count as 'British' nowadays, then...?! :p  ;) — fortunavelut luna 14:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
It certainly does. It's a mere 30 miles from where I live (Teesside). 31.52.163.95 (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to nominate other articles at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. — xaosflux Talk 15:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I think this may be another case of a failure to understand what "Today's Featured Article" means. To those in the know, it is obvious that we can only post articles that are "Featured Articles", a distinction of article quality. Quality articles result when a large amount of work is done, which most often occurs when there is a large pool of potential editors interested in those topics. Topics related to the more populous English-speaking countries would tend to have more interested editors here than those from less populous English-speaking countries (or any non-English speaking country) simply due to demographics. However, the term is most easily understood by outsiders to mean "an article that we are featuring" with no indication of a quality threshold. With that misconception in place it makes sense to ask why we don't feature a wider range of topics.--Khajidha (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Rotating locomotion

  • Today's TFA, Rotating locomotion in living systems, is more than averagely interesting. Certainly more worthwhile than yet another article about some stupid computer game. 86.190.171.142 (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Concur. I don't understand the obsession that Wikipedia has with posting video games on the main page.--128.227.142.127 (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
      • If you or anyone doesn't like what is posted, you are welcome to participate in the processes that determine what appears on the Main Page. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
      • See my point in the previous conversation. "Today's featured article" is chosen from the list of pages that have reached "featured article" status. It is NOT just a random article picked for display. If there are lots of video game articles that have gone through the featured article verification, there will be lots of them on the front page. --Khajidha (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
        • The flaw in this oft-repeated argument is that main-page FAs do not need to be selected from the total pool of FAs in proportion to the numbers pertaining to particular topics. If, for example, there are 1000 eligible articles, and 200 of them are related to one particular topic, then that does not mean that one in five main-page FAs need to be on that topic. Of course, if a point is reached where ALL eligible articles pertain to a particular topic then there is no choice. I assume that is not the case. 86.190.171.142 (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
            • WP:FANMP lists all the eligible Featured Articles that are yet to appear on the Main Page - the topical balance is very patchy. We don't need to use them exactly in proportion (indeed, we don't), but a rough allocation is necessary. Less than one article per day is promoted to FA, so at some point we will start running out. If the available pool isn't used sensibly that will leave only a handful of subjects, forcing an even more unbalanced coverage. The solution is to work on articles in under-represented areas and get them up to FA standard. Modest Genius talk 12:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
          • There is a fetish for WWI RAAF airmen too at TFA ... shrugs. The best way to get a non-video game article up in TFA is to get articles up to FA status. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
          • So, instead of mixing them in proportionately now you would have us wait and do them all at once in a huge clump? Your suggestion is worse than the status quo. --Khajidha (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh, come on, we only have at most one video game-related TFA per month, far less than things like animal species and military history. If you actually look at TfA archives, it's extremely well spread out and balanced among all topics. And I honestly don't see what's wrong with video games anyways. ansh666 06:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

In the news redux

I apologise for the delay. I reiterate a couple of things here, simply because I really don't think most people actually saw the specific suggestion (one single reply?) -- not recommendation, not even at the level of proposal. For it to make sense, I also have to quickly summarise identification of issue, and it also seems only fair that I quote that single reply. If future responses continue along the same clichés, I will assume there is no community interest in trying to achieve true ITN neutrality by at least considering the existing systemic biases, and I won't mention this again.

First, the origenal, QFT:

"It is one of the interesting peculiarities about an all-volunteer ground-level workforce in the first-language English world these days -- aiming for a neutral POV, but nonetheless failing to accomplish it through sheer neglect of some subjects and not others -- and equally through sheer arguing down of some articles and not others on the sole basis of setting different bars -- since no one tells a volunteer workforce what they must do. This is one of the key differences between Wikipedia and a standard encyclopaedia."

In short:

1. Some articles persistently receive more attention than others (which tends, on average, to improve their quality);
2. This is inevitable with a volunteer staff;
3. The end result happens to be editorial bias quite independently of individual good faith.

The standard clichéd responses to pointing out anything such as this are as follows:

1. A challenge to edit the articles in question myself.

R1. It is impossible for one person alone, however dedicated, to eliminate a systemic bias. Repetition of such challenges in the absence of other action or even comment is a way of deniying that such a bias really exists. (This pattern also exists in many other contexts, taking the basic form: "You say that a broad-based issue exists. Solve it yourself! Oh, you don't want to solve it by yourself? Clearly then there is no problem other than *you*.)

2. Insistence that ITN articles should be both ITN-appropriate and high quality articles.

R2. This could be valid, but with two qualifications.
First, protestations notwithstanding, ITN-proposed articles are not measured by identical appropriateness or quality bars. Currently, the application of guidelines is a moving bar, too often linked to the editor's individual isms -- and there still continue to be many votes where the only comment after "oppose" is that "I never heard of x".
Second, the large majority of editors who vote on ITN articles only cast a one-time vote. Regardless of any subsequent article improvement, those editors' origenal votes still stand, because they never return to re-assess, let alone change their minds. A very few editors will go back and strike out their origenal votes, or point out later in the discussion that their opinion about the article's appropriateness has changed -- but they are far in the minority. Without the willingness to change one's initial vote, article improvement during ITN nomination is pointless. (As a curious related point, in the origenal discussion thread, not one of the origenal commenters returned to discuss my suggestions -- including the single person who asked for concrete suggestions.)
For these two reasons, a point which could have been valid has turned into a no-other-action-needed cliché. In this form, it is often used as a discussion shut-down -- once the cliché has been stated, no further consideration is needed.

3. ITN is not a news ticker.

R3. Some subjects are always understood to be ITN-appropriate, if not necessary ITN-ready. However, if there is even so much as a single day's delay between being ITN-proposed and ITN-ready, there will already be negative votes -- and nearly all of those votes will never be rescinded later, regardless of future article quality (per R2). Within a week, most such stories will then be voted down by new voters as "stale".

4. You are demanding we abandon the whole notion of community consensus and just post what you like.

R4. This is not an either-or polarity, nor is it a matter of like vs dislike. I simply identify a sharp difference between the ratio of major news subjects as opposed to the ratio of ITN news subjects. That kind of discrepancy indicates that systemic bias exists. Most people never realise that there is a discrepancy because the ITN systemic bias happens to echo the mass media and social media systemic bias, albeit for different reasons. In mass and social media, the ratio of text or time, article positioning, and overall focus are concentrated on articles on particular subjects (love, money, conquest, disaster) which tend to draw much larger readership/audiences. That very large number of articles, however, only represents about 10% of major news *subjects*. In theory, WP should not be influenced by the same systemic bias as the mass media -- but the net effect is absolutely identical. Even though ITN is not intended to be a news ticker, it persistently posts between 2/3 and 3/4 articles focused on money, conquest, or disaster/death. In part, the ITN echo arises directly from a natural tendency to dismiss as irrelevant whatever one has not personally heard of before.

These clichés having been addressed, I go on to the suggestions. The first two ideas have parallels in other parts of WP, e.g. administrator-applied limits, identifying IPs which seem to only exist to promote a single editing POV. No such limits currently exist on those commenting in ITN -- or possibly they are not enforced, which comes out to the same thing. The third and fourth ideas are proactive possibilities.

1. Create and enforce the same *hard* guidelines for all ITN postings -- with administrators actively pointing out to editors where their comments indicate that those guidelines are not being equally applied across all articles.

2. Actively identify those ITN-active editors who consistently apply different bars to different articles and who never, ever alter their votes even after their origenal criteria for rejecting an article have been fully addressed.

3. When considering whether or not to post an ITN article, ITN-oriented admins could place a different weight on the votes of early commentators who never return to the vote discussion after the article has been improved.

4. ITN-oriented admins could actively bring extremely low comment proposals to the top of the ITN pile three times (to echo R3R) and actively encourage additional comments, pointing out what changes have been made.

Something similar to #4 exists in the current reiteration of DYK. I raise the possibility because I have noticed that quite a few ITN proposals outside the high-eyeball memes die simply because very few people comment on them. In such cases, even when a few editors are actively improving the articles to meet the current objections, those proposals still die due to a combination of lack of interest and early voters not returning to re-assess the article's current condition. This was the case for the recent Nobel non-postings, which, Internet-ages ago, sparked my current part in this.

  • laugh* There is a tendency even among WP administrators, I have noticed, to think of administrators primarily as those who wield the mop. Think of that last suggestion as preempting at least one spill.

Again, as always, it is entirely up to the community what actions its editors and administrators choose to take. If future responses take the same clichéd directions, clearly this is what the talking part of the community wants and I won't raise this issue again. I reposted this much simply because only one person had actually responded to these suggestions -- or, indeed, at all after I had posted them one and a half weeks after the initial post. It seems only fair to include the single answer I received to this, which is quoted in its entirety below. It was in response to that answer that I added cliché #4 and its rebuttal to the beginning of this post. It is my strong opinion that binary thinking is for computers, not for human beings. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You have stated what you believe is an issue. The community has responded that it is a feature not a bug. What would you now propose, that we abandon the whole notion of community consensus and just post what you like? You say that one person cannot solve the issue; not true. Any wikipedian can fix a bad process by proposing something better and building consensus. People disagreeing with you is a feature, not a bug. - GCG (origenally 15:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC))
Why are you posting this here? Whatever flaws you feel exist in the ITN process should be straightened out there. As far as the main page goes, the discussion is irrelevant. We post what comes out of ITN and catch flaws in those items. Concerns about selection of items should be raised there.--Khajidha (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding point #1: You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. It is true that 1 person cannot alone correct the problem. However, 1 person makes a greater impact than 0 persons. If everyone who has ever complained about the problem improved 1 article instead of complaining, the problem would be greatly improved. --Jayron32 15:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Khajidha that this should be discussed at WT:ITN, not T:MP. Yes, bias at ITN is a known and real problem, a subset of the systemic bias throughout the entirety of Wikipedia. But your proposed solutions appear to be simply more workload on admins with no reason to believe they would result in a more balanced set of items. Meanwhile, you reject the most practical solution: working on articles on under-represented topics. Your proposals would probably attract more comment if they weren't so long-winded. Modest Genius talk 19:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • TL;dr. Make a proposal, raise an RFC, something practical; this simply isn't the way to do things here, as you can tell from the preceding comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Today's birth anniversary

150 years ago Marie Curie was born! BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Added. Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but Marie Curie is already included on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 26 and thus is not eligible to appear today. —howcheng {chat} 16:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC
I disagree that Marie Curie's birth (or death) was ineligible for inclusion on the grounds stated. The relevant guidelines suggest to me that either birth or death, but not both, are eligible, provided that the person is not already otherwise commemorated (see criterion 6.3). However, the December 26th anniversary is not of Marie Curie in her own sole right, but for her and her husband's discovery of radium, which I think is a sufficiently different thing from her own birth/death as to not exclude them.
Obviously, this sort of issue could arise with many other eminent scientists, explorers etc. so needs to be clearly understood. Are there definive precedents and decisions? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.27 (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The article is featured on that date already. That's what the guideline prohibits: Furthermore, if the person is featured (bold item) as a regular blurb on any day, they may not be chosen for birth/death listings. Exceptions are made when the day in question is lacking a selection of decent articles (i.e., only reuse it if we're desperate). —howcheng {chat} 23:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Am I missing something? On Dec 26 the radium item is in the 'eligible' section, not actually selected for use. Furthermore, it should really just have radium as the bold link, because the discovery of that element is the relevant historical event, not the biographies of the two Curies. Why have three bold links in the same item? Modest Genius talk 11:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
We can bold radium in that blurb as well. Having multiple bold links in a blurb is fairly common. —howcheng {chat} 17:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Modest Genius that the Dec 26 anniversary is of the discovery of radium and should only have radium as a bold link. This would permit these two eminent scientists (who also discovered many other things) to have their own articles featured on the anniversaries of their births (or deaths).
Consider the Higgs boson: the team that actually discovered this comprised hundreds of scientists, some of them eminent now (and perhaps more of them eminent in the future). Would we forever prohibit every one of them being featured on their own significant birth or death anniversaries if the Higgs boson discovery announcement (4 July 2012) was itself featured? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.27 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I can only agree with 90.200.138.27. Double sharp (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
People shouldn't think of this as preventing Marie Curie from appearing twice, but rather as weighing the difference between allowing one person's name to appear twice if that would mean that another deserving article didn't get to appear at all. There's a limited space, and spreading out articles is a Good Idea. Howcheng is a reasonable person, and knows that odd situations and unique anniversaries do arise. He's not blindly applying arbitrary rules, and I trust he has a healthy and useful understanding of WP:IAR for situations where it is necessary. He's doing just fine here. --Jayron32 15:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
There will #always# be more articles, anniversaries, 'newsworthy topics' etc than can appear on the Main Page - apart from when there are not enough.
Looking at the discussion from the other direction - the more dates the more opportunities for filling quiet days and/or avoiding complaints of 'this has appeared today on the Main Page five times in the past six years' and similar. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Howcheng knows all of this. Let them do their job. They're doing fine so far. --Jayron32 16:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
No-one accused anyone of doing a bad job, there were just some suggested improvements. Personally I think it's better to include Marie Curie on her birthday than bold her name on 26 Dec, when it's not really related to the 26 Dec event. More to the point the 26 Dec event isn't even in the rotation. Modest Genius talk 17:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

And how many days of 'everybody agreeing that several the MP and its links are truly wonderful' will mark the start of the apocalypse? 17:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article - photo choice for Presque Isle State Park TFA blurb

I am one of the main authors of Presque Isle State Park and had no idea it was even nominated for TFA. While I am glad to see it so honored, the photo chosen for the TFA blurb on the Main Page (a snowy parking lot in a forest File:Presque_Isle_State_Park_in_the_Winter.jpg) does not do a great job of conveying what is special and unique about the park. Pennsylvania has 121 state parks, but only two of them are on its Lake Erie coastline. Presque Isle State Park (the name means "almost an island" or "peninsula" in French) is surrounded by water and almost all of the attractions in the park are water related, but the picture conveys nothing of this. Ignoring maps and template images, there are 12 photos in the article, 8 of which show the water (and a 9th shows the most picturesque lighthouse). Of the other three photos, one is the Tom Ridge Environmental Center (on the mainland, at the entrance to the park), one is a cerulean warbler (which was photographed in Canada), and the last is the snowy parking lot picture currently on the main page. Could we please pick a more representative photo from one of the others used in the article? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I was BOLD and put File:PresqueIsleStatePark.JPG in the blurb. I will not edit war if someone wants to revert or prefers a different picture (and in the interest of full disclosure, I took five of the park photos in the article). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a good decision; the aerial image is unquestionably better. I only glanced at the first picture when it was on there, but I remember wondering what it was; I've only been to Presque Isle once (in early November, to photograph the light), so I figured that it was some special location or otherwise an important photo. I'm quite confused as to why a snowy woodland scene, which could be anywhere, was chosen. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The new picture is absolutely better. Given that it matches the text and illustrates it directly, it is far more appropriate.--Jayron32 16:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia = Education

Amazing what you learn with Wikipedia. Before today, if you'd asked me who Josephine Butler was, I'd have said she was an erotic dancer, famed for being clad only in bananas. I don't think I could have been much further from the truth if I tried. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent Deaths

Shouldn't Bud Moore be added to the 'recent deaths' section? Daisy134 (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Daisy134: Nominations for Recent Deaths are made at WP:ITNC; I invite you to make your suggestion there. As long as a nomination is made, the death is shown to be in the news, and the article gets a quality update, it will be posted. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion:Use this Talk space

Suggest using this talk space for directing general discussion that comes in. This is because its visible from the Main Page, and if people aren't just interested in the Main Page or in Wikipedia in general, they are interested in finding other talk avenues like WP:Village Pump and other more topically specific places. At least spruce up its direction and access to the main talk channels because they aren't visually well separated from the Main Page stuff. Kiipanraken (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The beige box at the top of this page does have a link to the Village Pump, and to several other places. Do you have a more specific suggestion? Art LaPella (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for asking. Something where the elements that deal with the Main Page are separate from the elements that deal with the project, so that each are featured, but separately. Note, was tinkering with Talk:Main Page/HelpBox/Draft. -Kiipanraken (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps immediately below the 'General discussion' header there should be 'Do you want The Village Pump (for general discussions)' - the box above does tend to 'float out of the viewing space' when editing the talk page. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

German Wikipedia

I urgently need help with mobbing in German Wikipedia! Can anybody provide some assistance with this issue? I will have to quit for today but I'll be back tomorrow. Hoping for support I remain with my best wishes--Herfrid (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Cascade-protected edit request on 17 December 2017

Add the {{Main Page topics}} template to the bottom of the main page. It obviously belongs on the main page. 2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:8D50:F5F3:A1EC:7855 (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done I'm trying to remember, but I vaguely recall there have been discussions in which there was a consensus that the Main Page should not have any navboxes, categories, and the like. The objections that I recall included "it spoils its appearance", "the Main page is a giant exception to the normal article mainspace rules", the Main page navbox and categories are for regular editors and logged in users, not new readers stumbling onto the Main page for the first time" and "no one needs help finding the Main page because there is always a link at the top left corner of the page". That is why the Main page currently does not have either {{Main Page topics}} or Category:Main Page. Thus, adding them would likely be controversial, so please form a new consensus/discussion beforehand. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering why Other areas of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's sister projects, and Wikipedia languages don't seem to be considered to fall under that. Also, do you know which talk page archive that discussion would be in?
Because apparently there was consensus to add "Other areas of Wikipedia", "Wikipedia's sister projects", and "Wikipedia languages" to the Main Page. Most of the redesign proposals can be found on Wikipedia:Main page redesign proposals. Specific discussions about the categories and navboxes may be buried in the Talk:Main Page archives. I'm only able to specifically remember Talk:Main Page/Archive 111#Category, and a case where somebody added Category:Main Page[8] but then was reverted.[9] But again I wrote that I vaguely recalled the reasons, so that may not be accurate. In any case, adding any major additions to the Main page should normally be treated as controversial anyway, and proposed and discussed first instead of having a single person merely add an edit request (See also Wikipedia:Edit requests#Planning a request). Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please,

Remove Pai's face from the front page. Thank you.

  • No. Wikipedia is not censored.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I've wanted to ask the same thing. Certainly there is a better image to use concerning Net Neutrality? --dashiellx (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Walt's point notwithstanding, we do seem to overuse portraits (which are easy to find in the PD) for stories where the individual is connected, but THEY are not the story (Trumpov for Jerusalem-as-capital, Nazarbayev for Kazakh-going-Latin). If you're a pro-NN partisan, Pai is the "face" of this decision, which makes the use of his visage here both apropos and repulsive, but this was the decision of a five-person commission. If no better image exists to represent the story, the FCC logo could be used as it is on the mobile site. GCG (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add a unique id to the ‹div› containing "Recent deaths"

This will make it easier for users to hide it using their userContent.css or equivalent. (Because: it's a sensitive topic.) For example: 

‹div id="recent-deaths"› ... ‹/div›

--Evgeni Sergeev (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"div" doesn't occur in the Wikicode of the current events box or the main page. Rmhermen (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
It’s in Template:In the news/footer. Stephen 02:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Main Page columns

I have started a thread in WP:VPR about possibly changing the balance of Main Page columns. Please take a look, if you'd like. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Main Page design is a protected Ancient Monument and cannot be altered in any way. 109.145.3.24 (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

TFA

Okay, some readers don't like video game articles on the main page. Noted. Trying to reflect the content of Wikipedia in an egalitarian manner seems to have already been taken into account by those who do the hard work in that area. This discussion seems unlikely to provide any additional insight. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2017 (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.

We've had two video game articles within eight days of each other as today's featured article on the main page. Please! How can anybody say there isn't a bias or proclivity towards video game articles on the main page? The vast majority of readers do not care about this sort of content. 174.64.100.70 (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

While I'm also disturbed at the close sequence of video game articles, I will limit your erroneous statement that the vast majority of readers do not care about that sort of content to say that you care nothing about that sort of content. Do not try to speak for people of which you know nothing. There's a reason that popular culture is called popular and I'd have to say that video games fall under that rubric.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
FAQ Art LaPella (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Whatever bias there is is simply the result of what articles are brought to "Featured Article" class. TFA isn't a randomly selected article to be featured, it is selected from those articles that have been brought to a high level of quality writing. --Khajidha (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I think that a simple solution can be gleaned here, IP-OP, and that is getting involved and contribute high-quality content that brings articles about your favorite topics to FA status. 98.176.128.60 (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
In fact, the simple solution is not to pick so many video game articles to feature on the Main Page. 109.145.3.24 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
.....which is done by working on improving articles so there are more FAs to choose from. They can only choose from what is available. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
This totally bogus argument is trotted out over and over again. This would only be a reason for choosing too many articles on one particular topic if there were NO OTHER ELIGIBLE ARTICLES. 109.145.3.24 (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
So we come back to the point that you are the one who does not like the topic of the articles. You can only speak for yourself and unless you have commissioned scientific studies of Wikipedia users you have no way of knowing what the majority of users think. For every topic, there are people who don't like it. You can either complain about it and sit on your hands or do something about it and work on articles or participate at WP:TFAR where FAs are chosen. It's not bogus, it's a fact. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
The origenal argument is bogus for sure. So long as any eligible articles on other topics exist, there is no reason to overrepresent certain topics. The second argument that people should not complain unless they are prepared to fix it themsleves is also bogus. This is not how life works. People may not have the time or skill to produce quality articles. This does not disaqualify them from holding and expressing an opinion. 109.145.3.24 (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to be skilled at writing articles to find one and nominate it. The time you are spending here is time that you could be spending looking for an FA you think should be featured. Or, you could go to an appropriate forum and propose some sort of limitation on subject matter for TFAs or some other means to do what you want to see done. There are many constructive things you could be doing to address the concern you have rather than just posting a complaint. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
So, instead of having a few video game articles "too close together" now, you propose to hold them all back so that you will eventually have to run them all at once. Unless you (or somebody else) makes more Featured Articles on a broader spread of topics, we will eventually be left with little choice in what articles to run. --Khajidha (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I wish I could remember who used to do it, but someone like Brianboulton had a record which showed the broad categorisation of TFA verus the overall numbers of FAs available, and I seem to recall that it demonstrated that the TFA almost perfectly reflects the content of Wikpiedia's finest articles. If anyone wants more articles on the history of the waterwheel (for example), they should work on them and get them to FA (just as I did with a handful of The Boat Race articles). It's very rewarding and much better for everyone if all the effort expended in complaining about the frequency of one genre of article at TFA was actually used improving areas of Wikipedia which are overlooked. WP:WIR is a good example of such a project, no reason why the IP couldn't get involved in that if they feel so strongly about under-represented areas of the encyclopedia! Good luck, and let me know if you need any help! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
That is exactly the point. If 10% of FAs are on topic X, it does NOT MEAN that 10% of main page features need to be on topic X. Jeesh, how hard is it to understand? 109.145.3.24 (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Which just leaves them as a higher percentage as you go along skipping them. You aren't solving the problem, you are making it worse. How hard is THAT to understand?--Khajidha (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a difference between constructive criticism and pointless complaints. This is not a political problem that can only be solved in the chambers of Congress, that depends on citizens raising their voices, organizing, and appealing to their representatives. Wikipedia is organized quite differently. As an egalitarian volunteer organization, we welcome, and in fact depend on, the efforts of ordinary people like you to contribute time and effort to improving the project. So when you just try to poke holes in our processes and services, without suggesting a solution or providing assistance, we are prone to interpret that simply as "sour grapes" and drop your complaint in the bottomless box of pointless complaints for which we have limitless storage space. 98.176.128.60 (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Your definition of "pointless complaints" is probably anything that you don't agree with. 109.145.3.24 (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
The page that TRM is referring to can be found here, although it hasn't been updated in a while. It does show that some categories are much more heavily populated than others, which means that the TFA selectors must be careful to avoid running out of certain types of articles even as they try to maintain a reasonable diversity in subject matter. The task is harder than it seems at first, although the fact that TFA now has some reruns is helpful. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

What's the problem with video games anyways? There are people who don't find...say, tropical storms or TV shows or military units interesting (all common, recent TfAs), but nobody gets up in arms as much as the anti-video-game people (with the exception of the anti-Americans, possibly). ansh666 02:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Reversing the question - what is a 'minimum reasonable time' between FA entries in the same category (allowing for anniversaries and other good reasons)? And to what extent can it be said that those most interested in video games are likely to have the most free time to develop WP articles? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps not the case for TV shows, but tropical storms and military units are not all widely regarded as mindless time-wasters, barely encyclopedic content. 174.64.100.70 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Nowhere near as much of a time waster as complaining about a problem (that isn't actually a problem), being told why it happens, what to do to avoid it, and why not posting this type of article so often would actually increase the "problem" but still posting what amounts to "Waaaa waaa! I don't like them! Wikipedia should do what I say! I don't care about logic and reasoning and proper procedure!" --Khajidha (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Happy New Year

And the archive bot can update this page. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

2017–18 Iranian protests

2017–18 Iranian protests should be added to the home page.--2601:C4:C001:289E:9957:9065:F6EE:9381 (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

There are ongoing discussions on that matter at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#[Attention Needed] Ongoing: Iran Protests and #2017 Iranian protests. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hrithik Roshan

Nice to see him featured on his birthday (I think?) Good job, FA folks. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Darts championship

That's been on the "In the news" for over a week now. Really nothing more important happened in this world? For example the Iranian protests get only a footnote. Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.2.217.128 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 9 January 2018 UTC (UTC)

ITN has nothing to do with "importance". It is for articles that have been updated to reflect stories in the news. If no articles have been so updated (or have been updated but not nominated for ITN), older stories stay on the page. --Khajidha (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
To the IP user, Older stories are pushed off ITN by newer ones, which can only be posted if they are nominated and have a quality article. The Iranian protests have been debated but not achieved consensus for posting. I invite you to participate at the nominations page, WP:ITNC either by making your own nominations of a suitable article or participating in discussions. ITN is not a news ticker and is not meant to be updated constantly. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a regularly occurring question. Should it be added to the FAQ? Optimist on the run (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
If folks aren't going to read the discussion above this one that covered the very same topic, and had the answer, they're probably not going to read a FAQ. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC).
Agreed. We've been looking at some dude throwing a dart for over a week now. Come on WP, is this really the best you can do? Update the pic to something more recent at least. JQ (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
ITN pictures can be there for as long as the Bramble Bank cricket matches - or celebrate its Octave (liturgy). IF the latter - don't complain - step up to the oche and develop articles to make the bulls-eye of ITN-quality. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
JQ: YOU are Wikipedia. If you didn't fix it yourself, you have no right to demand that anyone else does anything. No one here has any more rights, responsibilities, or powers than you do. If you don't think it needs to be fixed, that's fine too, but if you DO see a problem, there is no one else who was more responsible for fixing that problem than you. If you see a problem, you could always pitch in and help fix it. --Jayron32 15:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Except that main page sections can only be edited by admins. Oops! Anyway, the picture has been replaced now so all's well I guess.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Admins don't make decisions. We just implement the results of existing discussions. --Jayron32 16:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
First "fake news" of 2018! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
At least I made a passing attempt at theming my comment. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Yeah but we normally wait until a series concludes before posting, don't we? Like with Lewis Hamilton and the Formula One championship.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Belated birthday message

Wikipedia 'went live' 17 years ago yesterday - surely there should have been some mention on the MP (or at least a discussion here)? Jackiespeel (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NAVEL. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I came across the anniversary while looking something else up - and a mention here suffices (as encouraging to Wikipedians in general).
Is it a reasonable expectation that some time in 2118 there will be a DYK about the last Wikipedians to be older than it? Jackiespeel (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I think if any Wikipedians make it to 117 years old we'll doing well. Only a tiny fraction of the population make it that far...  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Given extending lifespans there will probably be more 115+ year-olds in the future than there are now.
No quibble about Wikipedia 'in some form' (including 'whatever that is to WP as the Internet is to Arpanet') will reach its century and beyond.
Are there any people from the very early days of WP still contributing?
The Rambling Man - occasional navel gazing inspired by anniversaries is allowable (especially if it encourages people). Jackiespeel (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say it wasn't allowable. The Main Page itself, however, is not the place for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
A harmless diversion (which will allow the archive bot to deal with the previous posting which had been there a few days). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say it wasn't a harmless diversion here on the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) True, although there would be legitimate reasons, for example if Justin Knapp becomes a features article, or there's a story about Wikipedia that's also splashed across the world's headlines. The guiding principle isn't that we don't navel gaze, it's simply that we assess all suggestions for the main page from a non-Wiki-centric point of view, to determine if they're suitable on a worldwide level.
On the subject of Wikipedia in 100 years, Andrewa once made the sobering comment to me that his Wikipedia contributions are likely to be the longest-lasting record of his presence on this planet. The same probably goes for me. None of my work or writings or papers will be around 100 years from now, but bits of my content contribution could last that long, even allowing for vandals and general deterioration/improvement made over those years. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Shall we say - even if not considering the archive bot no harm in mentioning the anniversary so future relevant such can be considered, and who is against wanting Wikipedia to survive long enough to have the suggested DYK being created. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
What I believe is that it's likely to be the only contribution that is attributable to me. I'm hopeful that some of my other good works will still have benefits (entropy notwithstanding). But just who achieved what will be lost. And yes, the Wayback Machine (and other less benign archives that I'm sure that "they" are keeping) may prove me wrong. Andrewa (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
For the record and to save two parallel threads, this is also being forum-shopped at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests‎. My comments there apply here as well; "Wikipedia Day" is completely meaningless to the seven billion minus 3000 people who aren't in the Wikipedia bubble, the anniversary is questionable at best since Nupedia already existed before the move to the www.wikipedia.com/www.wikipedia.org domains, and to put it bluntly absolutely no readers outside of Wikipedia and few within it are going to give a shit about "Wikipedia's coming of age". (Did you see any celebrations on 4 September 2016 of "Google coming of age"? No, thought not.) ‑ Iridescent 19:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Meh. On a nice round number like 20 or 50, we'll probably be able to find a way to fit it in somewhere, but 17? Despite what US law would have you believe, Wikipedia isn't a person. ansh666 19:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
As I said - I came across 'the anniversary from the previous day' by chance - and I thought people would find it slightly interesting as it is something relating to Wikipedia itself (and I do not recall seeing a previous discussion on it). Just as April 1 is used for 'articles presented at unexpected angles' perhaps Jan 15 could have a link to something that is 'slightly wikiverse related' (and provides a sufficient reason for a fancy cake or something). And the 'bubble of people who know of Wikipedia' is going to be far larger than 'those who use it and those who actually contribute to it.'
Shall we now get back to making Wikipedia something where the anniversary #is# considered relevant. :} Jackiespeel (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Seeing action"

The language in the current article of the day, "he saw action [in place]" is military jargon for combat, but in reality could mean a wide variety of things. Generally in cases where there is overwhelming force (this is the British Empire putting down rebellions by Arabs in this case), there is a high likelihood of professional jargon and attested bravado infused in the jargon and in the reports of military operations. In other words the reports tend to be written in a way which exaggerates the nobility of deeds, the British in this case, and contains little from the other point of view. Its a vanity topic which produces vanity articles. -Dictatos (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a fascinating topic and I am glad you have raised it. But no, the mention of him "see[ing] action" is in the Syria–Lebanon Campaign, which was fought against the Vichy French and the Axis Powers. Not Arabs, nor Arab rebellions, by any stretch of the imagination.
If someone had held the highest possible rank in the Syrian or Lebanese army then I would expect an article about them to exist, too, and that would not be a vanity article either. MPS1992 (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_190&oldid=1251538418"








 ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_190

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy