Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 159

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 155←Archive 157Archive 158Archive 159Archive 160Archive 161→Archive 165

wikileaks

where is wikileaks now? there and gone there and gone where is it now? --86.40.178.52 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This page is designed to discuss the main page of Wikipedia. Wikileaks is an independant project that uses similar software (Wiki). It is not affiliated in any way with Wikipedia. GB fan (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This happens every time Wikileaks stirs something up. Every time someone suggests we put up a banner (usually after a few days it becomes a suggestion for a flashing, fluorescent, speaking banner) that says "WE HAVE NO CONNECTION TO WIKILEAKS". I do wonder if a banner might be a good idea, mind you not flashing, but something to put up to stop this nonsense. However since it'll never happen, I won't push the issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
86.40.178.52 is referring to the fact that the ITN story for Wikileaks has been posted and pulled multiple times due to a dispute over the article's readability.--WaltCip (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
See WP:ITN/C#[Pulled WikiLeaks]. 112.204.241.232 (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This particular case does seem rather ridiculous. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I find this too America-centric and I am American

"1777 – American Revolutionary War: British Army regulars defeated Patriot militias in the Battle of Ridgefield, galvanizing resistance in the Connecticut Colony." -- Wouldn't they be Patriots only from the American point of view? From the British side they would be traitors, would they not? --Khajidha (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably breaks WP:NPOV but I doubt anyone really is that bothered. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It's referring to Patriots, not patriots. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

University Work of Wikipedia

Doesn't belong here. —GFOLEY FOUR— 21:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello Alansohn, My name is Jonathan Medeiros, I’m a graduate student and I’m doing a university work about Wikipedia. My work is about mass production of information in peer, and I'm using Wikipedia as an object of study. We developed a field research and wonder if you could answer.

1) Please list below in order of priority what else motivates you to contribute to Wikipedia.

( ) prestige in the community

( ) Contribution in the Science

( ) Recreation

( ) Self-realization

( ) Social Valuation

( ) Keep interconnectivity with other editors

( ) Strengthening staff - (The amount that the contributor gains acceptance or approvalof other members, strengthen social status in the community)

( ) Awards Archives (Ex: Barnstar)

( ) Increase the prestige of the world to Wikipedia

( ) Sense that all can share the benefits generated

( ) Other: _____________________________


2) List 1 to 5, where 1 is highest and 5 is lowest of important that you consider the following values for Wikipedia. In the end, please explain what you consider most important.

a) AUTONOMY ( )

b) INDEPENDENCE ( )

c) LIBERATION ( )

d) CREATIVITY ( )

e) PRODUCTIVITY ( )

f) INDUSTRY ( )

g) BENEVOLENCE, CHARITY, GENEROSITY, ALTRUISM ( )

h) SOCIABILITY ( )

I) CAMARADERIE/FRIENDSHIP ( )

L) COOPERATION ( )

k) CIVIC VIRTUE ( )


Below is an explanation of each item:

AUTONOMY Collaborators are free to act according to the targets set for them. They can feel free.

INDEPENDENCE Collaborators will have independence and freedom of spirit.

LIBERATION Collaborators have the freedom to work as and when they want, they can decide by themselves.

CREATIVITY Collaborators has more freedom to explore creativity, because he does not have to follow orders that they are imposed.

PRODUCTIVITY Collaborators are always pursuing excellence in their contributions.

INDUSTRY The mass production of information opens new doors to creativity and the creation of productive practices, when compared to the industrially organized market.

BENEVOLENCE, CHARITY, GENEROSITY, ALTRUISM Collaborator does not want financial rewards, he assists in helping the communitythinking, the only reward is the reputation that he get with the collaborations they do.

SOCIABILITY Make contributions with an open heart, thinking of the common good, which is for the community as a whole.

CAMARADERIE / FRIENDSHIP, Collaborator help themselves to build something of value to everyone.

COOPERATION Collaborators help themselves to build something of value to everyone.

CIVIC VIRTUE Collaborators are arranged volunteers with common goals and promote cooperation between them.


Thank you very much for your attention, Can you send me a email with this answers please? my email address is jhoumedeiros@gmail.com.

Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.243.219 (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're looking to post this on User talk:Alansohn. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Hm, I had no idea we mass-produced information.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

May 1st - May Day and International Worker's Day are the Same Thing

Why are they listed separately? Call it May Day, International Worker's Day is the less common name.--Themane2 (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If you'd looked at the articles before coming here, you'd have noticed that May Day and International Workers' Day -- although they do overlap -- are not entirely synonymous. International Workers' Day is always May Day, but May Day isn't always International Workers' Day.--Life in General (Talk) 02:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

April 29th - Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton

I think it would be cool to have a monarchy or royal/state wedding related FA on the main page on the 29th April: is there a discussion of this somewhere, where people suggest and consider likely articles? I'm not sure if the 'TFA nominations' page is the right place, because I think I'm suggesting more a theme than a specific article. I'd be happy to suggest a particular article at that page if that's how it works, but I don't want to reinvent the wheel if this is being discussed elsewhere. 86.164.75.102 (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It will be included on ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
That seems likely, but I'm not suggesting an article specifically on this wedding be TFA, merely a related article as a cool nod and perhaps a bit of context/perspective. Or do you mean this discussion would be on WP:ITN? I didn't see it, but I'll reread... 86.164.75.102 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
With less than two weeks before April 29, there is not enough time to realistically get a new article through the approval process. If you wish to pursue this you will then need to find an article that currently has featured status and has not been featured on the Main page. Once this is done, the page to make the actual request is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. --Allen3 talk 21:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec) There are FAs connected with the monarchy that have not been TFA yet. So, there's some to choose. Here you can write suggestions. The debate on ITN/C will be about what the exact wording for the ITN blurb will be, it has already been agreed that this story will be featured in the ITN box. --Tone —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC).
Royal Maundy will be TFA on the 21st, the Queen's actual birthday.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the best FA for this occasion would be Hanged, drawn and quartered. It was recently promoted, and it quotes the Treason Act 1351 saying that "a person had committed high treason if they were:...violating the king's wife...or the wife of his eldest son and heir". Now there's a cautionary tale for you. Lampman (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Due to the overwhelming worldwide coverage of this event, it really should be on the Main Page in some sort, I personalty am not crazed about the wedding but even where I live in United States it's being covered by EVERY single major network and cable news outlet and other media i.g. even google.com change their logo for the event, I would say just a pinch more notable then "Navenby is a village and civil parish in Lincolnshire, England."... on this day.-24.241.241.10 (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It will be posted once the marriage itself occurs. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yup, actually, as the blurb will be "the wedding takes place", I am planning to post it at 11 GMT - as then it will be accurate. --Tone 09:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
No offence intended to the people of Navenby but it seems an unusual choice for FA today, even if it were on a day when so many seem to be fixated on the royal wedding many might question why such a small and not very well known settlement was the FA. Unusual decision IMO.--Shearluck (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you could look over WP:FA and say what should have run instead? Keep in mind that the article must not have run already.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Featured articles are selected without regard for their subjects' familiarity/importance. If a topic is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, that article can attain "featured" status and appear on the main page in this context.
In my view, showcasing an article about "a small and not very well known settlement" is a good thing, as it illustrates Wikipedia's comprehensive nature.
If you meant that Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton should have been today's featured article, please note that it isn't a featured article. —David Levy 16:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of FAs relating to British royalty which haven't been on the main page yet. Hut 8.5 19:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Raul could have run, say, Queen Victoria, but there still would have been complaints. He can only play the cards the community deals him. It is not unknown for people to spruce up an article and get it to FA in anticipation of an upcoming event. With Royal Maundy (disclosure: I wrote it) TFA on Maundy Thursday, 21 April, unless you have something to hit the nail on the head on the 29th, it does not seem worthwhile to run a "sort of like" article.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
As noted earlier in the discussion (and reiterated by Wehwalt directly above this post), Royal Maundy was TFA on 21 April (Elizabeth II's birthday). We strive for variety, so it would be highly unusual and controversial to run another British royalty-related article so soon. This was an either/or proposition, and the Queen's birthday evidently won out (perhaps because the wedding of William and Kate obviously was going to make ITN). —David Levy 04:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Kiss Wedding Prince William of Wales Kate Middleton (revised).jpg – Anybody interested? --César (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, but I hope if the crying girl isn't independently notable (probably she is) that someone has salted her name good and thoroughly.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It say Kate Middleton; should this be Catherine Middleton? --Gilderien (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a change is needed but you can ask on the article talk page ...--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden

Can somebody alter the Bin Laden news to "Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is killed by U.S. forces at his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why Abbottabad should not be bluelinked?--WaltCip (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, why not link to United States special operations forces or even United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group instead of the vague U.S. forces. --Khajidha (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Well if we're going down that route, I'd suggest linking to US Navy SEALs (it was the SEALs, wasn't it?), but I think the blurb could do with the addition of an "allegedly". Much as I like Obama, I don't see any evidence other than his word and the body was supposedly buried at sea, so I don't see how we can be any more sure of his deatht han that of Gaddafi's son. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group is part of the SEALs and is the specific group that was involved. --Khajidha (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Atlantic Sunday

If anyone is able to state that today, as the first Sunday of May, is Battle of the Atlantic Sunday in Canada. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the relevant article (i.e., where would that link to?)? Battle of the Atlantic is ambiguous and neither of those articles mentions anything called "Battle of the Atlantic Sunday", nor is 1 May listed as a significant date in either. howcheng {chat} 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Since the date is expressed as "first Sunday in May" you should be looking for events in the whole first week of May, such as Actions of 7/8 May 1945. —Tamfang (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Not really what most people in Canada would call a major -- or even widely known -- day. Although in all fairness, I have noticed several Japanese holidays which don't have fixed dates listed in OTD when that year's date comes up. - Tenebris 18:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I would have been amenable to adding if I had known what to link it to. howcheng {chat} 20:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Being from the Atlantic provinces, I have never heard of such a commemoration. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Keith Thiele not quite vetted

The Keith Thiele story is interesting, but the "escape" seems to come from an 2005 nostalgia piece; the 1945 report is more like "unescorted POW appropriates motorcycle to return to unit". Fixed in original article.

Note to Queensland editors: find more articles about later & personal life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.27.244 (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In case you wonder, this is about Keith Thiele which was a DYK lead 30 min ago. Materialscientist (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Image size for FA, DYK, ITN and OTD

I would like to propose a small increase of the maximum image size from 100x100px to 120x120px. The current size was approriate for screen resolutions when this design was introduced, mainly 800x600 to 1024x768. But with screen resulotions increasing and widescreen monitors becoming the norm, the images become progressively smaller in comparison. I chose 120px, as that is also the smallest option in user's preferences for thumb size. Thoughts? — Edokter (talk) — 11:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I created a quick mockup of today's page with larger images. At 1280x800 it all looks good to me. At 1024x768, TFA and DYK still look better, but the text in ITN and OTD looks a bit squished. At 800x600 it's ugly, but still usable. Perhaps the images in TFA/DYK could be increased, but not ITN/OTD. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the images on the front page are rather small, and there is probably too much text, so expanding the images seems like a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I dislike the idea of reducing readability for users with lower display resolutions for the sake of enhancing the display of secondary content (images other than the featured picture) for users with higher resolutions. That isn't a good tradeoff, particularly given the ease with which readers can click through to the full-resolution versions. —David Levy 23:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
According to Hitslink, the most popular resolution less than 1024x768 is 320x480 - but they'll be mobile users - and thus use the mobile site. Only 1.56% of users are on 800x600 and only 0.05% of users are at 640x480. I think we can give 1.56% of users a slightly worse experience in exchange for giving everyone else larger images. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
How were these statistics derived? Which users were sampled? —David Levy 23:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This report is untrustworthy: Their FAQ says "These sample reports are intended to demonstrate the format and capability of Net Market Share reports. The data within these sample reports is either out of date or fabricated." This is probably more accurate. howcheng {chat} 00:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
That gives us 1.67% for 800x600, 28% for 1024x768, and the rest with a width of 1280 or over. The mockup looks good, and refreshing. Using 120px only sacrifices 20px for text per column. — Edokter (talk) — 01:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
On hitslink's reliability I think the sample reports are the ones on the FAQ page. The rest of their data is usually reasonable. With regards to their data the data from Hitslink is from users of a large number of websites around the world. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
What sort of websites? How do they derive the stats from the websites? Why do you believe their audience is the same as ours? Also from a look at their website they count unique visitors, how are unique visitors determined and how do they account for things like shared IPs? Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
A wide number of sites, and the data is widely used by the media and clearly by private companies who pay lots of money for ti, until Wikipedia releases their own figures they are likely to be pretty much as accurate as you are going to get. Unless you have some other data that's better (i.e. data from Wikimedia's servers) whining about it is unproductive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
A wide number of sites is somewhat irrelevant if all the sites are similar in audience. What the media and private companies use also seems somewhat irrelevant (and I suspect most actually use their own stats). 'Pretty much as accurate as you are going to get' is unsupported by any source, have you even bothered to look for sites with data which might more closely match our audience and is also useless if the data is extremely inaccurate (which we don't know since no evidence has been provided for its inaccuracy). Also I wouldn't consider calling up highly questionable data when the user who keeps quoting the data has does nothing but give meaningless platitudes abou 'wide number of sites' when people have asked the important question of why we are to believe the data is an accurate representation of our userbase without having any evidence that the data is collected from a similar userbase and in fact what that userbase is hasn't even been explained at all, whining when we have the far better alternative of just not using the highly questionable data to make decisions which are going to affect everyone. BTW, if you are going to use highly questionable data, can you at least look at the data properly? For example since you keep quoting the 1.5%, you are clearly ignoring the 1.21% of users who are apparently using their 1024x768 monitor in vertical fashion (768x1024) Nil Einne (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
wikipedia's main page is on those things that should work even if you are using a computer that dates from the dark ages. I'd suggest leaving any increase in size for a year or two yet.©Geni 02:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
It will still work, it'll just be a slightly inferior experience for 1.5% of users. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Would this shorten the number of characters per blurb (primarily the lead blurb)? For example in DYK, the limit is 200 characters. Dunno FA's and OTD's; ITN's can theoretically go on forever. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm hesitant about this. Even though I have a widescreen monitor, I often run my internet browser in a window on half of the screen. The current picture limits are sufficient for most pictures, and it's easy enough to click through to the full resolution photo. Buddy431 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I was reluctant to raise this point (because I don't want it to seem as though I'm basing my assessment on my personal settings), but it's a legitimate concern.
My IM buddy list is docked on the screen's right-hand side, while my Firefox tabs are vertically stacked in a left-hand column (via the "Tree Style Tab" extension). This leaves a roughly 4:3 rectangle for the display of webpages, with the 120px image width cramping the adjacent text in the mockup.
I realize that my specific configuration is atypical, but windowed (i.e. not full-screen) browsing must be fairly common, especially among the users this proposal is intended to benefit (those with wide/high-resolution screens). —David Levy 18:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just tried the BBC News, Al Jazeera and Arstechnica at 800x600, and all of them require horizontal scrolling at that resolution. Honestly compared to those sites at that resolution The Wikipedia front page mockup is amazing and still entirely usable. I've attached the image. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Wikipedia Front page at 800x800.png
A 20px difference isn't going to render the page unreadable, but the adjacent text's display certainly is harmed at that resolution.
That other websites end up worse isn't particularly relevant. Our responsibility is to weigh the proposed change's benefits against its detriments, and I'm not convinced that the tradeoff is positive (given that the 100px images aren't problematically small at high resolutions, even if they could stand to be a bit larger). —David Levy 19:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And I like to keep my browser open to a tiny 200x200 window. C'mon. Wikipedia is well behind on this usability thing. The majority of modern websites make their pages borderline unnavigable if your resolution (or window size or whatever) is less than 1024px wide. And here we are debating over a mere 20px? Seriously? For the 2% of users who continue to browse Wikipedia with abnormally low screen resolutions, this adjustment may -- for those who have the choice -- spur them to increase their resolution. For those who don't have the choice (which I'm tempted to think is less common), due to very outdated technology or vision problems, well, they can simply add Wikipedia's home page (and really just the home page) to the list of many, many sites that are slightly less comfortable to read because of people refusing to continue to design their websites according to 20th-century standards. Most websites, as I said, help with this issue by forcing all content to be 1024 px wide (and adding a horizontal scrollbar so everything doesn't smush in). Perhaps we can do that if people are so concerned about this small subset of readers. But, as a modern website, we should aim to adapt to modern standards. -- tariqabjotu 19:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a 20px difference is relatively minor, but this goes both ways. As noted above, it isn't a big enough change to render the page unreadable, but the benefit is similarly modest.
No one is arguing that technological progress should be halted in favor of optimizing the site's display for small minorities of users. But when the status quo seems fine (including at high resolutions), I see no compelling reason to alter it. A major improvement for the majority might justify such an expense, but I don't believe that a minor one does.
Incidentally, I'm of the opinion that a horizontal scrollbar would be the greater of two evils. —David Levy 19:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
If you are going to make claims about what percentage of our users are using a certain resolution, can you please provide some source for that claim? So far, the only source we have (for which no evidence has been provided to show it comes close to our user base) shows at least 2.67% of users with a horizontal resolution smaller then 1024 (probably closer to if not exceeding 3% once you add the less common resolutions like 960x600, 819x614 etc even if you exclude the clearly mobile resolutions) which even if you round under the rounding system most people use should be rounded to 3%. Therefore it's not clear to me where this 2% comes from. Of course we still don't know how many users are using the most common resolution according to the only (questionable) source provided so far (i.e. 1024x768) but with out a full screen browser window OR at a zoom level greater then 100% (which in most modern browsers means the image will be greater then the size dictated). I don't see any reason why the fact other sites don't tend to give a toss about accessibility means we shouldn't either. Incidentally, Arstechnica which is a tech oriented site is probably a bad comparison although at least no one tried using a purchase oriented site like Amazon which sometimes seems to happen in these sort of discussions despite the fact they obviously don't give a toss about people who aren't going to buy stuff from their site like those in developing countries using old computers (or even new computers like the OLPC XO-1 which while it has a 1200×900 screen given the nature of the screen, the size and the target audience I'm not particularly sure whether the browser is best used at 100%) but hopefully given our mission we aren't so harsh. Nil Einne (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyone who uses less than 1024x768 will be on 800x600 or 640x480 as they are the standard old resolutions or they will be highly likely to be a mobile user. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Or they could be using a notebook, tablet or a funny monitor... (960x600 in particular is the 16:10 version of 800x600 and guess what you find with a search? I'll give you a hint that it isn't discussions of mobile phones...) And you still seem to be ignoring those using 1024 x 768 in vertical mode i.e. 768 x 1024 which as already mentioned is 1.21% according to your very own stats Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair point about 768x1024. I'm sure that some users are using strange resolutions like 960x600, but they only make up 0.09% of internet users, and at 960px wide the homepage probably looks OK. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow... If we keep hammering on such low number of users with lower resolutions, I'm suprised this site is not still optimized for 640x480. We have to move forward at some point. The images are nearly ineligible, and the current size is less then the smallest thumbsize selectable. There is always the consideration between usability and modern design, but I believe that the extra 20px does not hurt usability, on the contrary; it increases the image's eligibility. — Edokter (talk) — 17:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of a photo

Is there a way to hasten the removal of a photo from the news panel on the Main Page?

Thanks, CBHA (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Which? Why?  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  01:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Photo of Stephen Harper is a reminder of what happened to the Canada political system on Monday.
Alternately, is there a way to login to Wikipedia without getting the Main Page? CBHA (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
A "reminder"? In a bad way or something? Bear in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NPOV.--WaltCip (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose one might jump to a conclusion as to whether I mean "in a good way" or "in a bad way". Regardless, my understanding, formed in various Wikipedia discussions, is that Wikipedia articles must be NPOV but the Talk pages of Wikipedia are far from NPOV.
Please will someone answer my original question? CBHA (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Here. Find valid reasons for removal (personal dislike never qualifies) and post a brief note in the appropriate section of WP:ERRORS. Removal will be decided by consensus or a main page administrator. There is no way to "hasten" it if unjustified. Materialscientist (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there is: find a freely-licensed image to illustrate one of the stories higher up the section. At the moment that's just the WW1 veteran. Then post on WP:ERRORS and ask for that image to be used instead. Harper has been up for more than 24 hours, so should be substituted once a suitable replacement is found. Modest Genius talk 14:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(I think he's maybe taking the piss.)  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  20:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Déan rolla bairille: If you are referring to me, I deny the suggestion. I asked a straightforward question. It was "answered" by you and another editor with your questions. Later I received answers from other editors. CBHA (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
We only have one photo of Claude Choules and it's fair use. Hut 8.5 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The image will not be deleted but to hide it from any Wikipedia page when you are logged in see this page that provides a way to block specific images from view. Cheers! meshach (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Haste makes waste. 74.104.39.73 (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Other things you can do include turning off images in your browser, or navigating to any other Wikipedia page - when you login, it will redirect you back to that page rather than the Main Page. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
His picture is gone from the main page now, Albert Einstein has replaced him. GB fan (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fortuyn

What the heck is "controversial" in his statements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.192.251.11 (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about Pim Fortuyn. If so it explains in the second paragraph what was controversial. GB fan (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Screen capture request

An article I wrote, Twicket, featured in DYK yesterday; and I missed it because I was working in a polling station for the UK local elections all day :-(

Can anyone tell me where I can get a screen-shot of the main page, for yesterday, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

here are the DYK archives, Wikipedia:Recent_additions GB fan (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you; but what I want is "a screen-shot of the main page, for yesterday". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
There's Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday but AFAIK there is no way to include an old revision of a template in a page, so the only way you can make that happen is to create your own version of the Main Page, replacing the DYK template transclusion with the wiki markup for that revision. For greater accuracy, you'll want the ITN revision at that time as well. HTH. howcheng {chat} 21:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
My office PC may have it cached from yesterday - if I remember I'll switch to "Work offline" on Monday and see if I can bring it up. If it works, I'll email it to you. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC).
Oops, must have done ~~~ instead of ~~~~. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Just realised I'm a day out - yesterday was the sixth, not the fifth, so unless I didn't look at the front page yesterday (unlikely) it won't help. Sorry! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The cache didn't work, but I've knocked up a copy of it as it was (I think) at User:Tivedshambo/Main Page. The only inaccuracy I can see is the link back to my user page below the title - I don't know how to get tid of it. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Meat 'n' two veg

That image on the DYK section is disgusting! Annatto (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to it, but I have to admit that I initially thought it was a shock image. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Pig's trotters is a shockingly disgusting dish... — Edokter (talk) — 00:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Spain Earthquake

I would strongly suggest to add a section of the Spain Earthquake in the "In the news". Why isn't it there yet? I mean it's the top news in Europe today. --Muffingg (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Recomendations for news articles should be taken to WP:ITN/C GB fan (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
It is already listed there, see Wikipedia:ITN/C#An_earthquake_results_in_at_least_10_deaths_in_southeast_Spain. GB fan (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake information should include actual number of deaths. Saying that it is the Spain`s "deadliest [earthquake] in 55 years" is unnecessarily vague if more specific data are available (and it sounds alarmist, not in keeping with Wikipedia`s usual just-the-facts style). Gregory J (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.129.165.216 (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The mention of the earthquake in ITN has been way slow! at the time of inclusion the earthquake had already happen yesterday. In contrast, the death of the Belgian cyclist in El Giro was included almost immediately. Is this a criticism? Yes it is, an earthquake causing nine deaths shouldn't be left unnoticed until the following day. 80.174.178.36 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
If the article had been updated sooner and there were more supporting comments on the candidates page then it would have gone up sooner - that's how it goes with a volunteer effort. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Error in "Correct place to post" message?

When editing this talk page, one is presented with a template warning advising that you "Please make sure you are posting in the correct place". There is a minor typo within this template. Immediately below the bulleted list of alternate areas is a sentence in red: This is NOT the place to make suggestions for Main Page content. Please direct your suggestion one of the forums listed above or your post may be removed or ignored. Please change to This is NOT the place to make suggestions for Main Page content. Please direct your suggestion to one of the forums listed above or your post may be removed or ignored. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 11:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

With Adam's retirement FS will be delayed from appearing the Main Page. Adam didn't email anyone the code prior to his retirement. Is there anyone that could work on coding? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:36am • 23:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a stab at it. I recently did a cleanup of the main page, so I'm quite familiar with it's inner workings. I just need to know what goes where and when, etc. — Edokter (talk) — 00:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
We were evaluating possible layouts until Adam unilaterally closed the discussion. Shall we resume? —David Levy 00:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
By all means. For what it's worth, I think FP and FS should share the purple box. I alraedy did some early layout testing (old sandbox version). Is FL still being considered? — Edokter (talk) — 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The FL community has been discussing how to proceed following Adam's retirement, and we do have a draft solution here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Good. Some ground work has been done. I would ask though to stick to the established color schemes (seen here), and I would move the styling to the main page, as that is where all the styling is (and should not be mixed with the content). — Edokter (talk) — 01:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC) (off for tonight)
If we must stick to the standard colours, I think #F2CEE0 works better than the currently used orange on the current lists main page preview. Although personally I'd go for a pink along the lines of the shade used on the Spanish and Portuguese main pages. —WFC— 01:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The shades of pink used in this mockup are compatible with the current color scheme (same saturation and brightness). We used almost exactly the same background shade for the left-hand column in the previous main page design. —David Levy 02:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it makes sense for the featured picture and featured sound to share the purple box (due to the thematic connection). The featured list, conversely, should receive a separate box.
Either way, stacking the content is far simpler and less problematic than a side-by-side approach is. —David Levy 02:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I chose the colour because (1) it's similar to that used for Featured Lists at Portal:Featured content; and (2) the principal colour is a cyclic change of RGB from that used by TFA and TFP. It can easily be altered though at Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Prot – please edit it (this is a wiki and we lose nothing because the page history keeps everything).
@Edokter: I really don't agree that styling belongs on the main page. It is best in a wrapper page like Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Prot that transcludes the content. That's a much better way of separating styling from content. See Wikipedia:Featured lists/Main Page preview and its source for the results. --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Further: I've modified Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Prot to use the Help talk:Using colours colours for hue=90. That's green and fits with the TFA colour scheme, but perhaps hue=30 (orange/tan) might be preferred? --RexxS (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I strongly believe that the featured list box's color should be distinct from (but equal in saturation and brightness to) the other boxes' colors. Orange and pink seem like good options. Pink seems to fit better, and it's the only former section color not currently in use. (Also note that we usually use orange for the special banner that occasionally appears.) —David Levy 04:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the pink as well, as it flows better into the purple. And orange/yellow is already used for the banner and the community portal.
@RexxS: The current main page has all the styling embedded (at least the main table styling), so I see no reason to split that up. Main page styling has to be centralized, either inline (as it is now) or using a seperate stylesheet. Otherwise, maintainability will be hell; any changes to the styling would have to be done on multiple pages. So for now, the styling will move to the main page. (We can think about moving the styling at a later stage.) — Edokter (talk) — 10:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
No, that's a retrograde step. We both know that the styling should really be done by assigning css to a div with a named id, so it doesn't really matter where the div is applied, the management of style is a job for css, not an html page. The main page is messy with inline styles, and we ought to be moving towards taking as much styling out of the page as possible, not putting more in. In other words, the other sections need to be more like TFL, with a single simple transclusion into the main page, not the other way round. I've changed the colours again to hue=330. It does blend quite well, but of course is different from the colours used at Portal:Featured content. --RexxS (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I am simply following current practice here; all the table styling is done on the main page, and that is what I will maintain for the duration of this process of intorducing FS/FL. Please do not try to inject another major change in the process; If the table styling is moved out of the main page, it becomes fragmanted and unmanagable. So just let the directors worry about the content and let me worry about integrating it into the main page. — Edokter (talk) — 16:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Edokter that the most sensible approach is to follow the current coding system for the time being. If it's to be overhauled, that should be a separate endeavor at a later date. There's no need to complicate matters by combining unrelated changes. —David Levy 18:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Main_Page/sandbox/FSL The code is there Edokter. I don't think that layout is really good, perhaps FL and FS should share half one side rather than take up 2 separate lines, FSes aren't going to have an overly descriptive blurb, it'll be 1 short paragraph at most. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:30pm • 11:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I know the code is there; I put it there :) Remember that FL and FS are never shown simultaniously on any one day (if we're still going with the sat/sun/mon schedule). — Edokter (talk) — 11:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be really helpful if participants read the recent previous debates, so I'll list them here:
I may have missed some. In summary: TFPicture is to remain exactly the same; TFList goes in its own full-width section with its own colours and appears on 1 day per week; TFSound shares the section and colours of TFP but is placed below on 2 days per week. The number of days per week for TFL and TFS may increase in the near future. The actual days, detailed layout and colours are to be subject to an RfC here, when a proposal is ready for !voting on.
This has been dragging on for two months with no progress, so I'd rather see us moving forward than re-debating issues that have already received considerable discussion and have achieved consensus. --RexxS (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I need to go off an do some research for a paper for school. After that I should be on IRC. There is already some stuff that adam left behind that is in sub-sub-pages. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Working copy

Please don't alter TFP. TFP needs a full width section as they sometimes have panoramas. The acceptance of TFS and TFL was dependant on not upsetting the established featured content and we need to respect that. --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with RexxS. Longer term the issue will most likely be looked at again. But that is best handled whenever we eventually get around to a complete overhaul of the main page, which is a little way off. —WFC— 17:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The alternative layout is only an experimental coding doodle. Having read through most of the past discussions, I really find it hard to find the final consensus. If FL is only shown on mondays, the only restriction for FP would be 'no panoramas on mondays'. — Edokter (talk) — 17:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
That isn't the only issue with such a layout. The primary benefit of placing the extra content above/below the featured picture is that it's intuitive; changing a section's layout depending on the day would be needlessly inconsistent and confusing. Conversely, it seems entirely logical for the part-time content to simply slide in and out (with the full-time content otherwise staying the same).
And this is subjective, but I regard the stacked version's appearance as significantly more aesthetically pleasing than that of the side-by-side version. —David Levy 18:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, the stacked layout leaves open the possibility of the featured list's appearance eventually expanding to additional days (without requiring any changes to the featured picture process). —David Levy 19:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I like the layout, I wasn't following the events on this talk page so I wasn't aware of when TFL and TFS would appear on the Main Page. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:38pm • 02:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
TFS appears on Saturday/Sunday --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Right. What would happen with multi-part works such as symphonies, for example, would we feature them all at the one-time or movement by movement? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:25pm • 08:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
We can build templates with spaces for any number of sound files. I am not sure how they all are going to fix into the box though... --Guerillero | My Talk 01:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
That's going to be a problem, then :S —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:18pm • 06:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

To do

  • Code TFL/TFS content containers into the main page (sandbox)  Done
  • Code TFL/TFS conditionals in the main page  Done
  • Create backend for cycling Today's Featured Sound (take WP:POTD as reference)  Doing...
  • Create backend for cycling Today's Featured List (take WP:TFA as reference)  Done

The code for the main page is pretty much done, except for some fail safe code in case someone forgot to put up today's list/sound. Cycling code is implemented using #switch: to make TFL/TFS show hide on certain days (which eliminated the need to create empty protected pages for days wihtout them). Now it's time to create the backend for TFL and TFS. Not wanting to reinvent the wheel, I figure we can just use the TFA and TFP backends as a template. Thoughts? — Edokter (talk) — 13:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't speak for sounds as I've never worked with them, but as far as lists are concerned the TFA backend is a decent template. As I've said elsewhere, reinventing the wheel should be left for whenever we get around to completely redesigning the main page. Which if I were to hazard a guess won't happen for 12 to 18 months. —WFC— 01:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The TFL backend is functional. Now it is up to the FL director to start filling the archives, starting with Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 2011, using {{TFLcontent}} as the content template. I may still add some preload functionality. I propose we use June for testing, so it may go live in July. Next up is TFS, which is a bit more complicated, depending on desired functionality. — Edokter (talk) — 00:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Edokter! I'll get to work. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
One question: I see that Bodley's Librarian was scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured list/May 30, 2011, but there was not actually a TFL that day. Can I assume that is just for testing purposes? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
That is correct. Also, any scheduled FLs before TFL goes officially 'live' on the main page should also be considered tests. That's why I proposed to use June for testing. — Edokter (talk) — 15:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

OTD

1940 – World War II: a British force of 746 soldiers invaded and captured Iceland without opposition.

Captured? Did they put Iceland in a jar, or in a zoo for countries, after they captured it? I suggest we say occupied. Sca (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Occupation comes after capture. — Edokter (talk) — 14:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Ik ga niet akkoord. The Germans didn't "capture" The Netherlands, they occupied it. The Soviets didn't "capture" the Baltic states, they occupied them. Op Engels. But perhaps you're thinking of "conquered"? You could say conquered, then occupied. Sca (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
capture, verb. 1. To take control of.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  14:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but in that sense "capture" refers mainly to "taking control of" animate beings, such as wild animals or, in the case of human beings, a general on the opposing side. For example, Gen. Ludwig Crüwell, commander of the Afrika Korps, was captured by the British in 1943. Sca (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Only if you want it to.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  15:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It's also used in military contexts talking about taking control of places, fortifications, ships, etc. For example, the two examples of "capture" that Merriam Webster gives [1] are "the capture of the city by enemy forces", and "<a Spanish treasure ship was the most valuable capture ever taken by that privateer>", neither of which refer to animate beings. The Oxford English also gives numerous inanimate examples ("The value of the property so captured." "Of every *captured town the keys Restore." "The English‥turned the captured guns against the shore." "The capturing of vessels when not carrying contraband of war was unlawful.") - all of which, I should note, are pre-1900, so there really isn't any argument that such use is a recent corruption. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


You folks are missing my point. "Captured" usually refers to a single object, be it a person, animal, ship, tank, airplane, etc. It could possibly refer to a group of beings or objects, such as capturing the Sixth Army at Stalingrad, but this would be a somewhat unusual usage.

When referring to an entire country or distinct land mass, one usually would use the verbs as "invade," "conquer" and "occupy" -- not "capture." Such as, zum Beispiel, the German occupation of the Channel Islands in 1940-45, or the Soviet conquest and occupation of East Prussia in 1945. The same would apply to Iceland, presumably — although I'm not sure to what extent Iceland actually was occupied by the British.

Sca (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The several examples above include plural usages already so I don't see your point. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I think he's saying that Iceland as a whole is too large a place to be spoken of as "captured". You capture a specific city or field or coral atoll, not an entire country. --Khajidha (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
But everyone else doesn't see a linguistic limit on the size of something that can be captured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.210 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm part of the forward force for the upcoming alien invasion. When we capture earth you all are going to find you don't have time to argue over the use of 'capture' Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't know that there is a limit to the size of something that can be captured, but it does sound odd to me. Interestingly, the idea of alien invaders capturing Earth doesn't sound odd. --Khajidha (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Seize control? --Tone 18:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
In my view, based on long experience, it would be more appropriate and usual to speak of aliens invading or taking control of Earth. And yes, you could say a city was "captured," but it violates the Sounds Funny rule. I believe the somewhat archaic military term, at least historically, was to invest a city, but more conventionally one could say conquer or take over. (Confession: I speak as a recovering journalist.) Sca (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be the only one who thinks it "sounds funny". Rmhermen (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
What, did you not see me say that it sounds odd to me? --Khajidha (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Invaded clearly does not mean the same think as captured. Sorry if this was unclear but we will capture earth. You have no hope of repelling our invasion. In fact it'll be so fast it's not even worth discussing. I dislike internet searches but if you do one for something like 'aliens captured earth' you'll find people talking about aliens capturing earth (not helped by a large number of results discussing aliens being captured or pictures of aliens being captured). The phrase "aliens captured earth" doesn't work very well but not does "aliens took control of earth". From my long experience with SF novels, movies, TV series and games, saying someone captured a planet is just as common and probably more so then saying they took control of it. And I would note your supported here doesn't agree with your view on capturing earth. In fact a search for "captured a planet" even if we ignore results like suns capturing planets (or whatever) is far more successful then "took control of a planet" Nil Einne (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In the news

Four out of seven news items are sports related. I feel that's just excessive, as there's so much going on in the world that's of actual consequence. Am I really supposed to believe a victory by an association football team is more important than the resignation of the vice president of the EU parliment? i kan reed (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Simple solution - nominate more content from other categories and/or vote in support of items from different item classes on WP:ITNC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what your point is... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait til the American sporting events (NBA and NHL) ends. It'll be bedlam. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the name of that vice-president? If it's so important why I've never heard from him/her? What is the real political power of the EU parliament in any case (other than perceiving onerous salaries)? 80.174.178.36 (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The EU is the world's largest trading block, and quite a lot of power has been given to Brussels. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The IMF head is accused of sexual assault and that bumps the Libyan cival war, osama and fukushima?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.242.16 (talk • contribs) 22:04 15 May 2011 (UTC) Note - I have edited the OP's original post - a defamatory statement and WP:BLP violation. Exxolon (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We posted all of those as well... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden, Mao Zedong, and the recently-arrested Dominique Struass-Kahn on the Main Page. Wow ... couldn't we have found an FA or FP on some other dubious personage to run and make it a perfect foursome or even quinella? Daniel Case (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL --BorgQueen (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Yep, Osama will be replaced by a lake in 65 min. Materialscientist (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

How about an article "List of particularly or bizarrely dubious politicians" ("slightly dubious" and "politician" is virtually an oxymoron) and another for "bizarre politicians/political activities" (floating duck houses, and the proverbial "politician on a pogo stick" - a bowler hat was perfectly sensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.193.37 (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Haunting???

From Dyk: "... that Desmond Arthur has haunted Montrose Airfield since 1916?" It shouldn't say that, should it? OPINION. Wow. Cosprings (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer "...is said to have..." in place of "has" but I suspect few people would give credence to the claim as it stands. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 14:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Wanjiru

"Kenyan long-distance runner Samuel Wanjiru, who holds the world record for the half marathon, dies at the age of 24"

Not true held the world record for the half marathon. Zersenay Tadese currently holds the WR in the half marathon. How about mentioning he was an Olympic gold medallist? Philipmj24 (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS or WP:ITN/C, please. --69.158.118.157 (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Spanish protests

Hi. I think it would be a good idea to put the 2011 May Spanish protests article in the currently section of the main page.--77.27.119.131 (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

God hates us All

Hahahaha.... none of us were raptured, therefore "God Hates Us All." Good one Raul.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic choice of FA, well done. :D —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
U mad, bro? :D :D howcheng {chat} 19:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Bows - Thanks guys :) Raul654 (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Why does the article name in the actual article redirect to Harold Camping? Nice to see the Featured Article being used for trolling by the Wikipedia staff. Impartial encyclopedia indeed. --81.98.22.71 (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait, so you have tons of articles you ban people from editing unless they are part of your community, but the article you put on your main page isn't one of them? Isn't this just asking for trouble? --81.98.22.71 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Have a look at our (now depreciated) reasoning, if you wish.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  16:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Persian Wikipedia

hi, Persian Wikipedia is now has more than 150000 articles, please correct the Wikipedia languages section in the bottom of the page. thanks. -- PHoBiA (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 22:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Font

What has happened to Wikipedia? The font is different from when I looked at it yesterday: it's now rounder, squatter and harder to read. What's going on? Why has it been changed? It's not just a matter of aesthetics. This font is actually harder to read than the previously used, narrower one. Why would you make a retrograde change? 82.32.238.139 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC).

I think the change must be with your computer or browser. Hut 8.5 20:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you possibly just upgrade to IE9? Bob talk 18:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Press CTRL and +. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

WWII

Puzzling that OTD for May 23 contains an entry on the End of World War II in Europe. May 8 has long been accepted as the date for the end, since the surrender signed by Jodl et al. at Reims on May 7 provided, "All forces under German control to cease active operations at 2301 hours Central European Time on May 8, 1945," and the repeat ceremony in Berlin, featuring Keitel, occurred on May 8. The arrest of Dönitz a couple weeks later was of little significance,historically. I suppose one could say it was the end of the End; however, the war — the fighting — actually ended May 8. Sca (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the content on the main page is intended to mean that World War II ended in Europe on 23 May, merely that an event which was part of the close of World War II in Europe (the dissolution of the Dönitz government) took place on 23 May. Hut 8.5 20:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Visual update?

I know I proposed this before some months ago, but I would like to test the waters again. With the upcoming inclusion of Today's Featured List and Sound, a small visual update would be nice to commemorate the event. Also with the design being stuck for 5 years, a minor refreshment would be in order.

I believe that my proposed design mixes in the old with the new perfectly; it lifts the page into the present, but is in itself very unobtrusive. It also ties in better with the Verctor skin, being the default skin for a year now. Also, all major borwsers now support gradients (Firefox (3.6 and up), Opera (11.10 and up), Safari (4.0 and up), Google Chrome and Internet Explorer 10 (beta)), and falls back without any issues in older browsers. With featured list/sound added, it would look like this. Thoughts? — Edokter (talk) — 12:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't hate the gradients, but I prefer the current design (which seems crisper, cleaner and less distracting from the main content).
I also dislike the idea of incorporating code that's incompatible with the "older browsers" used by a large percentage of readers. I realize that it fails gracefully for such users (resulting in the status quo), but this is a needless inconsistency.
And while I'm entirely open to the idea of improving the main page's design, I disagree with the concept that its age justifies change for the sake of change. —David Levy 18:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If we're going to reject increasing image size on the grounds that it doesn't look good with 2% of users computers, I don't think we can do something with gradients which aren't supported by probably 50%-60% of internet users.
You also can't claim to support IE if only IE 10 is supported. Beta versions don't count. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I support the change, on the assumption that for users with browsers that don't support gradients the appearance will be unchanged from its current design. --Yair rand (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
That assumption is correct, but such inconsistency is best avoided. When a webpage's appearance significantly varies from one system/browser to another, this comes across as unprofessional and can lead users to wonder what's causing the disparity (and possibly even question whether something is wrong on their end). —David Levy 20:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's a concern at all; One would have to use two browsers to even notice the difference. We also use columns on nearly every page, which do not work on all browsers. I used to be opposed by that (until I switched to Chrome), and I don't hear anyone complain about columns. — Edokter (talk) — 20:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
1. Many people use multiple browsers (e.g. one at home and another at work/school/a public library/someone else's home).
2. There's a non-trivial distinction between enhancing the display of encyclopedic content and arbitrarily altering an aesthetic element. It makes sense to optimize an article's layout (something that's unavoidably inconsistent anyway) for as many readers as possible, but I see no compelling reason to introduce preventable inconsistencies that serve no purpose other than subjectively looking pretty. —David Levy 21:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Wanting to change the aesthetics is not a bad thing; it got the main page to where it is now. Wether it is a complete redesign or done in small steps, we shouldn't be affraid of change. If we were, the main page would still look like this. The inconsistency will solve itself as browsers evolve. — Edokter (talk) — 22:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Clicking that link gives me a big malware warning, but I think it's just because malware has been found on the same archive system. Art LaPella (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
As a participant in the most recent main page redesign, I obviously don't fear change or seek to obstruct aesthetic improvements. I oppose this particular proposal, which introduces needless inconsistency for the sake of a purely cosmetic modification that I regard as neutral at best. (As noted above, I don't hate the gradients, but I prefer the current style.) —David Levy 22:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Inconsistencies also make future bug reports and other discussions more difficult as some participates will invariably not understand that the page is silently inconsistent and repeatedly insist that it "works for them".
There's no shortage of ideas on how to make the main page more visually appealing. Doesn't make sense to choose one that won't render properly for so many people. APL (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) I'm opposed to the gradients on purely aesthetic grounds. They give me a sensation that each column is 'unbalanced'. Perhaps it's the gradient combined with the left justified text in each column, but none-the-less, I get that sensation. Sorry. Ben (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The gradients are distracting and draw attention to the right side of each section (where there is nothing to draw attention to). I also disagree that this use of gradients is associated in any way with "the present"; one quick exercise would be to examine the top 10 Alexa sites and observe the ways in which gradients are not used. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: IE 5.5 - 9 support gradients through the filter and -ms-filter properties. --Yair rand (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Those filters are blocked by the parser. — Edokter (talk) — 17:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I like the gradients, although this proposal is probably not the way forward for the reasons expressed above. That said, given that large-scale main page redesign is not imminent, I think a minor visual update to give the page a little bit of freshness would be a good thing. This proposal was definitely worth a go. —WFC— 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The did you know section should have a link to the appropriate Wikinews article for each entry. Perhaps saying, "Full Wikinews Article". If there is no article, it would encourage the creation of one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.31.37 (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What does the Did You Know section have to do with Wikinews? And having a link that took people off site would be confusing and counter-intuitive. We already have a link to Wikinews further down on the page; there's no need for more than that. Modest Genius talk 22:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that it has been about ten years since we have had redlinks on the Main Page. I seem to recall some when we were setting up the portals (which were then more like the outlines found under Portal:Contents now.) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
We also have a link to WN on ITN. Adding links to individual articles from the MP doesn't seem like a good idea. The two sites work in different ways: we might add a paragraph to an existing article or get an outline article up straightaway, whereas they don't publish their articles (they have flagged revs for quality control) until they're more-or-less finished, which, combined with a lower number of editors and nobody doing the reviewing for the flagged revs, means it's often several hours (and sometimes a day or two) after we post an item on ITN. I assume you were talking about ITN and not DYK? The best thing to do is to add links to WN into the article itself, using {{Wikinews|title of WN article}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The false potto may be a true potto

"The false potto may be a true potto". This is the first time I've heard of a "potto", but the way the headline is written is simply brilliant. JIP | Talk 20:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Work Of Week

I think, we may make it in English wiki.--Guzikov96 (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain what you're proposing? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Guzikov96, could you please explain for us what is the Work of Week? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It's simply the work of the week, i.e. templates, categories and articles. There's nothing special about this. The nominator nominate his work and others "decide" if it pass or not, whereby it will pass everytime (to give an oppose vote is forbidden). It is like Peer Review with voting. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the place to propose a new program like this, this page is to discuss proposed changes to the main page. Try the village pump. Hut 8.5 22:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the point of voting if opposing votes are forbidden? --Khajidha (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion for "Wikipedia languages"

In the section "Wikipedia languages" a line might be added: "More than 1,000,000 articles" to include Deutsch (1236005 articles), Français (1,108,425 articles). I remember when English Wikipedia hit 1,000,000 we thought it was to be celebrated.--Wetman (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been suggested so many times I couldn't tell you how many.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  19:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

New query

Does anyone else feel as though what is currently referred to as the intolerable acts would be better referred to as the coercive acts? They were exactly the same thing, but the title that the British gave it when they actually wrote it was the coercive acts, whereas "intolerable acts" was a name made up by angry Americans. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased and international, wouldn't it be better to call them by their real name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbbard (talk • contribs) 01:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You do have a point and in the article the term "coercive acts" is used more frequently. However, Intolerable Acts seems to be the name by which they are more commonly referred to now, and this is the title of the article. Coercive Acts redirects to Intolerable Acts. Interestingly, a rather simplistic Google search reveals more hits for Co than Int but when searching specifically for pages of one without the other, there are more Int (with no Co) than there are Co (with no Int). Make of that what you will but there's loads of discussion of this very topic on the article talk page, where this query should really have been posted. For what it's worth, it looks like the Int term was coined by historians well after the fact, rather than by disgruntled colonists at the time. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 07:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Main page history

Prompted by a query at the idea lab, I've just created Wikipedia:Main page history. It lists ways to view the edit history, articles appearing on the main page, and changes in appearance. Edits welcome. Fences&Windows 02:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Main Page/sandbox/FSL

Main page FA selection

I've appointed Dabomb87 as a delegate to help me in picking the main page FAs. See this thread for full description and discussion. Raul654 (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Truth in advertising

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Implemented by User:Tariqabjotu. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how either vermouth or cocktail could qualify as "Wikipedia's newest articles". Joefromrandb (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You may want to look at the DYK rules, particularly the "fivefold expansion" clause. Vermouth qualifies, and cocktail is not actually the subject of the DYK. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I've pointed out before that the wording 'newest articles' does not cover expansions, and should be changed to 'newest and expanded articles', but nothing has ever come of it. Modest Genius talk 23:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps "newest content" would be both concise and more accurate than the existing phrase. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It was changed to "newest content" a few days ago. No need for more support. --Boznia 04:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See final layout at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox/TFL (visible)

The infrastructure for Today's featured list (featured every monday) is done and ready for deployment. All that is needed is 'formal' approval before going live. Please comment here. See also Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. — Edokter (talk) — 15:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Make it so. --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
What's it going to look like when it hits the main page? Can someone rig-up a screenshot? Raul654 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I even have a working copy: Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox/TFL (visible). — Edokter (talk) — 15:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It looks good! —David Levy 15:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Provided there are no objections, I will make the code active Sunday night, so that next Monday will see the first dedicated featured list on the main page. — Edokter (talk) — 23:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough for all the work you have done on this Edokter. When Adam went I feared this would take months to get off the ground.
However, I would suggest waiting one more week, i.e. launch on 13 June. Wikipedia:Today's featured list/requests was created less than 24 hours ago, and by the author's own admission should be considered a work in progress. In addition, The Rambling Man is away, and Dabomb is into the first few days of his new job. If that situation were to happen once the process is up and running, the regulars would obviously step in and address queries, as happens at TFA. But a lot of regulars, The Rambling Man included, probably aren't even aware that the first list might go up in 28 hours, let alone up to speed on the ins and outs of the process. There are a few other small, uncontroversial things that need to be sorted out, such as setting up a pool for submissions which probably wouldn't score highly, to reduce the future workload.
To be clear, we're not short of material. But launching under these circumstances would be a badly wasted opportunity to capitalize on the initial interest. We should wait until a week on Monday, by which time all the knitty-gritty will have been ironed out. That will also enable the Signpost to publicise the launch ahead of time. —WFC— 20:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC) (edited at —WFC— 21:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC))
I agree with WFC. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Sorry for being a wee bit too enthousiastic. — Edokter (talk) — 23:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, waiting a week would probably be best. I will have very little time for Wikipedia over the next couple days. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm spending today working on the outstanding nuts and bolts, most significantly Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions, which should be superceded by Wikipedia:Today's featured list/requests a few weeks after TFL goes live, once we have an initial idea on the ways in which TFL differs from TFA. The infrastructure for the submissions page and error checking should only take a day or so to complete, and once it's done we will be more than ready for 13 June. Unless objections are raised which would cast serious doubt on our ability to launch on that day, I will make a formal proposal in approximately 12 hours time, to run between Monday and Saturday (UTC). To ensure that nobody is disadvantaged by a six-day poll, anyone who normally only edits on Sundays that wants to pre-register an opinion is very welcome to do so. —WFC— 12:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The aforementioned work has been completed, and the final proposal drafted and checked for technical accuracy by Edokter. It'll be up as soon as I get a nod from the FLC directors. —WFC— 00:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"demonstrators"? try invaders

how is a group that is bused to a heavily militarized area by a hostile government, armed with Molotov cocktails and the like, who then go on to attack a border fence, considered demonstrators? only in the insane context of the (false) Palestinian victimization narrative can such a ridiculous thing be said — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.167.231 (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Main Page always defers to supporting articles. 2011_Israeli_border_demonstrations#5_June uses the terms 'protesters' and 'demonstrators', taking its cue from the sources e.g. The Hindu. Even The Jerusalem Post uses the terms 'rioters', 'activists', 'protesters', 'demonstrators' and 'infiltrators'. Given that even the Israeli Defence Force is using those terms (see that JP article), I don't think there's any reason for us to change. If you disagree, please go to the talk page of the article and get it changed there first. Modest Genius talk 13:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Syria/Golan Heights

This display is an insult: Israeli forces open fire on demonstrators trying to cross the Syrian–Golan Heights border, producing the deadliest clash in the Golan since 1973. If the page were not locked I would not have hesitated to edit it. It is bad enough on constructions where we say "Kosovo borders Serbia" but atleast some countries recognise Kosovo. Golan Heights is in Syria and is occupied by Israel. Nobody recognises Israeli sovereignty including themselves in that they have never annexed the occupied territories. To that end, the frontier between Israeli occupied land and Syrian government controlled territory is not a "border with Syria" but a boundary within Syria itself. As such, the text must be amended to cater for this. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Taking the above at face value, the issue would appear to be with the dash. On the assumption that the above is correct, "Israeli forces open fire on demonstrators trying to cross the Syrian Golan Heights border, might work. —WFC— 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that's a good point. What about the extremely simple 'border of the Golan Heights'? That makes no assumptions or implications about which country the Golan Heights are in. PS shouldn't this be at WP:ERRORS? Modest Genius talk 18:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
If we really wanted to be absolutely neutral about this we would refer simply to the demilitarization line. There was an RfC a while back on Talk:Golan Heights about where the Golan Heights can be said to be (as, indeed, a great deal of discussion on that page inevitably returns to). I have always felt we should describe the region as "administered by Israel, claimed by Syria" to reflect that:
  • the Golan is under Israeli civil authority, not military jurisdiction (Israelis get very upset at descriptions of the Golan as "occupied", since it connotes a military occupation even though the legal use of the term is not limited to military occupations)
  • the two countries never formally established a border in that region, not least because Syria has never recognized Israel (therefore you can also call the Golan, like the West Bank, disputed)
  • Israel has, as the poster above said, never made a formal claim to it as it has with East Jerusalem, and has hinted occasionally at the possibility of withdrawing from it completely.

Nobody disputes any of those facts. But, nobody wanted wording that was truly neutral, since in these discussions it's all-or-nothing for most participants. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake not being an expert on this area, Israel annexed Golan in 1981 as is stated in the article. There remains the question of neutrality when we refer to the territory over the border of GH as plain Syria. Damascus does have wide international recognition and the hyphen normally suggests the entities on either side are separate states. If I were to speak of the Belgium-Luxembourg border, it would provoke an outrage in Brussels were it to be known I referred to the Belgian region of Luxembourg! This is why I suggest minor rephrasal in everyone's interest. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
While it has been widely characterized as an annexation, the Golan Heights Law applied Israeli law to the region, but unlike the Jerusalem Law it does not say that Israel considers the GH an integral part of Israel. Your own article on the Golan Heights says thus: "Although the law in effect annexed the territory to Israel, it was not formally annexed". Israel has indeed hinted it would be willing to restore it to Syria ... but it could be equally plausible, given the lack of a border agreed by the two states, for some post-Assad Syrian government to decide that, say, it would be better off leaving Majdal Shams and the other Druze settlements there the way they are and letting them stay in Israeli hands. I'm not saying they would do that, just that they could.
I agree with you that it shouldn't be characterized as an international border, however. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I see it is about to drop off from the headlines as it is getting older but it has been amended. So I thank you for your contribution if you influenced in in any way. I also realise from your above statement that there are clearly various forms of annexation and GH is not in the eyes of Israel equal to the city of Jerusalem. I am annoyed with myself for exuding ignorance as once again I fell into a trap that I blame so many people for luring themselves into: the mainstream news called it "occupied territory" and I never spared half a thought for how Israel would view this. Either way, it is neutral now. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 07:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And as usual, 97.5% of persons looking at the WP main page either have only a passing interest in this specific bit of news (beyond a vague 'disagreements in another bit of the Middle East again') or don't notice/don't care about the dash in question.

True. But there is a major difference between ambiguous and inaccurate, the latter being wholly misleading. It really is fine now that it has been edited slightly. Evlekis (Евлекис) 09:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Uuq and Uuh?

Weren't they discovered a long while ago and not today? --24.201.142.105 (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The discovery must be approved by IUPAC, which is what happened. Note that the claims for discovery were set forth for elements 113-116, 118, and accepted only for 114 and 116 because of insufficient statistics (i.e. inconclusive). Materialscientist (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
What's the plan when the IUPAC becomes political in 2021. See also dangerous elements. 74.104.33.206 (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Very big news not being depicted on main page!

A very important and of course large news is being averted from the Wikipedia Main Page. The 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement is an arising revolution and news has spread across the world about Swami Ramdev's plight and fight to concur the massive problem. He had also been escorted by the police which made India erupt of anger. Such large news for such a prominent country deserves to be mentioned in the Wikipedia Main Page, in the same way that the Arab Spring and ongoing Libyan Civil War have and are being covered by Wikipedia. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.125.62 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You can suggest news items at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. — Edokter (talk) — 18:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Obits on the mainpage?

I thought obituaries on the ITN were only for current heads of state or people whose death itself was particularly surprising and newsworthy. However notable M. F. Husain is, surely it's not surprising or notable that he died at age 96? Were there unusual circumstances around his death that made the death itself newsworthy? If so they should probably be mentioned in the blurb. 76.28.67.181 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A gentle prod to WP:ITN/C before someone else punts you there. :)  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  21:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The criteria have changed, and we are posting more of them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Formal proposal to put Featured Lists on the main page from 13 June

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a unanimous consensus by a cross-section of the community to implement Featured Lists on the Main Page, starting 13 June. –MuZemike 01:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

After three months of development, testing, and the occasional misunderstanding, Today's featured list (TFL) has matured to the stage where it is ready to be implemented.

The proposal, as first agreed in early March, is that Featured Lists will be displayed on the main page each Monday. We hope that the Wikipedia:Today's featured list process will eventually mature to a point where it is ready to take a daily spot. For clarity, this proposal is explicitly only for one day per week. Any future expansion would require a fresh proposal on this talk page. The featured list will be in its own box, situated below Did you know and On this day, but above Picture of the Day. The box will only appear on Mondays, and the new coding will have no effect whatsoever on the appearance of the main page from Tuesday to Sunday inclusive. The list's description will be approximately 1000 characters, and will be accompanied by a small, right-aligned image.

  • A real example of what the main page will look like can be found at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox/TFL (live). The source code of this page is the source code that we are proposing to put on the main page. Please note that the Featured List box will only be visible on this page if you are looking at it on Monday.

The backend of this has been developed by User:Edokter, with assistance from a number of other users, including User:Raul654 and User:RexxS. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank User:Adam Cuerden for the considerable amount of work that he did on the main page before leaving Wikipedia. We are very grateful.

The template for submitting new suggestions, {{TFLcontent}}, has been designed for simplicity and efficiency. Detailed, user-friendly instructions are provided at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions. But the real beauty is that the template is used all the way through the process. Once a blurb has been accepted, and if necessary copy-edited, the entire template can be copied and pasted into User:The Rambling Man's pool of main page candidates, currently located here. When he, User:Dabomb87 or User:Giants2008 decide to schedule a list, all they need to do is copy the template and paste into the queue on the appropriate day, for instance into Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 6, 2011. The only adjustments the Featured List directors will routinely need to be conscious of is to check the image size in relation to the box as a whole, and remembering to add links to recently featured lists.

Our catchphrase from the start has been to keep it simple. For the launch, we are keeping things extremely simple. All editors are able to submit 1000 character blurbs on featured lists, with a considerable degree of tolerance on length. These are then open for others to review and tweak. The FLC directors will move the ones with broad support into the ever-growing pool of accepted blurbs. The directors will then schedule lists at least one, usually two weeks in advance, allowing plenty of time for further community scrutiny and copy-editing.

It is inevitable that the process will need to become more complicated as it grows. For instance, a community-based selection criteria will almost certainly need to be developed, probably based on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. The directors may want one or two people to act as clerks, to keep the wheels of the submissions page running smoothly. We may need to go into more detail on how to write a good blurb, and so on. But our intention is to start with an essentially blank canvass, make the process easy to understand and participate in, and to only add further instructions where instructions prove necessary.

I think that covers everything. Sorry for the length of this, but it is designed to be as self-contained as possible. Please indicate your support or opposition to the proposal below. I will also be happy to take any further questions you may have. The poll will run from the time of this post, until 23:59 UTC on Saturday, 11 June. After this, I will ask an uninvolved admin to judge the consensus. If there is consensus to proceed on schedule, the source code from Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox/TFL (live) will be implemented on the main page, and the first Featured List will be visible on the main page on Monday 13 June.

Thank you for reading. Regards, —WFC— 11:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC) on behalf of the Today's featured list team.

Support

  1. As nom. —WFC— 11:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. — Edokter (talk) — 11:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. Yep. Glad we're ready to go. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  4. — Bill william comptonTalk 11:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  5. looks good - GB fan (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  6. Support Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 11:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  7. Support --Tone 12:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  8. I like the look of this. The colour scheme is appropriate too. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  9. Looks good, except, why is it "Today's featured list" if it's only shown once a week? Should it not be "This week's featured list" even if it's not shown throughout the whole week? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    Fair point, and to your credit you have looked at both sides of the argument, by identifying the pitfalls of calling it "This week's featured list". My conclusion is that "Today's featured list", while not perfect, is not an innaccurate statement. Being able to keep the same name if/when we ever press for a more regular slot is another advantage. —WFC— 14:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    (ec) Consensus so far is to show the featured list on Monday only, and since it's up only one day, "Today's" seems apropriate. Content is also not ment to stay on the main page for longer then 24 hours. Plus it may be expanded to multiple featured lists per week, perhaps even daily, in the future. — Edokter (talk) — 14:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    Hm, what about "Monday's featured list"? I'm not against "Today", but it just seems a little confusing if readers see a new section but then it disappears the next day. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    Only problem with "Monday" is that the main page (I believe) goes by UTC. In many cases it will be Sunday or Tuesday. —WFC— 16:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    (if my belief is incorrect, I'd be very slightly in favour of "Monday's" on the main page) —WFC— 16:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    Your belief is correct; "Monday" would not be correct for half the world at any given time. — Edokter (talk) — 16:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    You're right, although the "On this day" box is also incorrect for a few hours, for much of the world. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    That's why it contains an explicit mention of the UTC date. —David Levy 02:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    Featured List of the Week would be sufficient :P —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:27pm • 12:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  10. Support --Kumioko (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  11. Support—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 6, 2011; 16:40 (UTC)
  12. Support good job.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  13. Support Definite improvement, ideal colour choice too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  14. Support Do it - less talk, more action. Lugnuts (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  15. Support looks good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  16. Piling on—S Marshall T/C 18:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  17. Support Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  18. Support --Guerillero | My Talk 22:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  19. Support, plus a nod to all the effort the various editors have already put into TFL. (e • nn • en!) 22:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  20. Support GreyHood Talk 23:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  21. Support Wasn't how I initially understood(thought that it would of been in the FA spot once a week), but still good like this. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  22. Support. An excellent implementation of a sound concept. —David Levy 00:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  23. Support - Congratulations are in order. It would have been a shame if your idea got killed because the force behind getting Featured Sounds onto the main page collapsed. Once you've got everything all set up, I'm sure that FS would be quite eager to talk to whomever did the coding for you. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  24. Support Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  25. Support Kudos to everyone who made this possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  26. Support Feels good to bring so much HQ content to the main page! Staxringold talkcontribs 18:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  27. Support, great idea. -- Cirt (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  28. Support Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  29. Support —Chris!c/t 19:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  30. Support —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:55pm • 10:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  31. Support —Joshua Issac (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  32. Support. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  33. Support I'm thrilled to see that TFL has come this far; congrats to everyone who's worked on this proposal, you all deserve it. Nomader (Talk) 23:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  34. Support, per previous supporter. The link in the lead to the sandbox doesn't include the promised FL. I want to know where it will fit in without causing a white-space problem. Tony (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    The first example link, Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox/TFL (visible), swows the "always Monday" version for preview. — Edokter (talk) — 11:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  35. Support, looking forward to it! BencherliteTalk 13:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  36. Support I like it. – sgeureka t•c 14:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  37. Actions drive benefit. Yes, please. The community has considered this proposal for months now. I think everyone is broadly in agreement with how far Featured Lists have come in quality (pushing innovations in table quality, developing more prose in lists, etc.). Our readers will enjoy this feature on their main page. The prominence will also support the continued improvement of FL quality and tangentially all featured processes. I beg those who have slight differences on format or the like to please get behind this as it is broadly what we all want...and is better than a Main Page deficient of FLs. I think for the whole thing to move forward, we need to do something. I'm sure TRM/DB/G/WFC will learn things as they go along, but they will learn much faster by being live. Let's cross the Rubicon!TCO (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  38. Support, only fair to all those people who've worked so hard getting lists to featured status. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  39. Support Qrsdogg (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  40. Support – There's no reason why FLs shouldn't be listed on the Main Page. —mc10 (t/c) 02:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  41. 'Support'JJ98 (Talk) 02:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  42. Support Qantasplanes Definitely Qantasplanes (Talk with me) 11:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  43. Support Looks great. --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  44. Support --Another Believer (Talk) 06:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  45. Support Moray An Par (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  46. Support although before it does go to daily we may wish to looking into a way for it to trade positions with featured pic from time to time.©Geni 12:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    Arbitrarily swapping sections back and forth would confuse/frustrate readers. Additionally, it was pointed out that it's more logical for the featured list to appear directly below the rest of the primarily textual content (instead of being placed below the featured media box as an apparent afterthought).
    And I refer to it as the "featured media box" because we plan to eventually add the featured sound to it (below the featured picture). Initially, this will occur on days different from when the featured list appears, but if both new sections become daily, we'll have one above the featured picture and one below it.
    Also note that the featured picture's location is based partially upon the fact that some users have slow Internet connections or are unable to view images (due either to technical limitations or visual impairments), so it's sensible to place the primarily textual content first. Even more users are unable to play our audio files (due to technical limitations, school/workplace restrictions or hearing impairments), so it makes sense for the featured sound to come last. —David Levy 13:18/13:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  47. Support Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  48. Support just in time. The FL community will doubtless take to this like a duck to water and be dedicated enough to ensure the integrity of the main page remains intact. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  49. And my AXE Protonk (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

  • Although I'm in favour, and think the TFL team has done an excellent job of preparation, should this not be for an initial trial period only? If this proposal gains community support, as seems likely, there should be a (say) 2 month trial, after which the community should be invited to confirm or rescind TFL's place on the Main Page. I know that's another hoop to jump through, but there should really be a trial period before a permanent mandate is provided. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    I think that to be unnecessary bureaucracy; if any problems arise they can be dealt with. To put yet another hurdle here is silly, especially when there's been virtually no opposition to TFL the two times we've been to this page to !vote on it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    It's a fair question, but I echo the above. I think it's reasonable to assume that if this gets the go-ahead, there is a more than 50% chance that the community will be happy for lists to continue. I would therefore suggest the opposite approach: if after (say) 2 months, a significant proportion of the community is unhappy, a proposal should be made to remove them from the main page. It would have the same net effect. —WFC— 12:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    I agree. There's no need to preemptively schedule an additional vote. It would, however, be appropriate to stipulate that if the question arises, consensus will be required to retain the section. I don't foresee this occurring, but if it does, I can understand why some would object to a scenario in which consensus to remove the section is required (with a "no consensus" outcome defaulting to "keep"). —David Levy 00:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    That seems sensible enough, provided any poll is not started for purely procedural purposes. If a "confirmation" poll is started, a group of people should be able to demonstrate that there is an issue with TFL's ongoing presence. —WFC— 06:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    Agreed. No additional poll should be held unless it's clear that a substantial segment of the community objects to the section's continued inclusion, with the onus on said individuals to explain why (but with a lack of consensus meaning that the section cannot remain unless the concerns are addressed and consensus is re-established).
    Given the proposal's overwhelming support (and the unlikelihood of a major quality lapse), it seems doubtful that we'll reach the point at which the question even arises. —David Levy 13:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    That seems sensible. I too don't think there will be any problems, but this seems a good way to proceed if something does come up. Modest Genius talk 13:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Why the above and below format, instead of putting "Today's featured picture" and "Today's featured list" side-by-side like the other sections of the main page?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not best placed to answer this, as I wasn't heavily involved in that part of the process. But the side-by-side approach would have thrown up several issues. It would have had a knock-on effect for Pictures, limiting the days on which they can run unusually shaped images. That's not so much of an issue now, but would have become one whenever we make the expansion proposal, and would have had implications for the future sounds proposal. Logically, there was a general (but not universal) feeling that in a side-by-side format, lists should be on the same side as articles, but this might have taken prominence away from pictures, especially given that lists have an image alongside them. And finally (and admittedly subjectively), I believe that with the current main page format, an above and below approach looks neater than the left/right mockups that were floated about a few months ago. —WFC— 19:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, at lower resolutions, the side-by-side format results in significant layout issues (even with typical images). This actually occurred when TFP occupied the DYK position on weekends (before it appeared on a full-time basis).
Also, having a section's layout vary depending on the day (as TFP's would with the side-by-side layout) is unintuitive and potentially confusing to readers. —David Levy 00:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Wasn't there also an idea to put featured sounds on the main page? What ever happened to that?--Danaman5 (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • It fell through in a ball of drama. We hope to get things back on track soon --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 02:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I believe that Edokter is working on code for Featured Sounds, but that would be a separate proposal. Even when the code is ready, I think (as an outside observer) that the sounds process would be wise to first make sure it has found its feet after the events of recent weeks. When sound editors feel ready for a main page push, I'd be very happy to do the same sort of thing that I've done for lists – polish up the today's featured sound page, submissions page, checking usability, scripting the formal proposal etc. —WFC— 10:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I may have missed something. Which recent events are you talking about? I thought that TFL/TFS was a joint proposal, and both initiatives crumbled upon Adam's retirement. It wasn't until James resparked the discussion about TFS when I became involved. I happened to finish TFL first. So is TFS still feasible at this point? — Edokter (talk) — 00:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
          • They were separate proposals from the start, at Featured Sound's insistence (they didn't want Lists to stand in the way of Sounds, or vice versa), albeit Adam was working on the coding for both proposals simultaneously. Technically there is no reason at all to delay the sounds launch, but Sounds have lost several key editors in recent weeks, and are still finding their feet from it. It's not for me to judge if they're ready, but it would be prudent to make sure that they are comfortable taking on the additional workload before going for formal approval. —WFC— 12:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
            • Featured Lists stand by themselves as pages. So long as the topic meets content guidelines, the list is able to build itself up independent of other resources. Sounds, on the other hand, cannot stand by themselves as pages, they have to be integrated with an article of some form or another. Featured Sounds has made some efforts, but gotten nowhere, in setting standards for both encyclopedic value and file use. While there are no truly useless files with FS status, there is plenty of gallery fodder, content that isn't used as part of the core of the article, as much as it is simply stuck in a media section at the bottom of the page. This is done either because there is a large number of recordings on a single subject, and sounds were not reorganized to showcase the best (Featured) version, because such a change has encountered resistance from people that are involved with the article itself, or because the sound isn't terribly important to any article it's used it. The issue performance standards also lies unresolved, although that has been playing out for years. While the whole bashing of heads thing didn't help, FS's inability to establish agreed upon policies/standards on a number of technical issues contributed heavily to my decision not to return to FS after Adam retired. I worry that FS is becoming a rubber stamp for decent quality media, that there isn't a critical eye towards how the media is used, and I think that until firm policies are in place FS will be unstable (in the sense that if a policy is decided upon, many current FSes would be delisted). On the plus side, Guerillero has stepped up to the plate and preformed as a director at FS (i.e. person that closes nominations and is looked upon for leadership) with distinction. I've talked to him since leaving, I know there are still stressors, but FS is in capable hands under him, and I think that the outstanding issues I mentioned will eventually be resolved, and with an absence of drama (which has been the bane of productivity at FS as far back as 2008). I do hope that one day I will be able to vote on a final yes/no to place FS on the main page. I think it's months away, but I think that it's something worth striving for. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
              • FP has some of the same issues with the tension over "pretty picture display for creators" versus "great content". But is further along on that, more total images, more stable leadership, etc. I totally want FS to succeed and pretty much would support them any time they want to go to the main page...cause heck...maybe the exposure HELPS them. All that said, that thing is pretty nascent right now. Definitely think FL should drive on independently and not be bound to some dependency on FS.TCO (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Is someone going to close this discussion in a few hours? There seems to unanimous consensus to add TFL's. At the very least, I'd prefer that Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow gets updated before it hits Sunday 00:00 UTC. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The poll is scheduled to close at 23:59 UTC on Saturday, 11 June. I've been contemplating updating Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow as well, but don't you think that TFL should get a proper premiere on the Main Page without being spoiled first on tomorrow's page? — Edokter (talk) — 11:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      The whole point of Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow is to automatically cascade protect everything (all the templates and all the images on TFA, OTD and FP) before it goes live. It is also a final check for admins and other regular users to preview the layout of the entire page and so forth as a whole. It is not designed to "spoil" readers, especially new users and IPs who may not even be aware that the Tomorrow page exists. Before the Tomorrow page was cascade protected, the Main page templates and images had to be protected manually, or else vandals would always strike around 23:59:59 UTC. And the reason why WP:ERRORS mentions tomorrow's page is so regular non-admin users can also spot and report errors on the templates before they go live.
      The Tomorrow page really does not have to be updated exactly before 00:00 UTC Sunday. There has been instances where a TFA was not selected until less than a hour before going live. But cascade protecting the template beforehand should be done before 23:59 Sunday. Some vandals have been known to be more experienced than others. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry for not taking this into account when I drafted the proposal. I guess if the intention is to keep the launch content as more of a surprise, we could temporarily put the blurb I just drafted for 6 June in the 13th's spot (and the one currently in the 13th into the 6th's slot) and switch back two hours before launch. Two hours strikes the right balance between secrecy and not embarrassing ourselves come Monday. That way the content remains a relative surprise until relatively late, but all the other ins and outs of this brand new process have a full 24 hours of scrutiny, which is for the best. If necessary, I can amend the welcome blurb to make absolutely clear that the content which will actually appear will be added ~2 hours before 23:59 UTC on Sunday.
        If we are going to close this early for the above reasons, it might be worth making a request for an uninvolved admin to do so, for instance at WP:AN. —WFC— 12:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
        • You have a point about the cascade protection. I'll update Tomorrow's page tonight. Might as well do it right now... — Edokter (talk) — 12:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
          Thanks. I'm not sure what was your original idea of keeping the content a surprise to everyone. Regular users monitoring this talk page are more likely to be fully aware of this discussion, links to the tomorrow page, and the WP:TFL and those archive pages that have been recently created. Regular users who do not normally pay attention to all these Main page maintenance areas usually do not notice until its live on the Main page, and may not even be aware about this proposal. And new users and IPs most likely do not know that all of these areas even exist. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Run the discussion to compleition, WFC. Better to follow process. This thing would pass regardless if some people (ahem) were to stick in last minute spanners.  ;) TCO (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
          WP:SNOW, imo. No oppose yet. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rhode Island, false name of a US state

correct name is, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, sorta like calling New Jersey , 'New', or New York, 'New'. CorvetteZ51 (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A better comparison would be to call the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, "United Kingdom". —WFC— 10:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
And don't we do that all the time??? I can't say as I've ever called the UK that full title; I wonder if the newspapers in RI call the state by its full name when mentioning it in a story?? Rhodesisland (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that was the point WFC was making, mate. ;)  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  12:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that your own abbreviation of "US" is incomplete as well. The full name of the the United States is The United States of America. Rhode Island is the common name for the subject. My goodness, even the government of the state simply calls it that. The legislature is OFFICIALLY called The State of Rhode Island General Assembly. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And in the UK the 'First Lord of the Treasury' is never referred to as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.193.37 (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just as long as we keep calling the Old Dominion a commonwealth, not a state. Ah...screw it.TCO (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Or the way people actually do refer to New Jersey as simply "Jersey". And, by the way, Virginia is a state, as per the Constitution, and not an actual commonwealth as such. "Commonwealth of Virginina" is just a name with no legal meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.44.0.4 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Fresh flowers at JD's grave every Sunday in Hollywood at the Capital of the O. C.TCO (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have one proposal

Discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Article titles#I have one proposal -- Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope everyone enjoys this new addition to the main page. — Edokter (talk) — 00:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks excellent. Thanks again for all of your hard work, Edokter! —David Levy 01:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Just one thought: we have a little over 2000 Featured Lists. This means, at one per week, it would take about 39 or so years to go through them all. OTOH, if we went to one new FL per day, we would go through them in about 6 years. We obviously have "inbetween wiggle room" there. My train of thought is that, given enough continued support of FLs on the Main Page, we can most certainly increase the frequency of new FLs from 1 per week, as it would be good for the lists themselves, as they would get more scrutiny before and while being featured on the Main Page, not to mention better recognize the effort those editors' efforts put into the FLs. –MuZemike 01:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a conscious decision to do it at this pace. At the moment we "only" have 15 prepared lists (three months at the current frequency, two weeks at a daily rate). More importantly, we're looking to use the main page carrot to try to diversify our range of featured lists. At the moment FL has a far higher proportion of everyday life articles than GA or FA. In particular, sporting lists account for over a third of FLs. I'm not ashamed of the achievement of having nearly 800 sports FLs and counting, or of my contribution to that with four FLs and a couple of WP:FLRC saves. But we need to try to encourage other fields to catch up. —WFC— 01:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
All but two of the sporting events are European or Western hemisphere-related lists, BTW. Nice to contribute one non-Euro/Western list and save another from delisting. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe 1 list every 3 days? Thanks for your hard work Edokter! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:56am • 01:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's wait for a year before having TFLs full-time. We'd have to work out the kinks first. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I do think it should evolve to more than once a week. But the pink heading? Pass me the vomit bucket quickly. Tony (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not that bad :P also re HTD: 1 list every 3 days or twice a week wouldn't be a big ask, it'd be sufficient for a couple of decades :P —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:43pm • 11:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
      • The alternative was either orange, which wouldn't have blended well with the purple below, or to deviate from the established colour scheme, which would likely have garnered significant opposition. —WFC— 15:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are the tables created with HTML-tags instead of Wikisyntax? Just because you have to use {{!}} inside the parser function? – F. F. Fjodor (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I simply saw no advantage in using {{!}}, and I don't like having to rely on formatting templates on the main page. — Edokter (talk) — 15:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I recall something about Featured Sounds also gunning for a spot on the Main Page. What if FL and FS alternated every day, so there'd be something new every day on the Main Page? BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 19:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a long story, but if FS can do it, FL would be more than happy to share a space on the main page. This proposal originated from a request from FS to be on the main page. Note, there'll always be something new on main page, the list won't stay for more than a day. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I echo the above. But it's important to remember that we haven't even finished our first day yet.
There are several disfunctional processes on this site. Debateably one or two on the main page, and certainly several elsewhere. The decision for TFL to go at this pace is largely down to a determination not to become another one. I made very clear in the proposal that we have ambitions to eventually go daily: whether that's a pipe dream or a realistic ambition remains to be seen. For now, the time for talking is over. If you'd like to help accelerate our transition into a more regular process, please click here. Regards, —WFC— 19:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see something like 6 FLs and 1 FS. I just think it might help the FSers to have some exposure. But I don't think they should be pushing high volume (not enough really good FSes). Even for FL, I hope you lead with the best of the best.

I missed the run, where can I find it? TCO (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page history/2011 June 13, for example. BencherliteTalk 02:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It still is currently visible on Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday, but not forever... Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice work all around and kudos, but it just turned midnight UTC and it is gone. I know this is once a week for now, but I already miss the FL. :( Hopefully this limited release will become daily before too long. --mav (reviews needed) 00:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There's always Main Page/Yesterday :) — Edokter (talk) — 00:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the discussion above in "Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture" and it is apparent that the text that accompanies a featured pictures does not have to be backed up by citations from reliable sources. It so happens that we have a factual error on the Main Page today which cannot be quickly remedied. The Main Page needs to showcase our best work and crucially that necessiates all information being backed up by citations from reliable sources. I propose that in future the accompanying text for a featured picture must pass WP:V - if not then don't use it. Greenshed (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is, errors is a broadly construed term. There have been no issues with verifiability in the past, that I am certain. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:58pm • 11:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
In theory it's a good idea. In practice, not so great, as it's not uncommon for the article accompanying the POTD to be in bad shape, and it would be unfair to deny a Main Page appearance to an image through no fault of its own. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not arguing that the entire article needs to be in good shape, just that the text on the Main Page needs to be backed up by citations to WP:RS. Greenshed (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
This would be a pain to administer, but in principle Greenshed is correct. We don't let unverified text onto the Main Page for OTD items, DYK entries or any other content section. The text accompanying TFP should not be exempt from the standard applied everywhere else. Quite what should be done when the relevant article doesn't have enough verified text to allow a decent blurb to be written I don't know, but it's something we (or rather, TFP) should think about. A pain I know. Modest Genius talk 18:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be feasible to make the writing of a quality, verifiable blurb a requirement to pass the featured picture process? It would certainly help ensure that all featured pictures have a readily accessible quality blurb prior to assessing them for TFP. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That's kind of there already. See criteria 6 and 7 (and the footnote) at Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps criterion 6 should be changed from "supported by facts in the article" to something like "supported by facts in the article which themselves are backed up by references from reliable sources". Greenshed (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I interpreted 'caption' as a different thing to the TFP blurb. Are they typically the same thing? I was under the impression that the TFP blurb was usually lengthier and more detailed than the caption for a given image. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Stated purpose(s) of the main page?

Friends, nowhere can I find a clear, simple, specific set of aims—a mission statement, if you like—for the main page. Can someone point me to it? I don't mean that big-ass, hard-to-navigate FAQ page.

If there is no statement of the aims of the main page, shouldn't one be created? Otherwise, I think we're in the dark, which is what an outside viewer might think about the look of the page. Tony (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The point of the main page is twofold:
    1. To showcase relevant and/or high quality encyclopaedic content.
    2. To serve as a navigational aid for new users.
Save for DYK, I think that covers everything on the page. —WFC— 10:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, WFC. Two responses.

First, so DYK is an exception to these two aims? Perhaps another aim is required to cover it. So we can arrive at a cohesive set of objections, what would that be?

Second, while the two aims you've put forward seem entirely reasonable, I wonder whether they are not in conflict in fundamental ways in the main page as we have come to know it. Tony (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

3. To encourage participation in the project?

Could you elabourate on your second point? I'm not suggesting that main page processes are anywhere near perfect, but at first glance I'd suggest that the main page broadly meets those three objectives. —WFC— 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think you've come up with three guiding lights. I'd like to ponder them a while and see if anyone else comes up with more. Your (3) certainly does include DYK.

You ask about my "in conflict" concern. "To showcase relevant ... content" ... perhaps relevance is different for different parts of the page. Part of the discussion in the thread below concerns the relevance of the mass of links in hooks (and TFA for that matter) to (1) the business of hooking visitors over to the subject article; and (2) whether the "navigational aid" function should begin with great force and least focus on the main page itself, or once you've got your reader hooked into an article. To this extent, there are possible conflicts in the way we write the page at the moment. Tony (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The main page features examples of the main features which Wikipedia hopes to excel at:
  • TFA - We have high quality articles on a range of subjects.
  • TFP - We have not just high quality written content, but high quality audio/visual content.
  • DYK - We are constantly adding new articles and content.
  • ITN - We are constantly updating article with information *as things happen*.
  • OTD - We don't just have articles on recent topics, we have articles spanning history. (Okay, I kind of made that one up. Personally, I think we have OTD mostly because an "On this day" feature is an obvious addition to a page that changes content each day. )
Aside from OTD, those rationales aren't something I made up on the spot, but are the impression I get (and have had for a while) from reading the requirements and listening to the discussion surrounding the features. TFA/TFP - high quality content; DYK - recently updated content; ITN - not news items, but articles which have been updated with recent news content. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

ITN: Bruins?

The Bruins won the NHL's Stanley Cup about six hours ago. I don't know how often ITN gets updated, but is that going to go in soon? Sven Manguard Wha? 08:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you updated the article? If so comment on the WP:ITNC thread. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is as good a place as any. How comes that sections such as DYK and OTD do not appear on the mobile Main Page? Difficultly north (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

iirc, the official Wikipedia mobile site at http://en.m.wikipedia.org/ is run independently by the Wikimedia Foundation's Mobile Project team (see meta:Mobile Projects), and not controlled directly from any users or admins here on the English Wikipedia. AFAIK, when they first put that mobile site online, their primary goal was to have it load very quickly on all existing mobile platforms at the time. That is why editing is disabled on the mobile site, as well as a simple Main Page on there. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's interesting that someone out there thinks there's too much text on the main page. I can't imagine why we have 42 foreign-language WPs listed at the bottom in their very own section, when we provide a neat, bolded link to Complete list of Wikipedias and a list of main-page links in the side-bar. This is triple bloat. I think the list of 41 should be dropped. Tony (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Err, are you starting to turn any thread on this talk page into your complaints/proposals about the current Main Page here on the English Wikipedia? This was a legitimate question and thread about the mobile site, which, as I said, is totally independent of whatever consensus is here. And it was intended for the limited capabilities of mobile devices, and not the regular PCs and laptops with the wide-screen, high-resolution monitors. The viewing experiences and requirements on the typical, relatively smaller screen on a mobile device is quite different than the regular screens of the normal typical computer. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with trying to change the subject and make a mostly unrelated proposal in the middle of a thread like this one. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
While on the matter of the sister sites box, it's used on almost every major Wikimedia wiki and has been in use on the English Wikipedia for over 5 years now, getting rid of it might attract a lot of arguments and whatnot. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:02pm • 07:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Getting back on subject, thanks for the info. If I want to discuss this further, where would you suggest I go? Difficultly north (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, improvements for the mobile version go here: meta:Mobile Projects. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:27pm • 04:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Images for hurricane type TFA's

As we all know, there are a lot of hurricane and tropical storm TFAs, such as today's. The accompanying image is invariably a satellite view of the storm, which when viewed as a thumbnail is just another white swirl. In my view, it would be better to accompany the article with a photo taken from the ground, such as File:Alberto-flooding.jpg, which shows the effects. Any thoughts?—Optimist on the run (the admin formerly known as Tivedshambo) (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

At the current squint-size, it doesn't make much difference. If ground-based pics are available that are not too detail-rich, it does make sense to employ more variety.Tony (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. I changed the picture to one of flooding from the storm, since the coastal picture, while more interesting, has weird dimensions and would make the main page look unbalanced. Juliancolton (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with using either satellite or ground based images; I'm against using the tracking maps, however, because at 100 pixels wide, they're indistinct blobs of color. Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Query the role of wikilinking in specialist hooks

In the news 14 June 2011

I don't quite know where to start, except to note that I am extremely surprised and dismayed by the vast number of links in today's 'In the news'...

Using today's entry as a case study, my analysis of the text (pictured) is as follows:

  • There are a total of six hooks, comprising 115 words, and links to 30 discrete articles.
  • That makes an average of five links per hook – that is, in each hook, only one link targets the specialist, unfolding event that is the whole point of the entry; four go to largely unscrutinised articles that are linked to from the ITN target itself.
  • Of the 115 word-count, 56% of the words are within links; 16% are in bold type.

I assume the key objective is to get readers to click on the ITN article in each hook – the one that has been vetted for exposure on the main page, so we really ought to make it easy for them, and minimise scatter. At present, we try to do this by putting the ITN one in bold type, further augmenting the rather unattractive and overburdened presentation. This is the visual equivalent of turning up the music to compensate for the background noise. Considering the level of this "background noise" is within our control, The answer is staring me in the face.

I thought about providing similar analyses of 'Did you know' and 'On this day', but one quick glance will tell you that the difference is marginal – they are all as bad as each other. So my question is: When are we going to allow hooks to do what they are supposed to do by linking simply and cleanly? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur. I looked at the section as an innocent reader. The NBA story is very interesting and I wanted to click on it, but had no idea with all the blue, where the actual story, story was!TCO (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I suppose on the NBA blurb, "basketball" can be delinked. Probably "championship" and "Finals MVP" but the Main Page will lose links to 2 WP:FLs -- the Finals MVP link is also sorta important as it tells you what "MVP" means, although that'll be gone once Dirk Nowitzki's photo has been replaced.
The Le Mans blurb has 18 words, and only 4(!) words are unlinked. Dunno which should be delinked on the other blurbs, perhaps al-Qaeda can be delinked too. Anyone who uses the internet knows what that is. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I've de-linked some of them. I wonder if anyone here thinks that we should de-link country names too. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, some people keep making this kind of requests. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
If you discount current country names, I don't think there is a problem with On this day. While the link proportion is high, year links are relevant to that section, and the vast majority of the non-country links are appropriate. —WFC— 13:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose the default de-linking of countries. As I stated here, a uniform convention eliminates the need to decide which are "unfamiliar" enough to link (a highly subjective/debatable determination, which is subject to cultural bias).
I also noted, as I have when similar discussions have arisen in the past, that the links don't exist solely to define unfamiliar terms; they also provide direct paths to articles containing relevant background information, which are especially valuable on the main page (which is commonly viewed by persons otherwise unexposed to Wikipedia's content and unaware of what to expect).
Similarly, we've conventionally linked sport names to the corresponding background articles. In this instance, I'm reasonably familiar with basketball, but I don't recall encountering the term "sports car racing" previously (and had only a vague notion of the underlying concept). Both articles provide highly relevant background information, though the latter has a referencing issue. Meanwhile, the al-Qaeda article contains three issue tags, so I can understand eliminating that link.
I agree that the List of NBA champions link was expendable. I'd say that the same of the link to Prime Minister of Turkey (which contains relatively little information), so I'll remove it. But let's continue this discussion, please. —David Levy 14:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm at a total loss to understand why any editor who's worked hard to prepare and shepherd an article through the ITN, OTD, DYK, or TFA processes would want to swamp the main-page link to it (a link finally earned, to their pride) with invitations to divert to many articles that probably haven't been even been visited and checked for the occasion—articles that have escaped the close scrutiny expected for main-page exposure. But at the gateway processes, it's as though the subject article—occasionally a double, in hooks—is the only thing at stake. (The exception might be the year-links in OTD, which are, as it were, intro. titles to their hooks.) Why, then, are diversionary links inserted as though the purpose of the main page were to divert readers away from the subject article?

    It is one of the weirdest things I've come across at Wikipedia that visitors to this showcase page should be encouraged to divert to links in competition with the one to the article we've finally allowed to be the topic of the hook or the day? Does anyone seriously think a reader once diverted will obediently click back to the hook and re-click to the article you've slaved over? Are the secondary links that currently dominate the main page not all present—typically in prominent positions—at the subject articles? (If not, why not?)

    I urge participants to discuss how they want the MP to function—especially, why links should not function solely to funnel visitors to the subject articles, from which readers can choose further links if they wish within a much fuller context. Tony (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer is that directing readers to the "shepherded" articles isn't the main page's sole purpose; it also showcases Wikipedia as a whole.
Stroking editors' "pride" is much lower on the list of priorities. —David Levy 14:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
David Levy, the articles have been selected to showcase WP as a whole, haven't they? Otherwise, why have the gateways and the rules? Why scrutinise at all. Why is ITN mostly linked to articles that are not unfolding events, and DYK to articles that are not newish? Why have these different categories if the links all fuzz into one big porridge in terms of their function? The simple reply to your post above is: Are the links not already in the subject articles, in context?

Second, you have taken one phrase I wrote, out of context and falsely exaggerated ("stroking"), to try to discredit my overall point. That's a bit easy, isn't it? Tony (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I reject the premise that "the links all fuzz into one big porridge in terms of their function." We might sometimes overlink, but given the proper balance, the bold links are distinct. Readers also click through to the others because they're useful.
Yes, the bold-linked article typically contains similar links, but we're trying to convey Wikipedia's comprehensive nature to new visitors (who have never seen one of our articles and otherwise might or might not click through at all).
And I wasn't trying to discredit your comments. We do seek to reward editors' work (thereby encouraging them to continue). My point was only that our main goal is provide a service to readers. —David Levy 15:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a balance to be had between plain text and wikilinks, and I agree that we don't have the balance right. However, the assumption being made here is that article hit counts from the main page are zero-sum. I disagree. Editors will only click on something that interests them in some way. Some articles will unconditionally interest particular readers (such as those at ITN). Others are worthy encyclopaedic subjects, but require the vast majority of would-be readers to be tempted (such as the subjects of DYK). OTD lies somewhere between the two, as do the wikilinks in TFA and TFL. —WFC— 14:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
WFC, why do you think article hits won't come from links in the actual subject articles readers click to (or are less likely to, at the moment)? Tony (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Tony: I believe they will, but only if the reader goes to that article in the first place. If that article doesn't interest them, they won't navigate through to the other one. —WFC— 15:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
(EC)Looking at view stats of my DYKs, the readers would, most of the time, click the first available link. So in formulating in DYK hooks, as much as possible, I make sure that the boldfaced link is the first link.
Also, for some reason readers click on the names whether they're boldfaced or not, and not on the verb that is boldfaced link.
Note that this doesn't always apply to ITN blurbs since articles already have massive page views even prior to the posting. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That ties in with my point about conditional vs unconditional interest. On the left hand side of the main page (and TFL), the emphasis should very much be on drawing attention to the specific articles that we are promoting. On the right hand side, while we have taken linking a little too far, there is far less need. That side is very much there to draw the masses into Wikipedia, through whatever method happens to take their interest. —WFC— 15:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to gas-bag on too much (would like to hear what other editors think). But WFC: "Tony: I believe they will, but only if the reader goes to that article in the first place. If that article doesn't interest them, they won't navigate through to the other one."—Do you think some readers might recoil from the sea of blue and be less inclined to click than they would if we shoved their nose in a single link, for example to the ITN dynamic article that the hook is about? I'm trying to visualise what it would look like, clean black text with just one "button" per hook (bolded not, I'm unsure). The page as a whole might look a lot more in control ... Howard the Duck: very interesting stats take. Is there a link or a facility for counting DYK links, and those from other sections? Tony (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
You can compare view stats on Henrik's tool, you'd just have to do it manually for every link on the blurb though. It's not always like that, as there are too many variables (such as how compelling the link is, the topic, the number of people who know about the topic, if the links already had massive page views, etc.). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Tony: I think both of our views are valid schools of thought, and I agree that it's worth opening the floor here. While I question the extent to which we need to cut back, I am in agreement with everyone else that we have too many bluelinks at present. It's just a question of degree. —WFC— 16:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That's an excellent point. —David Levy 16:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear the general admission that the main page is overinked. Wanting to showcase wikipedia as a whole presupposes what we try to showcase is indeed worth showcasing in the first instance. If we are to systematically link to country articles, as has been insisted upon by someone above, ought we not to ensure that those country articles are at least up to GA standard? There is no such check at present. Of course we should not remove all the warts, otherwise we will not gain new contributors – those who might feel the dire need for something requiring an immediate fix; OTOH, those showcased articles shouldn't be a total embarrassment. Memories are short... need I remind you all that it was just a few short months ago when we had the scandal at DYK. Not needing one again is another good reason to get out of that overlinking habit. With in excess of 5 million daily hits at Main Page, we could be lulled into thinking clicks from Wikipedia's main page are infinite. Truth is they are not. The average DYK article gets maybe 3-5000 hits. All things being equal, I confidently expect that number to rise when we get more restrained and focussed with our linking. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Ohconfucius: Why would countries need to be up to GA status? There is a degree of priority given to quality articles at OTD, but very few ITNs and DYKs are GA, FA or FL. —WFC— 15:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that you answered your own question, honestly. I can understand removing links to articles tagged for serious issues, but setting GA as a minimum standard is going much too far. It's one thing to avoid advertising problematic content, but we should seek to provide an honest/realistic representation of Wikipedia as a whole, thereby emphasizing the fact that it's a work in progress in need of contributions from the public.
But yes, overlinking is a separate issue that should be addressed. —David Levy 16:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect. Overlinking is NOT a separate issue that should be addressed. I opened this thread believing it to be the No.1 problem here on the front page. I only got sidetracked into country articles because someone above mentioned it. Case in point about quality problems, though... there isn't even a quick fail test for wikilinks from the main page. It isn't an attractive showcase if readers click on links to find equally dense linking – but thankfully that is generally speaking not the case though there are specific exceptions. I would hereby challenge you to conduct a survey other home pages: my contention is that where there are a small number of linkables, I would not be surprised if they were all linked – they usually are. I believe that in web portals created by marketing professionals, cases where there are a large number of linkables which crystallise a high proportion of links are few and far between. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
If anything, the Main Page looks like the old Yahoo! home page -- lots of blue links. On the new version, either one bullet point is entirely linked, or there's a big link at the top and a short unlinked paragraph after it, follow sometimes by another link such as "more" or "video". –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I find Yahoo!.com portal strangely preferable to the style of linking we have here. They are an equally high number of linkables as we do, and it's not as if Yahoo don't have enough content, yet they have chosen to make one clean link per hook. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I meant that the issue of what types of subject to link is separate from your suggestion of setting GA as a minimum quality rating (the focus of my reply, up to that sentence). I didn't mean that the former shouldn't be discussed in this thread. —David Levy 16:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

File:20110614ITNalt.GIF
In the news 14 June 2011 – mock-up without auxillary links

To further the discussion, I've just done a mockup of yesterday's main page, purely for comparative purposes and discussion. Put them side by side. Note that I have taken out all the 'unfocussed' links from ITN and OTD, but left the bolding intact. Another alternative may be to remove the bolding altogether. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be an excellent format if Wikipedia were a news website instead of a comprehensive encyclopedia. —David Levy 03:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that second screenshot is soooo much better. Gone is the scattered mess. Readers, I believe, are more likely to click on the subject of the hook, rather than just the first blue they see in a hook (as pointed out by Howard above). It does not expose us to the need to audit all 30 articles that are linked to in the first screenshot before they're exposed on the main page—yet all of the links are presented to readers once they go to the subject article, and in full context. Visually, this is looking more professional. (I'd even rather have the Yahoo whole-hook-as-one-big-link, actually, than the scattergun effect we now use.) Tony (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The current format conveys the website's basic nature (i.e. that it's a comprehensive encyclopedia, not a news website with one-off reports about these events) and enables us to clarify potentially unfamiliar concepts (e.g. the term "MVP" outside North America) for the benefit of those who would prefer to gain background knowledge before diving in to the bold-linked subjects (and otherwise might not even realize that such articles exist).
The proposed format sacrifices these attributes, based upon the premise that some readers are following the "wrong" links, so we should remove the ones that actually interest them, thereby forcing them to click on the "right" links (assuming that they don't simply leave the page instead). —David Levy 04:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I concur with David. I agree that there is some overlinking (King of France is silly), but the Main Page is not an article, so WP:OVERLINK isn't as applicable. As has been stated numerous times in the archives, the Main Page is for readers, and it has a wider audience than a specific article will. In your example, I think it's unconscionable that in OTD Tran Dynasty is not linked. We shouldn't dictate to the reader that they need to follow a desired path. howcheng {chat} 06:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
You're right, the main page is not an article: for this reason, the normal practices of linking should be different—more selective linking, not less than in an article, because of the unique function of this page. You both appear to assume this means "link everything in sight". I put it to you that it means "link just to the subject article—the whole point of the hook—and let the reader choose other links from there." Why is it that your concept of "a comprehensive encyclopedia" is premised on linking more than half of the words, submerging the link to the topic article within them (even when bolded, which is ugly in itself), and creating an ungainly, noisy mess of a page? My concept of a comprehensive encyclopedia is to provide functional links and a professional-looking page that navigates to the articles that have gone through a specialised process; it is from those articles that readers might choose from a high number of contextual links. What, then, is wrong with the second screenshot above? Tony (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
You're right, the main page is not an article: for this reason, the normal practices of linking should be different—more selective linking, not less than in an article, because of the unique function of this page.
As noted above, one of the page's unique functions is the illustration of Wikipedia's comprehensiveness for the benefit of new visitors unfamiliar with its basic nature.
You both appear to assume this means "link everything in sight".
Then you obviously haven't correctly processed our comments (assuming that the above statement is sincere).
I put it to you that it means "link just to the subject article—the whole point of the hook—and let the reader choose other links from there."
And we dispute the premise that this is "the whole point of the hook."
My concept of a comprehensive encyclopedia is to provide functional links and a professional-looking page that navigates to the articles that have gone through a specialised process; it is from those articles that readers might choose from a high number of contextual links.
Again, the main page functions as a gateway not merely to highlighted articles, but to the encyclopedia as a whole. Someone viewing the main page might be entirely new to the site and unfamiliar with its basic format. You either ignore/discount this scenario or expect such users to somehow know that they'll find links to background information or not care whether they will.
You also assume that our objective is to force readers down a predetermined path. It's particularly odd to apply this principle to the On this day... section, for which the bold links lead to articles requiring no special characteristics (e.g. recent creation/expansion/updates or "featured" status). The "specialised process" (which, to be clear, I'm not criticising) ensures that the articles are varied in topic, relevant to the blurbs' main focus and apparently compliant with Wikipedia's normal quality standards (i.e. not tagged due to content concerns). And yet, you believe that we should require readers to visit these articles instead of navigating directly to articles of interest to them (whose existence, if unlinked, might be unknown to said individuals).
I strongly disagree that deviating from the formats used by other websites (whose missions differ from ours) makes the page dysfunctional or unprofessional (let alone "an ungainly, noisy mess"). —David Levy 12:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I acknowledge this spirited defence of previous linking practices, on the premise that Main Page ought to be exempt from WP:Linking, and that it is a service to provide background to readers. That argument is surely blown out of the water by linking of dicdef terms such as 'basketball', 'standard', 'Billboard Charts', 'live album' and 'double album'. It is easily discerned by non-statisticians and without regression analysis, each of these "background articles" only received an additional 300 or so hits; whereas yesterday's TFA scored a massive 11 thousand hits; Judy Garland's article scored an additional 3k, which is understandable. It certainly demonstrates the need to be much more focussed than we are right now. The TFA's links to Belgium and Netherlands were also unnecessary and completely failed to provide background that more specific links to an article such as [1]. Back to the main issue, though, the disposition and selective bolding of the links make for a very motley piece of screen real estate, a certain disservice to the reader, IMHO. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I acknowledge the need to streamline what we link. I also acknowledge that half-way solution will involve subjective decision making. But surely the likes of The Book of Mormon, Battle at Chuong Duong and Habsburgs should be linked? Those aren't the only three, merely examples of why I think the above mock-up goes a little too far. —WFC— 10:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me remain in 'binary' mode for the sake of this discussion. Yes, if we depart from linking only the selected target in the hook, or linking of every single term, we necessarily enter into the realm of subjectivity. One discriminator for such subjectivity could come from applying the stronger 'germane' test, and not mere 'relevance'. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is relevance, but of overlinking of the blindingly obvious. I would instead suggest a "13 year old test". If the average 13 year old would know, or have a reasonably good idea, of what a term means, it definitely doesn't need linking. IMO that test would be no more subjective than whether a phrase is relevant/directly relevant/germane, yet comes closer to finding the common ground that there is in this discussion. —WFC— 16:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
That argument is surely blown out of the water by linking of dicdef terms such as 'basketball', 'standard', 'Billboard Charts', 'live album' and 'double album'.
Are you suggesting that all of those concepts are universally familiar? Are you suggesting that our articles amount to "dicdefs"?
It is easily discerned by non-statisticians and without regression analysis, each of these "background articles" only received an additional 300 or so hits
...which appears to contradict the theory that readers blindly follow an item's first link (which "basketball" was). —David Levy 12:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I never said that people blindly click on the first link, nor did imply same. However, I don't deny there is the temptation to click on the first can be strong (viz the notion of "location, location, location"). For me, the above examples of low click-through rates demonstrate the would-be reader's perception, despite the links' apparent relevance, that he/she has sufficient background in the subjects. Those 300 or so who clicked on each of those "background articles" may have drifted and never read the article that was designed to attract their attention. The drift is likely to be higher where the link is more germane – like the link to Judy Garland in the TFA cited above, but I believe there is a stronger likelihood that the reader may return in such a case, although again this may never be proven.

We as editors necessarily make choices; the portal that is the main page is but one of our platforms. We have 6,928,135 articles in our repertoire, and even at the current rate of linking on the main page, say 60 links per day, it would take us 60,000 days to rotate the content. However, links on the main page to our eight major portals, declined in a structured fashion, help to further channel the reader to parts of the encyclopaedia of most interest in a way the Main Page could never hope to accomplish on its own. Rotation of the content on a daily basis already helps to give a better overview to the reader (as David claimed to be the objective), but we shouldn't rely on the multitude of links in articles' hooks to do the job of orientation – they are a crude and unpredictable tool. Assuming current practices continue, many common terms – through their appearance in hooks on a regular basis – get Main Page exposure many more times than the focussed (and vetted) counterparts. 'Reader scatter' occurs once we arrive at the article level, the extensive links that send the reader in hundreds of directions which are near impossible to predict. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

David Levy, you say, "And yet, you believe that we should require readers to visit these articles instead of navigating directly to articles of interest to them (whose existence, if unlinked, might be unknown to said individuals)". The word "force" was also used above. Please do not twist my words. Where did I say that visitors to WP's main page should be required or forced to visit the articles that have inspired the hooks?

You also say, "As noted above, one of the page's unique functions is the illustration of Wikipedia's comprehensiveness for the benefit of new visitors unfamiliar with its basic nature." So, the statement at the top that there are "3,659,036 articles in English" is unclear? And in what way do hundreds of links (rather than a few score of links) illustrate the basic nature. Forgive me, but aren't there links to Arts, Biography, Geography, History, Mathematics, Science, Society, Technology, and All portals, right at the top, visually prominent? And then further down, links to Community portal, Help desk, Local embassy, Communication in languages other than English, Reference desk, Site news, and the Village pump.

You do have strong ideas about the aims and purpose of this page, but I note that they are your own. Proof of that is the striking absence of any statement of aims, as I've raised in a thread two above. TCO has come up with some rather good ones that might be talking points. The aims should be by community consensus, not your or my opinion.

"And we dispute the premise that this is "the whole point of the hook."" Who is "we". And you're happy for nominators at the gateway processes to be reminded—often—that the subject article is not the whole point of the hook? Just OK me on that, and I'll let DYK nominators know, to start with. (I'm being pointy, but please respond to my thought experiment.) Tony (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say that visitors to WP's main page should be required or forced to visit the articles that have inspired the hooks?
Obviously, no one is putting guns to their heads. I mean that if we assume that they're to follow any dynamic main page links at all, you wish to restrict their options to these.
So, the statement at the top that there are "3,659,036 articles in English" is unclear?
That statement conveys sheer quantity and nothing else. It also is problematic in and of itself (a separate issue not germane to this discussion) and persists largely due to tradition/inertia. (As I recall, the most recent debate yielded no consensus, which defaulted to the status quo on the basis that "no consensus to remove" trumps "no consensus to retain.")
And in what way do hundreds of links (rather than a few score of links) illustrate the basic nature.
1. Hundreds?
2. The links illustrate Wikipedia's basic nature by linking to articles on a wide variety of encyclopedic subjects. They also enable us to clarify potentially unfamiliar concepts intrinsic to the items.
Forgive me, but aren't there links to Arts, Biography, Geography, History, Mathematics, Science, Society, Technology, and All portals, right at the top, visually prominent?
Yes, and readers selecting one of those navigational paths are presented with appropriate material. Other users look past that list (which could just as easily appear in a Web index) and focus on the main page's dynamic content. Such individuals might not even view a second page if we fail to adequately illustrate the encyclopedia's basic nature with concrete examples.
And then further down, links to Community portal, Help desk, Local embassy, Communication in languages other than English, Reference desk, Site news, and the Village pump.
What is the meta-content's relevance?
You do have strong ideas about the aims and purpose of this page, but I note that they are your own. Proof of that is the striking absence of any statement of aims, as I've raised in a thread two above. TCO has come up with some rather good ones that might be talking points. The aims should be by community consensus, not your or my opinion.
Agreed. Discussion is welcome. That's why I'm writing these replies instead of telling you to go away.  :)
Who is "we".
I meant "Howcheng and I" (referred to as "you both" in the message to which I was responding).
And you're happy for nominators at the gateway processes to be reminded—often—that the subject article is not the whole point of the hook?
Yes, I am. It certainly is a major point (and the selection processes' main focus), but it isn't "the whole point" of presenting the blurbs to readers.
Just OK me on that, and I'll let DYK nominators know, to start with.
You have my blessing. —David Levy 14:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion with interest and note that at present only a handful of editors have commented. I cannot phrase my opinions in such elegant terms as have been used, but if this is truly up for discussion, I would favour partial de-linking but cannot agree with the highly 'selective' approach mooted by Tony et al. As a for instance, earlier today we were presented with a DYK hook regarding a rather attractive dam in Austria. My immediate reaction was 'ooh, I'd like to know a bit more about dams, I'm fascinated by their construction etc etc', so I reached for the dam link, not the Kölnbrein Dam link as others may prefer. It could be argued that 'dam' is a dicdef but no, it's a good quality and pretty comprehensive article (although not a GA or FA) which taught me more about dams in general. This is one of the main purposes of this encyclopedia. Ok, so it's not such a great example as it would be simple enough for me to type "dam" into the search box but clicking a link is so much simpler and more intuitive. I fear that the policy favoured by Tony et al would be going too far. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 13:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you go back to read Kölnbrein Dam, perchance? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict with OC, who got to my point immediately) So it would have been an unpleasant experience to simply click on the subject link, Kölnbrein Dam, which is what the hook is about? From the opening sentence there, you don't get to dam (Starts, "A dam is a barrier that impounds water or underground streams." Gee, no wonder a pillar says "WP is not a dictionary".). But you do get to a fascinating article on arch dams, the type that is the Kölbrein. And from arch dams, if you really want it, the opening phrase contains dam. Presenting a waterfall of links to the most generalised articles isn't the same as stressing the comprehensiveness of en.WP; in fact, encouraging visitors to move through more specific articles is a better way of showing them our structures—sideways, upwards, downwards: "look where this hook subject can lead to", rather than "you can directly look anything these articles that have a more tenuous relationship to the hook subject; we didn't really need to develop that DYK or ITN hook ...". To me, the first is a more serious, professional opening to visitor, and is ultimately one that will present a better experience. Tony (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If someone seeing the blurb simply wishes to read about dams, what's the problem? Why make people jump through hoops to reach their desired content?
"We know what's best, so you'll take this specific path and you'll like it." and "We went to the trouble of [fill in the relevant qualification, which isn't even applicable to OTD], so you should read that article first." aren't attitudes conducive to furthering Wikipedia's core mission. (Neither is an actual quotation, of course.) —David Levy 14:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
They can type it into the search box, which is a very useful tool we want our visitors to know about. If they're that desperate to read about "dam". Why stop at "dam"? I notice in the blue-mess screenshot above, words like "soldier" and "Somali" and "blog" and "opposition" and "elected" and "term" are not linked. Why not? What if I wanted to go straight to blog. You're stopping me.

We have to draw a line, and the line is being drawn at ITN towards linking almost every noun that appears. We had this debate years ago about articles. There is not the faintest reason such extraordinary abuse of our wikilinking system should persist on the main page. People are free to wander about the site as they wish by clicking on the subject articles, which actually provide many more links than are possible in a hook, in context. Again, I want hard-working editors at the gateway processes to know that their efforts are being cast as just a partial purpose; the rest as espoused here is not written down, as it should be by consensus, but is the opinion of just one or two regular editors. Tony (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh jeez. For the record, I did visit the Kölnbrein Dam article, but that is immaterial. I personally favour a middle ground; I don't like the first screenshot as it does indeed look faintly daft to have so many links but conversely, I don't like the second screenshot either as I don't think it has enough links. Taking that screenshot as an example, I may well want to know (straightaway) what 'MVP' meant, or what the 2011 Syrian uprising was all about, rather than having to read the specific subject article of the hook first. I think the onus should be on the editor tasked with preparing the blurb of the hook to include appropriate linking, and a discussion such as this is a useful reminder not to overlink. As is this. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 16:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


They can type it into the search box, which is a very useful tool we want our visitors to know about.
Yes, but this won't help a visitor lacking the expectation of finding such an article here. As I've noted several times, the main page is viewed by users possessing no prior experience with Wikipedia.
If they're that desperate to read about "dam".
I don't know why you continually denigrate that informative article, which is far from a dicdef.
Why stop at "dam"? I notice in the blue-mess screenshot above, words like "soldier" and "Somali" and "blog" and "opposition" and "elected" and "term" are not linked. Why not?
As you noted, the line must be drawn somewhere. I agree that we sometimes have overlinked, but I strongly disagree that the solution is to move to the opposite extreme.
We seek to link terms that are centrally relevant and/or likely to be unfamiliar to readers. In this context, "Somali" would have been linked to Somalia, if not for the latter's link at the end of the sentence.
What if I wanted to go straight to blog. You're stopping me.
No, we're providing a sufficient illustration of the encyclopedia's basic nature, thereby encouraging readers to utilize the aforementioned search box for terms that aren't linked or don't appear at all.
There is not the faintest reason such extraordinary abuse of our wikilinking system should persist on the main page.
You're begging the question. And while you needn't agree with my arguments, I don't appreciate having them dismissed in this manner.
People are free to wander about the site as they wish by clicking on the subject articles, which actually provide many more links than are possible in a hook, in context.
And you either expect them to know this beforehand or don't care whether they do.
Again, I want hard-working editors at the gateway processes to know that their efforts are being cast as just a partial purpose.
And I've given you the requested "OK" to tell them.
The rest as espoused here is not written down, as it should be by consensus, but is the opinion of just one or two regular editors.
Perhaps we've been lax in documenting our conventions and the reasoning behind them, but the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Of course, consensus certainly can change, and no one has asserted that the matter isn't open for discussion or that certain editors' opinions are sacrosanct. —David Levy 16:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
How could you possibly say "the proof is in the pudding" when the recipe is either made up on the spot or a secret known only to a small handful? Actually, no, it's a 'fusion cuisine' of the cultures of ITN, DYK, and OTD, each of which is arrived at as much by accidents of evolution than by specific design. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The current main page linking practices reflect consensus up to this point, arising organically and affirmed via various discussions held over the years (which presumably could be found in the archives by someone with enough patience).
As noted above, no one has asserted that consensus is immutable. I'm merely disputing the idea that an absence of formal documentation is the same as a lack of longstanding agreement. —David Levy 03:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I had no idea the de-linking crusade had made it to ITN, but David's comment just above describes how Wikipedia works very clearly. Consensus can be (and often is) arrived at though practice and without formal discussion. That fact doesn't make the consensus less real. And even if you did insist that there be a formal policy, policy is descriptive.
Overly de-linkiing postings directly contridicts the purpose of ITN: To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. De-linking makes it harder and slower for readers to find content they are looking for. RxS (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
"Crusade"? RU sure you didn't mean "jihad"? ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
If they are searching for an article related to the unfolding event, why is it so unpleasant for them to click on the unfolding-event article first? That will have all of the related links—many more than could be crammed into a hook—in full context. That is the way WP is supposed to work. This idea that readers are being short-changed or robbed because a word isn't linked comes from the old "Build the Web" days of obsessive linking, before we realised wikilinking beyond a certain density becomes is degraded. That is the current state of much of the main page—especially ITN. What is the point of preparing the subject article? RxS, you're back to your argument for never ever reforming, improving: "Consensus can be (and often is) arrived at though practice and without formal discussion." Says who? Just those who want to retain a link-everything practice here. Please accept that many other people want the main page to emerge from its current ugly appearance and degraded function. Tony (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Because they may not be interested in the main topic and may not want to click through 2 or 3 pages before getting to the topic they are interested in. Why make harder for those folks to access the content that drew them in, or even obscure it to the point that they may not even know it's there? As far as consensus and policy goes, policy has been described and arrived at here that way for years. That's just the truth. You may consider the current practice ugly, but many people now and in the past have not. I'm not against improvement and reform, but it needs to be brought about by discussion and agreement. Not by claming that somehow "we" have realised something. This is still a wiki and the only degradation going on by overly de-linking is the ease of which our readers navigate around the site. RxS (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
"Because they may not be interested in the main topic"—Well, I say that's just too bad. Go onto the next hook. Or click on one of the other theme buttons. A hook's a hook, and we can't expect everyone to be fascinated with all of them.

Your assumption seems to be that it's all too much bother for a reader to click on the subject link and then click on a link, in proper context. What is so hard about that? Again, if they don't want to click on Kölnbrein Dam, fine. Type in dam. Linking everything in sight, competing against the carefully prepared hook subject article, just fizzles our great wikilinking system into blue porridge. Tony (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Because they may not be interested in the main topic"—Well, I say that's just too bad.
And this attitude is inconsistent with our core objective of serving readers (which far outweighs our secondary goal of rewarding editors).
Your assumption seems to be that it's all too much bother for a reader to click on the subject link and then click on a link, in proper context.
Your assumption seems to be that everyone viewing the main page is familiar with Wikipedia's basic nature and aware that such articles exist and are accessible in that manner. If you disagree with my argument to the contrary, please dispute it instead of continually ignoring it and and reiterating your point as though it hasn't been addressed repeatedly.
What is so hard about that? Again, if they don't want to click on Kölnbrein Dam, fine. Type in dam.
Again, this is not a likely course of action on the part of someone lacking an expectation that the Dam article exists.
Linking everything in sight, competing against the carefully prepared hook subject article, just fizzles our great wikilinking system into blue porridge.
Yet again, you've claimed that your opponents wish to link "everything in sight." Such hyperbole is not helpful.
Your assertion that the non-bold links are "competing against the carefully prepared hook subject article" seems to reflect your belief that the main page exists primarily to reward editors. Time and again, discussions have affirmed the principle that it exists primarily for the benefit of readers.
And I'll note once more that OTD's bold-linked articles undergo no such careful preparation (as stated above, not a criticism of the section). Perhaps you'd like to address this point. —David Levy 16:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
If they are searching for an article related to the unfolding event, why is it so unpleasant for them to click on the unfolding-event article first? That will have all of the related links—many more than could be crammed into a hook—in full context.
Again, the main page is visited by newcomers unfamiliar with Wikipedia's basic nature, who might not realize that such articles exist and are accessible in that manner (and therefore might never click through in the first place). The single-link approach would mimic the style of news websites, thereby creating the appearance that we're merely offering one-off reports.
You're welcome to disagree with this argument, but continually ignoring it (and repeating your question as though it hasn't been addressed) is unhelpful.
That is the way WP is supposed to work.
You seem eager to apply our principles and practices for articles to the main page. The latter plays a substantially different role (and always has).
What is the point of preparing the subject article?
In the case of ITN, directing readers to articles created or updated to reflect recent/current events is the section-specific purpose (which is why those links appear in bold). But ITN is part of the main page, which serves as a gateway to Wikipedia as a whole.
"Consensus can be (and often is) arrived at though practice and without formal discussion." Says who?
Wikipedia:Consensus.
Just those who want to retain a link-everything practice here.
Straw man.
Please accept that many other people want the main page to emerge from its current ugly appearance and degraded function.
Please accept that many other people disagree with that description. —David Levy 16:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You (collective) have assiduously riposted most of the discussion arguments from me and from Tony, yet it seems that nobody has yet addressed the points raised above. I'm sure you didn't deliberately want to leave me with the last word... ;-). --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure someone or even multiple people have already answered your second post (since I saw something while glancing thru this discussion which I didn't read in entirety). There's no reason why we have to presume to know better than our readers. If they want to read something else and not the main hook, that's their choice. Also you seem to be contradicting what your supporters have said. If the number of increased visits to an non bold article from main page exposure is small then the fact that they get exposure multiple times is surely not an issue. (But the fact there are increased visits suggests they are not useless.)
Besides that, there is already a contradiction in that SA/OTD bolded items are liable by nature to appear one time per year (although there is some rotation of OTD) and to a lesser extent this is true for ITN yet DYK and TFA are only allowed once. Finally the chance that portals will ever achieve the same effect as main page exposure is likely to be small no matter how much prominence we give them. The simple fact is many people have no desire to look at a portal even though they may check out things which interest them if shown on the main page.
Also without some sort of survey or evidence, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the first link thing. While I don't deny there is probably some bias to the first link, and if a person had poor eyesight or disables bolding then there is probably a strong first link bias but for the rest, I strongly suspect the bold link has far more bias then the first link. When glancing thru the main page without properly reading each hook, which I suspect is resonably common, the bold link stands out far more then the first link which I sometimes barely even notice. And I don't think this has anything to do with experience of the main page but human nature.
Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
As for your first post, well for starters there is already subjectivity in the selection of the bolded items. Even though all four sections do have minimum quality considerations and vetting, the are way to many items that could fit that some degree of subjectivity arises. Definitely in ITN the decision of which items have enough international interest etc to appear comes in to play. Similar in SA/OTD, we aim for balance and we also consider importance. I'm less familiar with DYK but my impression is that even with the very high rotation there they still have too many hooks so how interesting the hook is can have some effect on how likely it is to appear. As for TFA, while Raul654 doesn't tend to comment significantly on his choices, the fact that AFAIK, there is a bias for appearing on the main page against certain topics for which we have a lot of articles like video games strongly suggests there is some degree of subjectivity with considerations like diversity, balance and importance. Similarly the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests has various considerations which are ultimately subjective (for example while whether or not an article is a Vital article may be objective, the actual selection of vital articles is ultimately a subjective process). And of course even our quality requirements have a degree of subjectivity. In other words, if you plan to eliminate subjectivity on the main page you've failed in the first instance. And many people will find it inherently harmful to remove such subjective considerations as importance, balance, diversity as well as any attempts to make quality a completely objective consideration.
Of course I'm not denying that by adding more links we are adding another very subjective process. Rather what I'm saying is the bigger question should be whether the main page is better or worse for it. In other words, does the main page better serve as a vehicle to direct our readers to articles that may be of interest and to illustrate the diversity, comprehensiveness and quality of our content? I think we mostly agree it doesn't really help with the quality component, to some extent that's what the bolded articles are for (although only TFA and TFP can really said to have quality as their primary consideration). In my opinion the answer is it does for the other considerations. Apparently a number of people feel the same. (As has been stated, rewarding editors and encouraging the participation of more editors should only be a minor consideration.)
Just to be clear I'm not opposed to reducing subjectivity when we can and do think it can be a good thing. I just also think it's not always helpful.
You can of course make such considerations about some of the stuff that has been discussed like linking country article. Personally I somewhat agree with David Levy that it's probably better if we either don't link to countries (unless it's considered highly relevant to the topic) or always link to countries rather then try to gauge which ones our readers may need a link for, but I may be talked around.
Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Side comment (someone's got to say something of readable length). I take issue with the suggestion that there are only four sections. At Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions, we have started off with very much a blank canvass. Think of it as an experiment – a way of finding out what TFAR might look like if we got rid of the rules and started again. —WFC— 16:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with WFC. That brings up a deeper issue: the over-segmentation of the main page: it is both structural and visual, and has its roots in the way the main page has evolved as carved-up real-estate for discrete interest groups. I do think it's time to tweak the design in just a very minor way that should upset no one but lessen the segmented visual "feel" of the page and the text crowding. Tony (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, we're going hopelessly off-topic, but at least we agree on something! An aesthetic revamp is sorely needed. On the other hand, despite possible shortcomings of individual processes (I'm sure TFL will eventually build the same marmite-like reputation that TFA, DYK and ITN have), from a strategic point of view it continues to do its job well. The highest four sections aim to attract readers and/or editors from four very different angles, while the lower bits are more niche.
On-topic, I would point people to my suggested compromise approach here. —WFC— 19:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
If you examine the chronology, you will see that noone has replied to my post referred to above.
  • If the number of increased visits to an non bold article from main page exposure is small then the fact that they get exposure multiple times is surely not an issue. WP:NOHARM: One of the key arguments about the current approach to linking is the service and choice it provides to readers. Of the 4-5 million visits to the main page, a 'common term' linked on MP appears to receive only 300 more visits compared to its basal readership. This indicates that a)most readers are not dupes and they can probably detect an redundant link when they see one, or b)they know exectly what they want and will go straight for it. That TFAs get upwards of 10k hits (still a small proportion of our daily MP visitation) indicates that is the content casual visitors to the MP want to see. OTOH, I suspect even the most banal item linked to the MP will get a basal response rate of around 200 hits, but that is my conjecture, I admit. Given the low click-through rate of these, their existence must be questioned as being of next to no utility, and can be removed without the blinking of an eye. We can take an educated guess as what would constitute such an unnecessary link, but one refinement would be to build up an understanding of same, through detailed analysis of historical MP links.
  • there is already a contradiction in that SA/OTD bolded items are liable by nature to appear one time per year Please don't misquote. I said: "Assuming current practices continue, many common terms – through their appearance in hooks on a regular basis – get Main Page exposure many more times than the focussed (and vetted) counterparts" I made no connection between "Bolding" and repeated appearance in that sentence.
  • The simple fact is many people have no desire to look at a portal even though they may check out things which interest them if shown on the main page. If we believed that, it would be a strong argument to unlink all our portals. ;-) However, the hit count of portals appears to indicate that assertion is patently untrue – they have a non-negligible daily baseline count of between 2k and 6k each. DYKs typically achieve 3k; the best DYK would achieve 7k per [6-hour] day.
  • the bold link stands out far more then the first link which I sometimes barely even notice – but why does it have to be bold in the first place? If we were more sparing in not creating the "useless links", bolding is unnecessary.
  • In other words, does the main page better serve as a vehicle to direct our readers to articles that may be of interest and to illustrate the diversity, comprehensiveness and quality of our content? That is an exercise in subjectivity and editorial judgement. However, we are handicapped by the lack of comprehensive studies to find out who are readership are, from whence they come and what they want out of The Wikipedia Experience™. What we do have information on is what they do not want. We need to realise that we are long past the time when we needed to create links just to "Build the Web". Many here have expressed that they find excessive blue detrimental to their reading experience. Less has got to be more. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with everything in Ohconfucius's post. I like TCO's 13-year-old rule, but for normal WP articles. Here, I'd be stricter in the five (Mondays six) themed sections: there's a unique need to funnel readers to vetted, prepared articles that define the very different functions of TFA, OTD, DYK, and ITN—all good choices, I must say, but their distinctive rationales must not be allowed to be squandered by a mass of links that belie them. Linking to secondary targets should be primarily from the subject articles, not directly in competition with the link to those subject articles from the main page. Today's featured pic is a slight exception to this, since there's no specially prepared and vetted article. Tony (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
So which is it? Extra links are bad as they compete for attention with the main article, or are they redundant because everyone ignores them anyway? Those two viewpoints are seemingly contradictory, and I don't see how you can support both of them, unless the true rationale is more "I don't like it", and you're fishing for backing. For what it's worth, I categorically reject the notion that readers need to be "funneled" into the featured article, or that it's somehow an affront that a reader might choose to click through a non-featured article and then never go back to read the featured one. There have been *numerous* times where I have no interest in the "target" article, but something about the ancillary ones piques my curiosity. For example, I have no interest in the "Kingdom of Africa" (current DYK), but I was interested to figure out who the "Sicilian Normans" were. (BTW, the phrase "Sicilian Normans" appears nowhere in the "Kingdom of Africa" article - it's hidden behind a link to "Siculo-Normans", which actually goes to the article "Italo-Norman".) Or the DYK blurb yesterday for Empire Deben, which mentions the Canberra, but whose article has the link buried deep at the end of the page. I find it annoying to have to read through an article I have no interest in just to find a link to an article I do. And just using the main search box won't work, as Canberra isn't the appropriate article (as it's not a ship), and the disambiguation page isn't any help either, as that lists three Canberras (SS Canberra, USS Canberra (CA-70), HMAS Canberra), and that last is effectively a disambiguation page for three different ships. Given that the blurb mentioned the Fauklands War, I'd probably have looked at the military ships, and then been completely confused, as there *wasn't* an HMAS Canberra around during the Fauklands. It's actually the SS Canberra that was referred to, and the only way I know that so easily is because I clicked through the non-bolded link on the blurb. BTW, I think it's entirely reasonable that Main Page blurbs have a higher density of links than articles themselves, as, by their very nature of being summaries, they contain a higher density of linkable content (e.g. nouns) than long-form prose articles do. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, we have no such goal of "funnel[ing] readers" to the bold-linked articles. It's reasonable to opine that we should, but you've continually asserted that we already do (and that our format therefore fails in this respect), while largely ignoring my explanations of why we don't and reiterating your points as though they haven't been addressed. —David Levy 17:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
1. The idea that we shouldn't link a term understood by an average thirteen-year-old relies upon an incorrect assumption that the sole objective is to clarify unfamiliar terms. In actuality, we also link to articles of direct relevance to the items, thereby providing easy access to background information and informing newcomers that such articles (and others like them) exist.
Additionally, we must be mindful of cultural bias. To some, the terms "American," "Chinese" and "Irish" have patently obvious meanings. Others might interpret them differently.
2. Conditions in which "many people desire to look at a portal" and "many people have no desire to look at a portal" are not mutually exclusive, so I don't know why you've deemed Nil Einne's assertion "patently untrue" and claimed that if it were true, "it would be a strong argument to unlink all our portals" (unless you misread it as a claim that "not many people desire to look at a portal"). —David Levy 17:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Y'all know that we'd eventually cut down on the blue links, not just on the point that there's one link per blurb. What's the compromise? I guess we've seen enough of the merits of both proposals, it's just people here have to work out on what links to leave out, and "all of them" isn't among the options. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

David Levy, "Again, we have no such goal of "funnel[ing] readers" to the bold-linked articles." When you say "we", you mean "I", yes? Tony (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I mean the community at large. You seem to believe that the longstanding main page format is accidental. It isn't.
As noted above, it's reasonable to argue that x should change to accomplish y. You prefer to argue that accomplishing y has been our goal all along, thereby painting x as a failure. In actuality, x is successful at accomplishing z.
And if you want me to notice your replies, please thread them correctly instead of randomly indenting them below unrelated messages. —David Levy 11:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Belgian album charts
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_159&oldid=1252054602"