Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:50, 2 April 2007 view sourceJeandré du Toit (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers18,684 editsm →Main page general discussion: subsection vandal encouragement day comments← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:28, 9 January 2025 view source Modest Genius (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,313 edits →Proposal: delink "English": opposeTag: Disambiguation links added
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion}}
	{{metatalk}}
			{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|autoconfirmed\|{{pp-vandalism\|small=yes}}}}<!--
	<!--
			Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page using the "NEW SECTION" tab, or use the "EDIT" link beside the section heading to add to it. The section edit link and "New section" tab are important, so please use them.

			-->{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}
	* Please start new discussions at the BOTTOM of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside a section heading to add to it. Thank you. *
			{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|autoconfirmed\|{{pp-vandalism}}}}

			{{Annual readership\|title=the Main Page}}

			{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
	GOOD!!'''Bold text'''
	-->
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|maxarchivesize = 200k
	\|counter = 95
			\|counter = 207
			\|minthreadsleft = 1
	\|algo = old(3d)		\|algo = old(3d)
	\|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
			{{MPH alert}}
	{{archives\|width=24em\|archivelist=Talk:Main Page/archivelist}}
			{{Centralized discussion}}
	{{TOCleft}}
			{{bots\|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 ] -->
	<br clear="all"/>
	{{Main Page ~~discussion footer}}~~		]
			__TOC__
	<div style="right:10px;display:none;" class="metadata topicon">'''{{CURRENTDATE}}'''</div>
			{{clear}}
	= Main page error reports =

	To report an error you have noticed on the current ] or ] please add it to the appropriate section below. You can do this by pressing the button to th right of the appropriate below section's heading. Also, please ] your post using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>)
			= Main Page error reports =
	{{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}}
			<!-- ---------------
	<br clear="all"/>
			Please do not write anything here.
	=Main page general discussion=
			Please go to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors to place an error report.

			To discuss the contents of the Main Page, please start a new discussion using the "New section" button above, or use the "" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.
	== Boxed links on T:MP ==
			--------------- -->
	Could someone make a box that would provide links to the errors section and the discussion section, so that users not familiar with WP's ToC system can still know where to post errors, now that the ToC is the first (and only, on many screens) thing that they see when they go to this page. Thanks in advance! ] ] 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
	:You mean we cannot revert back to using ] again? ] ] 22:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Or at least a modified version of it? ] ] 22:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::There would just be two or three links, and their target would already be places on this page. ] ] 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Lol this is going to go full circle soon isn't it? --] 01:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	:: A link to ] at the top of this page would be useful. Please make it big. --] 00:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::And it begins... --] 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::Whoops. I just noticed this section due to your above remark showing up in the page history. I'm not sure if you're referring to my recent addition of {{tl\|metatalk}} to the top of this page, or just the comment above. In any event, to respond in general with ''my'' intent: The "metatalk" message box was created independently of any of this. It was actually born on ]. I thought it might be useful on a few other pages, so I templatized it, and then added it here. It is definitely ''not'' specific to ], so it's not going to get feature creep in that direction. By the same token, if something is desired which ''is'' specific to the main page, it would have to either supplement or displace {{tl\|metatalk}} here. FYI, FWIW, etc. :) —] <small>(])</small> 12:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::: My remark was a bit snide, all I'm saying is that the header of this page started with one of those templates a while back and slowly things were added until it was a pageful of helpful links, recently it was removed as several people didn't like it. It's constantly evolving but seems to have come full circle. My snide remark was just a prediction that we will see it all again. (history never repeats ;) ) I'm not complaining about the situation, just observing it with morbid detached fascination. --] 00:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

	== Kewl Picture ==
	I know this is off the topic, and i know that this is not the place to discuss this, and i ''know'' this is the point of "picture of the day," but I would just like to say that today's picture looks '''''REALLY BLEEDIN COOL!''''' ]] 17:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
	:I agree completly that ] POTD is very cool (Link added so this makes sense in the archives.) ] ] 19:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
	]
	::Agreed. But you just try ] (where the hole underground vaporised by the blast has collapsed in), ], ] or the fact that they used to detonate these things ]! The entire ] article makes very interesting reading. While you're there, check out the ] (], and ]) and ]. ] makes pretty interesting reading, too. —]∴ <b>]]]</b> 20:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Ok I know this is un related to science, but don't you think there are ] cool pictures on ] today?:)--] 20:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::oooh...you're not falling in love with that Pashtun girl, are you? You think she's hot, don't you??? ;) ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 21:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::but... but... she is beautiful!!! awww... luck at picture..--] 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

	Wow. I never thought my comment would cause a reaction like this. Thank you, Vanderdecken, for reminding us just how scary atom/nuclear/hydrogen bombs, their testing, use and capabilities are. What gives people the right to destroy... everything in such a useless, dangerous show of violence? There is no way to justify ]. It's... more than disgusting. No words can actually describe it. A coffee table book, ''100 Suns'' by Michael Light, captures the horror of these blasts, as well as their eerie beauty (look out for it - ISBN 0-224-064517). Did you know they used to put soldiers within a few hundred meters of the blast to test the effect on the human body? Ugh. It makes me depressed. I need some pie... ]] 09:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC) <br> PS: I agree with Scheibenzahl. :-)

	== Change of policy/guidelines to dissallow fair use images on the main page ==
	There is a discussion at ] about dissallowing fair use images in the "Today's featured article" section. For example, if Superman were featured, an image of Superman would not be allowed. - ] 05:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Which is exactly why it's a ridiculous idea. ] 13:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	::If you'd like to discuss the issue, please discuss it there. ] 14:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::i agree <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px; background-color: blue;">]</span> 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::i agree ] 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

	== Piped link ==
	Why is the word "livable" piped linked to "quality of life"? "Livable" already redirects there, so it should just be a regular link.
	See ]. --] 07:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Thanks for pointing that out. I have to say we need more links to that section or something; nearly every TFA ends up having that same issue. ] 11:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Are we really supposed to 'fix' needlessly piped redirects? My reading of the policy is that you aren't supposed to fix unpiped redirects not that you are supposed to fix needlessly piped redirects ] 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	::If we're presenting the blurb as representative of our best work, then it shouldn't go against guidelines in any way. That's a good point, though, and I'll bring it up at ]. ] 13:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Why are you assuming that it's been "fixed"? The author may just as easily have piped the link originally. The injunction against fixing redirects is to avoid wasting time and server resources. There's no injunction against bypassing the redirect in the first place. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::] is off the main page now, so this discussion is irrelevant. If you'd like to discuss the issue of correcting redirects, please do so at the discussion at ]. ] 09:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

	== Great ==
	Great, another daunting message at the top. I'm getting tired... ] 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Please kill it with fire ] 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	::At least it's not a javascript alert. I have to say, browsing as an anon on my school computers is annoying. You could register an account, if you really wanted, but then there's the trouble of logging in and out. My only suggestion would be to try to override the message using a browser CSS style sheet. ]<sup>]</sup> § 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Oh, I thought you were talking about the orange new message boxes. The main page talk header looked so pretty before, and then I integrated the table of contents into the top, and it looked perfect! And it went downhill from there rather quickly. ]<sup>]</sup> § 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
	:You can remove it, if you like — "anyone can edit". Alternatively, you could attempt improvement. I've seen countless misplaced questions go unanswered, be removed without comment, etc. I know I'm not alone in thinking some kind of signpost is appropriate on some pages. We put big yellow signs on the side of the road to warn of dangerous curves for a reason — it turns out that most people don't like it when their cars go flying off the road into a tree. Perhaps such signs have a place here, too? —] <small>(])</small> 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::No, I'm not talking about the "new message" boxes. I'm talking about the red piece of crap at the top. There was a time when we had 400 of those messages on this page. Then I suggested we should remove them, since it scares everybody. The messages were removed, but WP:ERRORS was somehow merged into this one. That made it uglier than ever. But hey, at least the daunting messages were gone. Now they are back, and with a hand indicating STOP to make them even scarier. If it would look like a big yellow roadsign it would be much better. And I'm not going to remove it so it will start a whole edit war and so I'll get banned for vandalism. And I do have a registered account, but I am far too lazy to log in. Cheers! ] 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

	== PEPCON disaster ==
	I think you should feature an article about the PEPCON plant Which was one of two in the united states in 1988 in the Southeast Las Vegas Valley, Which was reported by http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/pepcon/ that it Exploded Killing two People, The Facility was making a Rocket Fuel Oxidizer Called Ammonium Perchlorate her is Wikipedias Page if you would like to learn more
	--] 22:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	:If you would like to get the ] to featured article status, please first edit the article according to our ]. You might want to also get creative feedback by posting on ]. Afterwards, apply for featured article status at ]. Thanks. ] ] 23:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


	== No featured article has been chosen for tomorrow ==
	A featured article needs to be chosen, quickly. None has been selected for April 1, 2007.{{unsigned\|Ahadland1234}}
	:No worries, Raul knows and has addressed the issue ].--]<sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> ] 15:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
	:: Things are now "back to normal" at <nowiki>]. :-) --] 17:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Ahahahaha. It's good to know people around here still have a sense of humor. ] 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

	==April fools.==
	===reads like a child's essay===
	In contrast to the usual quality of main page prose, the current state of the George Washington FA clip reads like it was written by a child. Someone with authority really needs to upgrade the prose. ] <small>(])</small> 00:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:{{tl\|sofixit}} ;-) --] 08:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	===Moreover, It Appears To Be a Spoof of Some Sort===
	The prose given in the clip does not appear in the article. "Woodland creatures?" "Psychoactive." Someone is playing an April Fool's Day Joke
	] 00:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Isentropiclift

	:It looks like it's there to me. The article discusses his love of animals, and discusses the advantages of caffeine for soldiers. Also, of course it's an April Fool's joke. --] 02:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::But everything is completely true; we made sure of that. · ] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">]</font></sup> 08:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	===April Fools Day content===
	To any admin: there is a lot of content at ] that has not been implemented on the main page yet (like the joke in the title bar, the DKY stuff, etc.). Could someone take care of this. There was a lot of discussion on the April Fools day talk page, and that is what we've (they've) come up with. Thanks. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:There is zero consensus for changes to the main page proper. —] 01:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::There was plenty of discussion on ]. Had you wanted to have a say, the page was open and advertised numerous times for your input. I believe there was consensus. I request that you, or anyone else, change the main page to reflect this. Thank you. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 03:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::No, I don't see consensus to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Maybe next year. ] 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Huh?! I was one of the most active participants. It isn't my fault that a handful of editors decided not to read most of the discussion. —] 03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::More or less the same thing happened last year too. A lot of people worked on the project, but didn't actually tell anyone about it, and then were disappointed when the changes were not implemented. --] 03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::This time, the consensus-backed elements ''have'' been implemented. Jared ignored most of the discussion and continued working on a rejected/abandoned concept. —] 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	: Can we ''please'' get rid of this obnoxious April Fools Day "tradition"? It just encourages the vandals and creates work that we spend the next 2 months cleaning up. ] <small>]</small> 13:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:: One in favor of compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia, and promoting the obnoxious April FOols Day Tradition. ] 17:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	===Cool===
	"George Washington was an early inventor of instant coffee ..." :o) ] 00:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:Best approach to April Fool's ever. Perfectly factual information, presented in the most ludicrous fashion possible. --] <small>]</small> 00:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Interesting how the country that he's from isn't mentioned at all but the first sentence refers to the front of a war which isn't actually referred to by name either. April Fool's on Misplaced Pages apparently means vague and ambiguous! :-) <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>\|] 00:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:Well done, everyone who's organized this! :). ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::That was a surprise to me too (I knew it was going to happen, but I forgot it was April Fools!). · ] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">]</font></sup> 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::: How ever: It reminds me on "instant Karma is gonna get You" ... as they say in Germany, where I come from: ''Umrühren und fertig.'' ] 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	===Good to know ...===
	Good to know that the powers-that-be at Misplaced Pages don't take themselves too seriously (for at least one day a year) ] 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	By the way, I love the Featured picture !!!! ] 00:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	: Yes, ]: "For at least one day in a year''. Anyway anything starts to begin: One time is always the first time. ] 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	===Great job!===
	Great job on the April Fool's day main page. I didn't help, but kudos on everyone who did. ] 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:I loaded up Misplaced Pages and thought it was vandalism or a joke! Turns out it was a joke. Great job. ] 01:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::I'm uncertain what's a joke and what's real - there's some article about a high-ranking penguin that's true. ] 02:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::It is all true. The featured article lead is slightly misleading/obfuscated, but it is true. —]→] • 02:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::Strictly speaking, everything on the Main Page at the moment is true. It's just (aside from ITN and some of the Anniversaries) completely ridiculous truth. —] 02:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::Excellent main page! ] 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::Excellent work! Great job at keeping it humorous, yet factual! ] 04:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	===]===
	Apparently, since no one has done anything about this yet, we need to gain some consensus about actually ''putting'' the content of that page onto the main page. What is the stance of people on this. I would suggest doing this fast (as AFD is about -3 hours away in UTC...) but I don't want to rush consensus. If nothing else, I love the little joke blurb in the top bar, because it suits the encyclopedia well, and for those who have no clue what AFD is, there's a link to it in the joke. Anyway, as soon as we get adequate consensus, we can put this up (unless people think there already is enought, given the talk page). <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 03:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:We're an encyclopedia, not a joke site. —<span style="color: red;">] (])</span> 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::Everything has to be real to be on the main page. And actually everything on it now is real (got me). ] <sup>]</sup> 03:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:The idea of changing the page's interface was rejected, Jared. You evidently didn't bother to read all of the discussion and continued working on this anyway. —] 03:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''', transwiki to Uncyclopedia. ] 03:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::Yeah, and Google's a highly regarded corporation, but that doesn't mean they can't have fun on AFD. From a standpoint of not being involved in any of the AFD discussions, I would respectfully say that a lot of work was put into making a semi-good page this year. I hope that we can do better than put a (quite good, actually) FA on the main page and actually have some funny content. What good is something that's serious all the time? We really have to lighten up, but not to the extent where we look like Uncyclopedia.

	::Regarding the "real" bit, everything on the proposal page is real, so I don't see your point. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 03:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::Not everything is real. Take a look at the proposed ITN section. And how about the Whopper bit under anniversaries? -- ''']''' 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:OK, all I'm asking is that we put up the "top bar" thing, that's sort of a joke. That's it. I forgot the other stuff was just place holder stuff from last year. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 03:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::Again, '''the idea of changing the page's interface was rejected. You should have read all of the discussion.''' —] 03:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::But from what you said it was only a few editors who contributed, so there might me a consensus lack somewhere. Regardless, let's start over because I think we're not being calm about this (me especially).

	:::What do we think about including a "joke" in the top bar which would look like this:

	{\|style="width:100%;margin-top:+.7em;background-color:#fcfcfc;border:1px solid #ccc"
	\|style="width:56%;color:#000"\|
	{\|style="width:280px;border:solid 0px;background:none"
	\|-
	\|style="width:280px;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;color:#000" \|
	<div style="font-size:162%;border:none;margin: 0;padding:.1em;color:#000">Welcome to ],</div>
	<div style="top:+0.2em;font-size: 95%">the 💕 that ].</div>
	<div style="top:+0.2em;font-size: 75%">(])</div>
	<div id="articlecount" style="width:100%;text-align:center;font-size:85%;">] articles in English</div>
	\|}
	\|}
	::: <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::No. Belittling readers is unacceptable. —] 03:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::::No. —<span style="color: red;">] (])</span> 03:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::::'''Absolutely not.''' <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup> <em style="font-size:10px;">03:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)</em>

	:::::::No. —]→] • 03:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::'''No.''' ] 03:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::::'''No''' ] <sup>]</sup> 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::::'''''No''''' -- ''']''' 03:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::::::<big>THE GREAT "NO" BARRIER!</big> Ok, I see your point. :) I give in. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 03:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::::::: '''No'''. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 07:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::::::::'''No'''. · ] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">]</font></sup> 08:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::::::::'''...no?''' --'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>''' 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:Well, I accept all of your opinions. I just fail to see why do dislike it so much. I don't see how it's "belittling" because it'd AFD, for one, and second, the explanation of the joke is right below it! If you have a better suggestion, please put it forward, but it seems that I'm working with people who are against the idea entirely, so I'm in a lose-lose situation. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 03:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::I thought it was funny, but whether or not we can have it on the main page? We can't - the mob has spoken! --] 04:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::I didn't care for that little gag too much either. Has there been any discussion on changing the list of portals on the top of the page? The ones on ] are all real portals. One or 2 are featured I think. <font color="maroon">]</font>'''<small>]</small>''<font color="navy" face="cursive">]</font>'''''<small>]</small> 04:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::I didn't notice that gag but thought the DYK section was really amusing and the FA was great! <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>\|] 04:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::Not yet. The portals are also a viable option. The page was "deleted" though because a few editors deemed that the whole thing has passed. I'm not going to revert it (because frankly, my counter is up) but if someone else wants to assert themselves by saying that this discussion is very much alive go ahead. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 04:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::::No real need to revert. The portals listed were ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. <font color="maroon">]</font>'''<small>]</small>''<font color="navy" face="cursive">]</font>'''''<small>]</small> 04:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::::I'm OK with it. It's a good way to jokify the page, truthfully! <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 04:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::::1. The page was ''not'' deleted.
	:::::2. Again, we established consensus against the idea of altering the page's interface. The portals that are listed are there for a reason, and replacing them with different portals would reduce the site's navigability. —] 04:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::::I know you didn't delete it, first of all, and second, no one uses those portal templates anyway. They're there for show. That's why I think it's alright, for NOT EVEN A FULL DAY, now, to do this. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::How do you know what other people do? —] 04:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::Magic. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 04:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::Anyway, April Fools is a holiday celebrating Hoaxes and Pranks. "Jokes" aren't really part of the whole April Fools ''thing''. I love today's meta-hoax mainpage articles. But, who would be "fooled" by a joke tagline? ] 20:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	*A real shame Wiki went without an April Fool's page. I'm surprised by the blatantly negative reaction. Kudos to Jared for making such an amusing page, though! I think it would have been a great success had it not been aborted. Part of being a good Wiki editor is knowing when to relax, and Jared's demonstrated clear mastery of that skill. ] 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::I just noticed it did go up (my browser cache must have made it lag). Common sense (and a sense of humor) win again! Good job. ] 08:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::Thank you for your kind words. I actually wasn't the one who created that page (nor did I really help at all) but I thought that was what everyone wanted, so I pushed for that. Unfortunately, we got so much negativism, I had to back off (though I would still support something...). By the way, what was on the main page that you saw? I don't think anything went up. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 12:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::Hi Jared. I was the one who created that template above, which brought significant discussion in and clarification to the April Fools Main Page project. The April Fools Main Page 2007 project was advertised in the community bulletin board for an extended period and all were invited to participate. The consensuses we reached in that project are valid for that project. For the April Fools Main Page 2007 project, consensus specifically rejected such a Main Page modification, and we agreed in late January 2007 that, ''"Text external to the mainpage boarder cannot be modified as part of the AFMP project, even if that modification would be a truthful, whimsical modification."'' The project went forward with that consensus as part of the project scope. Consensus of that project also agreed that, to make the modification that you proposed '''first''' would require the approval of the April Fools Main Page project. The '''second''' step would bring that issue to this page for consensus approval. We determined that the first step was a very important step to maintain the goodwill of the project and to avoid disrupting the Main Page talk page. Even if this Main Page talk page approved such a change, a '''third''' step would require something akin to the ] which involved the opinions of 943 participants over an 18-day poll/discussion. The project also spent a considerable amount of time revising its description to make all of this clear to anyone interested. The April Fools Main Page project did not approve modifying the text external to the mainpage boarder so I am unsure why you took ] and posted on this Main Page talk page. I also noticed that you listed yourself for ] on March 31st. Listing yourself for editor review and then bypassing the consensus approved steps of a project the next day to disrupt the Main Page talk page and reduce the goodwill of that project seems inconsistent. -- ] 16:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::::You and I both know very well that the last thing I wanted to do was disrupt the main page. I'm not a vandal, nor a moron! I was only acting on what I thought was a proposal that never took the next step. I'm sorry that you have to feel that way, but I tried to do the best I could from where the editors at that page left off. The discussion at that page never gave me the hint that there was drastic opposition to the idea, which is why I didn't just force a change to the main page, but proposed it here. When I saw that there was, in fact, drastic opposition here, I gave in and that's that. I don't see what I did wrong there. And thank you for describing some of the steps of your deliberations at the AFD2007 page. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 16:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::::As I've noted several times, what you "did wrong" was to ignore much of the discussion that occurred and assume that there was "consensus" for an idea that was explicitly rejected. When I attempted to explain this to you, you told me that "had wanted to have a say, the page was open and advertised numerous times for input." Had you bothered to read the very discussion that you cited, you would have realized that I was one of the most active participants. —] 16:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::I think Jared should take the comments of the naysayers as an April Fool's joke. It seems the only way such blatant "missing the point" (as well as the hostile rules lawyering attitudes) could go on for so long. Anyway, the main page has been altered, so Jared was clearly in the right since the main page wouldn't have been altered unless the higher ups approved it, which means it had consent all along. ] 18:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::Firstly, the content appearing on the main page is ''not'' what Jared was referring to. Secondly, it wasn't determined by "higher ups." That isn't how Misplaced Pages works. —] 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

			= General discussion =
			{{Shortcut\|T:MP\|WT:MP}}
			<!-- ---------------
			Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this talk page (e.g. using the "New section" button above), or use the "" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.
			---------------- -->

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	:'''Comment'''. Even wikinews put up a joke of some sort. Why shouldn't we at least ''link'' to it? I just noticed, ] is the same short form as ]. Is that what you were talking about? Thanks. ]]]]]<sup>(]+]+])</sup> 17:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			]
	::Yeah, I noticed that too. I usually write "Articles for deletion" as AfD, with lowercase f, so that's how I'm keeping them straight. As far as putting something up, I'm with you 100% but no one else is, so we're at a loss here. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 17:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Mian Page}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 01:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

			==Add number of editors in the topmost banner==
	===Things less important than comic strips and spagetti trees===
			I suggest this addition for the following reasons:
	*] - In ], the ] holds its first quorum and elects ] of ] as its first ].
			* It encourages people to become editors via argumentum ad populum.
	*] - ] ] of the ] announced the end of the ], when the last of the ] forces surrendered.
			* It is a interesting fact about the scale of Misplaced Pages
	*] - ]: ] - ] troops land on ] in the last campaign of the war.
			* It dispels reoccuring myth that only 100 or so admins edit Misplaced Pages
	*] - ]'s ] becomes an ] by a 98% vote, overthrowing the ] officially. --] 04:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			* It demonstrates the motto "anyone can edit".
			I suggest formatting it like this:
			<br/><div id="articlecount">] active editors · ] articles in ]</div><br/>
			] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

			*I strongly support this addition. '']'' ‹ ] — ] › 00:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Huh? The overthrow of the Shah, the first House Speaker, then end of the Spanish Civil War?? These are less important than comic strips and spaghetti trees? You'll need to explain... ] (]) 04:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			*''"100 or so admins edit Misplaced Pages" factoid actualy just statistical error. average admin does not edit Misplaced Pages. ], who lives in cave & passes RfA 10 times each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.''{{pb}}But yes, this seems like a great idea! <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I shall lend my support as I like this idea. It ties in well with the post on social media by the Wikimedia Foundation (earlier today, yesterday?) about "Misplaced Pages in numbers". ''']]''' 09:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Support - and maybe also add a edit count? Something like this might work: <div id="articlecount">] total edits · ] active editors · ] articles in ]</div> <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 09:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I can't see any downside of adding the number of active editors, which is an impressive number given that the count is just for the last month. The number of edits seems a bit meaningless since it is a huge number that is hard to grasp and since what constitutes an edit is so variable. ] (]) 09:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Also support this. It's a minor but potentially quite impactful addition. ''']]''' ‡ <sup>]</sup> 09:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Good idea; I like the model that {{u\|CanonNi}} proposes above. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 17:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I like Ca's suggestion of just including the number of editors. I'm not super keen on adding the number of edits as it is fairly meaningless to most casual visitors. Also, it will always be off because of caching (and I don't want us to get useless reports of "I made an edit but the number didn't go up!"). —] (]) 17:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Very good point, Kusma, about useless reports. ''']]''' 18:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			* The interpunct might need to be replaced with a line break on mobile devices, for aesthetic reasons. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 10:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Maybe just a comma to separate them. ]] 11:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Personally, I think a comma would be out-of-place since this is not a list. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 11:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::It’s a list of two counts ]] 11:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Id support. Maybe something somewhere which explains what active means. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I'm fairly certain that 208.19.13.102 is being sarcastic. —] 05:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			::The wikilink to ] already provides an explanation. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 13:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I dunno about other people, but because the link is the amount of people, I'd expect the link to be to the list of people. If it were "active editors" that was linked, I would click it to find out what "active meant". '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The number of articles link also goes to ], though. – ] <small>(])</small> 12:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Yeah, that's also a bit dumb. Maybe if we linked both the term and the amount to the same link. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::How about linking the number of active editors to ], where it is explained? ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 12:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Sounds like a good idea. I would but the editors after the number of articles, though – best to lead with the bigger number. – ] <small>(])</small> 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*This appears to be ] problem; I believe it would be best if we went ahead with the original formatting and discuss the minute details later. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I never said it was a problem, just a suggestion. – ] <small>(])</small> 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Sorry, I didn't mean to reply to you in particular. I've changed the indentation level. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Displaying the 'active editors' variable significantly discounts all of prior editors associated with those millions of articles being discussed in the same line. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I suppose you could say something like, "] articles in ] written by ] editors" to be maximally precise. – ] <small>(])</small> 16:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::What I'm saying is that the {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}</nowiki> is certainly way more than the {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}</nowiki>, and that the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}</nowiki> certainly would not have been possible with only the later. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Advertising how many "active" users we have isn't necessarily a problem, I'm saying we shouldn't in anyway suggest that such a low number of contributors has led to the number of articles we have to casual readers, reporters, etc that would read the line. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Perhaps something like "currently maintained by X active editors"? (Which also discounts all of the many unregistered editors). — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::"by over" maybe.... — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Why, though? "X active editors" isn't saying that that's all the editors who've ever been. It's doing the opposite, by qualifying "active". Getting a bot to keep a tally of total editors ever, per Joe, could be a cool idea, but there's nothing misleading or incorrect about just listing active users, and it's potentially of more interest to readers. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::I'm not opposed to somehow advertising the currently active editors, just saying we should ensure that such a figure isn't associated with the total count of all articles made by a much much larger group. (As the original problem is suggesting that readers are underestimating the number of volunteers that have built Misplaced Pages). — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			:I absolutely support this. Maybe also include the number of edits made in the current calendar day? ] \| ] \| ] 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Aha! I see; in that case, I'd say he makes a good point. ] (]) 05:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			::Better would be in the last 24 hours, especially as most readers will not know when Misplaced Pages's midnight is. Certainly better than a count of all edits since Misplaced Pages began, although not a priority in my opinion. ] (]) 09:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@] Well, Jimmy Wales lives in the Carolinas so it could reset at midnight Eastern. Although last 24 hours works as well ] \| ] \| ] 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thinking it about it a bit more, maybe the preceding calendar day ("yesterday") would be computationally easier. We certainly don't want a figure that increases from 0 each day, and it may be undesirable to have one that fluctuates minute to minute. Instead maybe consider over the last week up to and including yesterday, to iron out variation over the weekly cycle. ] (]) 14:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. I don't see the point in this, or the relevance of this number to readers. It might make sense on a page intended to be viewed only by editors, but the Main Page is for readers. None of the bullet points are convincing e.g. I've never heard anyone suggest that there are only 100 editors. It's a only minor bit of clutter but would serve no useful purpose. Besides, it's not clear what constitutes an 'active' editor - the very different numbers quoted above suggest this could be seriously misleading. ] ] 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:], where the number comes from, defines it as "any editor that has performed an action in last 30 days", which appears to include IP editors as well. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 23:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::It is labeled Active <em>registered</em> users - of which IP editors are not. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Thanks for the correction; when the language is set to Spanish, it just reads "active editors". I wonder if it is possible to get a count of all editors, including IP editors. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 02:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::A single editor could have many IP's and a single IP could have many editors. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Yes, that was a problem I imagined; though I do not want to discredit the work of IP editors, they are hard to keep track. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I suggested this idea back on December 8 at the VPR, so yes I would support it. ] (]) 03:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Next steps===
			I see a broad consensus for including the number of active editors, but there seem to be a lot of discussion on the finer details, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Should I make a RfC for this? ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 14:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Yes, most of us want the number of edits/active editors in the banner, but an RFC might help figure out the smaller details we keep arguing about ] \| ] 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::It's hopeless fighting against the mob of April Fools jokes advocates. I tried, and got a number of messages on my talk pages about it. I'll wait till tomorrow before deleting everything. —<span style="color: red;">] (])</span> 05:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

			===Informal RfC===
	:::::You should spend your time fighting the vandalism, false articles, and joke AfDs, i.e. the things that actually impair the encyclopedia, rather than trying to fight the anodyne, true listings on the Main page. —]→] • 05:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			{{Archive top\|status=Minimal participation\|result=Despite the RfC being open for 16 days and pinging previous participants, it attracted only two respondents, showing the lack of interest in this topic. I will assume most people did not see an issue with my original formatting suggestion when they !voted "support" and submit an edit request. This close does not preclude any future discussion about the formatting or new additions to the proposed text. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Five questions to decide on the formatting. Note that this doesn't preclude any further changes in the future.

			====Which figures should be added to the current text?====
	:::::Yeah, they're leaving "lighten up"/"it's all in good fun" messages on my talk page too. But I decided last year to support the "strange but true" main page content in the hope that it would satisfy people's desire to do something special for April Fools' Day. —] 05:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			# Active editors (original proposal)
			# Active editors and total edit count
			# Active editors and edit count in last 24 hours(bot required)
			# Active editors and all-time editors(bot required)

			*'''Support 4''' if possible, '''support 1''' as a lower-effort but still effective alternative. '''Oppose 2 and 3''' per the concerns raised above that it would create confusion among new editors/readers who would not realise that the count cannot update immediately. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::In seeking consensus for the April Fools Main Page 2008 project next year, I think its important that we now judge the reaction of the April Fools Main Page 2007 project as to whether it satisfy people's desire to do something special for April Fools' Day or merely opened the door even wider to unapproved April Fools jokes elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. -- ] 16:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Prefer 1, then 3'''; dislike total edit count and all-time editors as too large numbers, with no sense of what is happening now. ] (]) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			====Which symbol should be used as the separator? ====
	:::::::Agreed. You give people an inch... —] 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			# Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
	::::::::Strongly agreed. --] 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			# Use comma
	:It was only overthrown with 98% of the vote? Perhaps there is hope for Iran after all. ] 05:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

			* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	::208.19.13.102, to be serious, according to ], the following items cannot qualify anyway:
	::*The ] article currently is tagged for cleanup, requiring more citations
	::*The ] article is currently tagged with neutrality and POV problems.
	::*] is tagged with more sources needed.
	::*A number of sections on ] are marked as stubs and need to be expanded.
	::*A number of articles regarding ], ], and ] have cleanup tags.
	::So please feel free to get to work on those articles :-) Thanks. ] ] 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

			====Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins? ====
	What ? No one is complaining that OTD today is too UK/US-centric yet ? --] 08:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			# Use line break
			# Use comma

	~~:<big><big>Waah!!!~~ ~~The~~ ~~OTD~~'~~s too UK/US Centric and the main page is self-referential~~, ~~not NPOV, vanity, an advert and uncited and no-one can put these tags~~ on ~~the~~ ~~page!!~~<~~/big~~></~~big~~>~~--] <sup> ] - ] </sup> 11:49, 1 ~~April~~ ~~2007~~ (UTC)~~		* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	::What do you expect when Americans have U.S. Presidents like ], and ]? And when the British have "]" that grow ]? ] ] 12:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Can we '''''please''''' slip 'This just in: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead' on the front page somewhere? —]∴ <b>]]]</b> 13:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::Do you mean, "]"? —] 18:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

			====How should it be ordered?====
	===arrgh===
			# Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
	Misplaced Pages, you got me there with the "new messages" thing. Stop it :D ] 14:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			# Bigger number(s) first

			* '''Support 1 or 2.''' '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	===Misleading "do you know?" headline:Rush limbaugh.===
	It says "do you know...that ] was the US ambassador to india?" but when you click it,its for an entirely different Rush Limbaugh.] 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Ashmole

			====Wikilinks?====
	:Dude, it's April, Fool's day. The headlines today are real, but made to sound like jokes. ]<font color = "red">]</font> 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			#Wikilink all of the numbers to ] (original proposal)
			#Wikilink only the first number to ]
			#Wikilink "active editor" to ]
			] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 12:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

			* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2 and 3. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	::This is not in any offense to anyone, but I think that people fear putting jokes on the main page because they don't want to feel stupid themselves. It's a sad realization, because hey, who wants to feel stupid?, but it's the truth and it makes no sense. April Fools' Day is supposed to be a day of fun and jokes, not a day to block all jokes out of Misplaced Pages because they might be hurtful to someone or make them feel stupid or it might confuse people who are actually trying to be serious. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I feel that people aren't understanding the true nature of the holiday. Sure there's a limit to what we should do, but we've never even gotten close to that limit; we're too worried that we'll reach the limit before we even get there, which totally sucks all the fun out of the experience. Anyway, I just thought I'd put that out there. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup>&ensp; 17:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Support 1''', unless active editors is the only statistic shown, in which case 3. ] (]) 22:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			====Discussion====
	::: Sorry, Jared, only smart humor gets onto the Main Page, please. Otherwise, BJAODN. --] 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			:If a bot is difficult or resource hungry, an edit count for yesterday (preceding calendar day) would serve the same purpose as a count in the last 24 h. ] (]) 08:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::From a maintenance and server load perspective, a bot updating daily is no different than a bot updating every minute (i.e., just a line of code's difference and resource usage that rounds down to 0). <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@] Do you expect people to respond here with their opinions on these 5 issues? Or is this just a draft for a forthcoming formal RfC?
			:If you plan on having another, better-publicized RfC, I'd recommend relisting the original question {{green\|Should this be added at all?}}; the original consensus for this had less than 10 editors. <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I should have been more clear, but yes, I was expecting people to give their opinions. However, I am waiting before pinging everyone to see if anyone have any more suggestions for the questions. I count 13 people who support the proposal and one who explicitly opposed it; I feel that a RfC is going to have the same consensus for inclusion. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 05:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::So perhaps you could split the five questions into separate subheadings, to allow for clearer discussion of each issue? <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Good idea ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 07:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I'd add a 4. option with both active users and all-time editors, as {{u\|xaosflux}} suggested above. (Maybe after the total articles count, "{{green\|... created by {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} editors}}"). ] (]) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I've added it, but using <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}</nowiki> would be inaccurate since it includes user accounts with zero edits. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Since a week has passed for suggested additions, I'll be pinging previous participants tommorow to decide on the formatting. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Pinging participants: @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 12:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I've added my replies/thoughts under each individual item, which might help to keep/make consensus visible despite the many moving parts. There's a very large danger of ] here! '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Just to confirm, did you receive the ping? I'm afraid this RfC is going to flop. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I don't think this is the best format for reaching consensus on relatively minor details. Maybe try just proposing a version based on the feedback above and iterate accordingly. – ] <small>(])</small> 20:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I believe the lack of engagement here shows general apathy for the formatting. I don't want to try to wrangle in RfC after RfC, wasting community time. I plan to simply submit an edit request with the original proposed formatting if this RfC gets less than five responses. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 09:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I think that would be wise: ], after all, and it seems reasonable to suggest that many editors who have seen this and not commented have done so because they have no strong opinion on the points of "contention". '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Yes. I think for once Wikipedians' ability to bicker over a comma has disappointed you. '']'' (] — ]) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			===Edit request===
			{{edit request\|ans=y}}
			Per above consensus, please implement the original proposal of replacing the following

			<nowiki><div id="articlecount">] articles in ]</div></nowiki>
	:::We've never even gotten close to the limit? ] —] 17:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

			with
	:An "entirely different Rush Limbaugh" from whom? Rush Limbaugh is the guy's name. It's perfectly fine. ] 17:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::The radio host in America by the same name. ] 19:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::And what makes him the "real" Rush Limbaugh? --]<sup><font color="green">]</font></sup>'''<font color="orange">]</font>''' 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

			<nowiki><div id="articlecount">] active editors · ] articles in ]</div></nowiki>
	===Things you learn from the Main Page===

			The interpunct (·) should be replaced with a line break on small screens via Templatestyle (
	So, George Washington is the father of instant coffee and the Sheriff of Essex wanted to attack London with swarms of burning penises, probably with monkey testicle tissue grafted to them. Now I think I'l write an article about .
			]
			), which I am not how it'd be implemented. ChatGPT gave me a potential solution of using a ID'd span tag on the interpunct and hiding it on smaller screens, but I have limited CSS knowledge and can't verify if it would work properly. I know this is a technical request so I will be grateful if a technically-oriented admin can help out. Thanks! ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			:I've created a mock-up of your proposed changes at] and ] (based on the code at {{tl\|hlist}}). I'll hold-off actually making the changes since I don't actually see a RfC (only two informal discussions) and I'm unsure a ] is sufficient to change the main page. ] (]) 06:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	Happy April 1st.--] 17:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			::Thanks for the mock-up! It works perfectly on my end. The Localconsensus issue was also a concern of mine. However, this discussion has been open for almost a month and in a dedicated forum for proposing main page edits. The participants include a wide variety of experienced editors, with very solid consensus for its addition (13 to 1). A more widely attended discussion would be very unlikely to change the results. The consensus for the current wording was achieved back at 2006 redesign of the main page, and I didn't see any mention of the active editor count in the discussions. So I don't think this proposal overrides any previous consensuses. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:All true, except the burning penises (it's the other definition of cock, ]). —] 18:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			:::Fair enough, I'll leave this thread open for comments (technical or otherwise) for a bit. If no concerns are raised I'll +2. ] (]) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Actually you're wrong... Sorry to disappoint you but Google isn't really going to offer a free broadband service ] 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			::::Seems good to me.  — ] (]) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I meant the facts from the Main Page, and he was making a joke. —] 19:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			::::Thanks for the mock up. Looks splendid. From my perspective, this is ready for implementation. ''']]''' 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Oh yes, you meant that. Sure. That's why you didn't say it... Don't worry, we all get fooled sometimes, no one thinks the lesser of you :-P ] 20:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			::::Looks good. '']'' (] — ]) 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::No, I'm 100% serious. I honestly didn't even notice the Google part of the comment (though I had seen somewhere else earlier today, and I'm perfectly aware of Google's annual fake releases). —] 21:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
			::::Looks good to me too. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::Gmail was announced on Apr 1st and everybody first thought that was a hoax --] 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
			{{done}}. Just a small additional comment. "English" is an everyday word and probably does not need linking to ]. But that's a separate discussion — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 22:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::I'm sure Nil was just joking. I find it very difficult to believe that you (or anyone) could look at the Google Tisp page and believe that. -- ''']''' 21:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: Y'know, its pretty funny, I just today watched a documentary on the history channel about the history of cofee, and George Washington was nominated, not the one from USA independence but another--] 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

			:'''Comment:''' I just saw this editor count on the main page and wanted to come by and say I love it. Not just an interesting statistic but a reminder to all visitors that this is a volunteer project not just a faceless and hegemonic Establishment entity. Nicely done everyone!! Proud to be one of the 116,430! ] (]) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	===We're not fooling anyone===
	I hope it's now de-facto policy for Misplaced Pages to use April Fools as an opportunity to present articles that look like hoaxes but aren't. This is much more stylish than actual hoaxes. ] 21:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

			== Bye Bye Jimmy Carter, hello "the PDC World Darts Championship"? ==
	: Yeah, ] will be good for next year.--] <sup> ] - ] </sup> 10:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
			Sorry, the PDC World Darts Championship is just not important, period.
			Jimmy Carter doesn't even appear in recent deaths as of 2025-01-06...<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
			:{{u\|TheRealJohnea}} It's not a reflection of importance, just turnover. The usual complaint we get is that there isn't enough turnover, not too much. ] (]) 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Carter died 10 days ago, the world has moved on. ]] 22:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Looks like Jimmy Carter did appear in In The News. . It's been a week since it happened though so the news item has fallen off and been replaced by newer news items. –] <small>(])</small> 22:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Carter was there for a week (29/12 to 04/01). And even if the darts didn't exist, would have been removed by the Trudeau posting today. I suspect the OP simply doesn't understand how ITN works. ] 22:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Proposal: delink "English" ==
	:: It would if it had more content. But it's barely more than a stub. -- ] 13:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

			Propose to remove the link from "English" to ]. This is an everyday word and per ], we should avoid linking everyday words. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Let's get back to the Encyclopedia thing now, okay?===
	--] 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:Sorry, ignoring the timestamp in our sigs, my clock still sez Apr 1st :) --] 00:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

			:I can't find the previous discussions on this, but the main page isn't an article, and it doesn't seem an overlink to link to the language the encyclopedia is linked to when introducing the encyclopedia. We ] "free" and "encyclopedia" too, it's a limitation of the format. ] (]) 08:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	==FA picture==
			::"Free" (in the sense we use it) and "encyclopaedia" at least plausibly something that a reader might need defining for them. There's nobody reading the English Misplaced Pages that doesn't know what English is. – ] <small>(])</small> 08:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	What happened to the gremlins 2 pic? --] 01:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
			:::Knowing what a topic is is not the bar for a link. I certainly don't think it's less defined than "encyclopaedia", and speaking of encyclopaedia, I've seen enough engvar "typo" fixes to know there's a lot about the English language many readers don't know. That's not to be demeaning, there's a lot I can learn from it too, it's the only Good Article out of the four articles linked. ] (]) 08:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:there's a nosferatu pic up instead lol. --]]] 02:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
			*I would oppose removing it. The main page serves as a place for readers to see examples of the kind of work we do, and perhaps become engaged to write and edit themselves. As such, ], which is a GA and looks quite well structured and referenced, is a good link to have. It also shows how linking to other topics works, alongside ] and ]. As CMD says, it's also the language of our project.  — ] (]) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:You may want to read ]. --] 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
			*:] might be a more appropriate target, but I can't see the benefit of linking for the sake of linking. Plenty of links to good and featured content lower down the page! — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 10:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Given that consensus has not yet been reached yet on that proposal (and particularly because the image chosen to replace the Gremlins picture is exceptionally misleading), I've restored the old image. —] 02:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Thank you. There's nothing worse than roving bands of fair-use paranoids. Certain topics are of such a nature that images of any form concerning them are fair use. What are we supposed to do for ]? Use a picture of a potato with ''Chrono Trigger'' carved into the side? Get a courtroom sketch artist to draw an "alleged cartridge"? ] 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

			:In actual articles, I 100% agree with this - in practice this being used means that most articles have a nation or language as a link almost immediately. However, the main page isn't an article, and if we were to start using all the MOS on it, it would be a completely different look. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	==HELP ME HELP ME HELP ME==
			*Oppose removal, per ]'s excellent points. It's a good link to have, and there are probably quite a few people who make their first edit as a result of clicking through it. ]] 22:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''''I DON'T BELIEVE IT!''''' The one day Misplaced Pages gets properly joked upon, and I'm stuck in the ]! Can someone please help me? Like a cached version of the page or something? Something someone saved? A link? Anything?
	PleaseohPleaseohPleaseohPleaseohPleaseohPleaseoh''Please''? ]] 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:These links will do in the absence of ]... (though I thought someone showing yesterday's main page did exists for those in different timezones - ah, here we are ] - but that doesn't help for the ITN and DYK stuff, which is updated in a single template). ]; , ] (picture of the day), and finally, ]. Hope that helps. Remember, if you are looking for the hilarious jokes there aren't any. This is all real! Every single bit of it. ] 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	::...Still ROFL'ing. Wow. Amazing. I hope next year's is just as good. THANK YOU VERY MUCH CARCHAROTH! And Misplaced Pages. Lol. ]] 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC) ]] 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

			:'''Oppose'''. 'English' can have multiple meanings; our ] article is itself a disambiguation page. This is not an encyclopaedia about England, or English people, or any of those other meanings. The link to ] is necessary to clarify how the Main Page is using that word. ] ] 12:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Tomorrow's featured picture==
	I have ] as my homepage - just a quick head's up that you might get squeamish people complaining about the eye surgery pic. I personally have no problems with it, but I bet you get at least one person going ''ICK!!''... :-) ] 14:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:28, 9 January 2025

Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion

↓↓Skip header

Welcome! This page is for discussing the contents of the English Misplaced Pages's Main Page.
For general questions unrelated to the Main Page, please visit the Teahouse or check the links below.
To add content to an article, edit that article's page.
Irrelevant posts on this page may be removed.
Click here to report errors on the Main Page.

If you have a question related to the Main Page, please search the talk page archives first to check if it has previously been addressed:

For questions about using and contributing to the English Misplaced Pages:

To submit an article or a redirect, please use the article wizard.
The Teahouse: to ask your first basic questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages
The help desk: to ask technical questions about using Misplaced Pages (e.g. how to edit, images, categories)
The village pump: to ask questions about Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines or operations
The reference desk: to ask questions about subjects other than Misplaced Pages (including topics covered in its articles)
The administrators' noticeboard: to report a problem (e.g. vandalism)
Question help: to find out more about where to ask questions or make comments on Misplaced Pages

To suggest content for a Main Page section:

Main Page errors: to report errors in current or upcoming Main Page content
Today's featured article requests: to suggest a featured article for "Today's featured article"
In the news candidates: to nominate an item for "In the news"
Did you know suggestions: to nominate an item for "Did you know"
Selected anniversaries: to add an anniversary to "On this day"
Today's featured list submissions: to suggest a featured list for "Today's featured list"
Featured picture candidates: images appearing as picture of the day are selected roughly according to the order in which they were promoted to featured status
Misplaced Pages languages: to propose a change to the list of Wikipedias in other languages
Main Page frequently asked questions: to learn more about the Main Page

v t e Main Page and featured content
Main Page topics	Errors Administrator instructions Main Page alternatives FAQ Editing Design Queue Yesterday Tomorrow History Misplaced Pages languages Sister projects Sandbox April Fools' Day Don't delete!
Today's featured article	Requests Pending requests Recent Oddities Most viewed Not yet used
Featured articles	Criteria Candidates Log Review Archive Statistics Former featured articles Unreviewed
Did you know...	Discussion Rules Guidelines Nominations Reviewer instructions Preps and queues Archive Stats
In the news	Error reports Nominations Discussion Admin guide General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Awards Sports Discussion Candidate archives Posted archives
Current events portal	Current events portal for sports Discussion How the Current events portal works How to archive the portal
Selected anniversaries	Discussion Holidays and observances All
Today's featured list	Submissions Statistics Previously run lists Get involved
Featured lists	Criteria Candidates Log Task force Removal candidates Review list Log Former featured lists
Picture of the day	Guidelines Unused Archive Tomorrow
Featured pictures	Criteria Candidates Nomination procedure
Featured topics	Featured topics on the main page Candidates Log Nomination procedure Criteria Removal candidates Good topics Former featured topics Featured topic questions

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled due to vandalism.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Main Page error reports

Wikimedia project page for Main Page error reporting Shortcuts

National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously:

Misplaced Pages does not prefer any national variety of English.
While Misplaced Pages strives to use language common to all English varieties, some spelling, grammar, or terminology may differ or be absent in a reader's preferred variety.

Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see a comparison of American and British English.

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

Main Page toolbox

Yesterday January 8	Today January 9, 2025	Tomorrow January 10
TFA	TFA	TFA
SA/OTD	SA/OTD	SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v.	POTD Main Page v.	POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.	POTD regular v.	POTD regular v.
		TFL (Friday)

Main Page queue

In the news: candidates; discussion; admin instructions

Did you know: nominations; discussion; queue; BotErrors

Protected pages: Commons media protection; Associated

It is currently 18:35 UTC.
Purge the Main Page
Purge this page

Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
Offer a correction if possible.
References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 18:35 on 9 January 2025) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Please wikilink Limia tridens, the little fish in the photo. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 12:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
It already links Limia, although hidden behind different text. Secretlondon (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Limia tridens and Limia are not the same thing. Also, per WP:SURPRISE, not having a wikilink for an obvious (or at least potential) article indicates (incorrectly, in this case) to readers that no such article exists. Abductive (reasoning) 13:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The photo is being used as an example of limia Secretlondon (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The idea is to boost the article that an editor made for a DYK. I understand that. But the Main Page is for readers, not editors seeking points in the WP:CUP. Abductive (reasoning) 13:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Abductive - the caption should link to the species. It already uses the full species name, so just adding some square brackets is sufficient. Modest Genius 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Link added. RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is the DYK about treatment of Jewish POW's a misrepresentation of the article to which it links, and potentially down-playing antisemitic activities of the Nazi regime? The text is: "... that while Germans murdered millions of prisoners of war during WWII, the survival ratio of Jewish POWs was generally tied to the army or nation they served with, and not to their ethnicity?" This can easily be read as Jewishness was irrelevant to their treatment. Reading the actual article, the article says there were very large differences in treatment of POW's depending on the country with which they fought, but in all cases referred to in the article, Jewish POW's were treated worse than non-Jewish from the same military background. It seems to me that this is a very contentious topic, a topic where right-wing extremists are happy to misinterpret any text they can find. We are doubly, triply obligated to be super-careful in our wording, and today's DYK falls woefully short of the necessary care. Could we take it out, and run it again after better wording has been agreed? Elemimele (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I read the target article the other day and have now looked at the DYK nomination. It had not occurred to me at the time of reading the article, but Elemimele's concern is justified. ALT3 is the other hook that one of the reviewers liked, and it certainly intrigued me when I read the article (maybe I should have known that, but I didn't – hence I was surprised). Not sure whether that works for others (it didn't for the final reviewer), but I'd prefer ALT3 over something that raises concerns. Hence, I've swapped it. Schwede 66 17:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(January 10, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(January 13)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Shortcuts

"Mian Page" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mian Page has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2 § Mian Page until a consensus is reached. Ca 01:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Add number of editors in the topmost banner

I suggest this addition for the following reasons:

It encourages people to become editors via argumentum ad populum.
It is a interesting fact about the scale of Misplaced Pages
It dispels reoccuring myth that only 100 or so admins edit Misplaced Pages
It demonstrates the motto "anyone can edit".

I suggest formatting it like this:

116,430 active editors · 6,937,869 articles in English

Ca 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I strongly support this addition. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
"100 or so admins edit Misplaced Pages" factoid actualy just statistical error. average admin does not edit Misplaced Pages. Sockpuppets Georg, who lives in cave & passes RfA 10 times each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.But yes, this seems like a great idea! -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I shall lend my support as I like this idea. It ties in well with the post on social media by the Wikimedia Foundation (earlier today, yesterday?) about "Misplaced Pages in numbers". Schwede 66 09:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Support - and maybe also add a edit count? Something like this might work: 1,263,671,618 total edits · 116,430 active editors · 6,937,869 articles in English ''']''' (talk • contribs) 09:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't see any downside of adding the number of active editors, which is an impressive number given that the count is just for the last month. The number of edits seems a bit meaningless since it is a huge number that is hard to grasp and since what constitutes an edit is so variable. JMCHutchinson (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Also support this. It's a minor but potentially quite impactful addition. J 947 ‡ 09:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Good idea; I like the model that CanonNi proposes above. UndercoverClassicist 17:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I like Ca's suggestion of just including the number of editors. I'm not super keen on adding the number of edits as it is fairly meaningless to most casual visitors. Also, it will always be off because of caching (and I don't want us to get useless reports of "I made an edit but the number didn't go up!"). —Kusma (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Very good point, Kusma, about useless reports. Schwede 66 18:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The interpunct might need to be replaced with a line break on mobile devices, for aesthetic reasons. Ca 10:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe just a comma to separate them. Step hen 11:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I think a comma would be out-of-place since this is not a list. Ca 11:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
It’s a list of two counts Step hen 11:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Id support. Maybe something somewhere which explains what active means. Lee Vilenski 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The wikilink to Special:Statistics already provides an explanation. Ca 13:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I dunno about other people, but because the link is the amount of people, I'd expect the link to be to the list of people. If it were "active editors" that was linked, I would click it to find out what "active meant". Lee Vilenski 13:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The number of articles link also goes to Special:Statistics, though. – Joe (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's also a bit dumb. Maybe if we linked both the term and the amount to the same link. Lee Vilenski 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

How about linking the number of active editors to Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians, where it is explained? Ca 12:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I would but the editors after the number of articles, though – best to lead with the bigger number. – Joe (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
This appears to be WP:BIKESHED problem; I believe it would be best if we went ahead with the original formatting and discuss the minute details later. Ca 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I never said it was a problem, just a suggestion. – Joe (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to reply to you in particular. I've changed the indentation level. Ca 15:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Displaying the 'active editors' variable significantly discounts all of prior editors associated with those millions of articles being discussed in the same line. — xaosflux 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I suppose you could say something like, "6,925,100 articles in English written by <number of users that have made >0 undeleted mainspace edits> editors" to be maximally precise. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the 48,526,662 {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} is certainly way more than the 116,430 {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}, and that the 6,937,869 {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} certainly would not have been possible with only the later. — xaosflux 16:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Advertising how many "active" users we have isn't necessarily a problem, I'm saying we shouldn't in anyway suggest that such a low number of contributors has led to the number of articles we have to casual readers, reporters, etc that would read the line. — xaosflux 16:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps something like "currently maintained by X active editors"? (Which also discounts all of the many unregistered editors). — xaosflux 16:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
"by over" maybe.... — xaosflux 16:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Why, though? "X active editors" isn't saying that that's all the editors who've ever been. It's doing the opposite, by qualifying "active". Getting a bot to keep a tally of total editors ever, per Joe, could be a cool idea, but there's nothing misleading or incorrect about just listing active users, and it's potentially of more interest to readers. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to somehow advertising the currently active editors, just saying we should ensure that such a figure isn't associated with the total count of all articles made by a much much larger group. (As the original problem is suggesting that readers are underestimating the number of volunteers that have built Misplaced Pages). — xaosflux 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely support this. Maybe also include the number of edits made in the current calendar day? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Better would be in the last 24 hours, especially as most readers will not know when Misplaced Pages's midnight is. Certainly better than a count of all edits since Misplaced Pages began, although not a priority in my opinion. JMCHutchinson (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jmchutchinson Well, Jimmy Wales lives in the Carolinas so it could reset at midnight Eastern. Although last 24 hours works as well ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thinking it about it a bit more, maybe the preceding calendar day ("yesterday") would be computationally easier. We certainly don't want a figure that increases from 0 each day, and it may be undesirable to have one that fluctuates minute to minute. Instead maybe consider over the last week up to and including yesterday, to iron out variation over the weekly cycle. JMCHutchinson (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see the point in this, or the relevance of this number to readers. It might make sense on a page intended to be viewed only by editors, but the Main Page is for readers. None of the bullet points are convincing e.g. I've never heard anyone suggest that there are only 100 editors. It's a only minor bit of clutter but would serve no useful purpose. Besides, it's not clear what constitutes an 'active' editor - the very different numbers quoted above suggest this could be seriously misleading. Modest Genius 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Special:Statistics, where the number comes from, defines it as "any editor that has performed an action in last 30 days", which appears to include IP editors as well. Ca 23:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
It is labeled Active registered users - of which IP editors are not. — xaosflux 23:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction; when the language is set to Spanish, it just reads "active editors". I wonder if it is possible to get a count of all editors, including IP editors. Ca 02:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
A single editor could have many IP's and a single IP could have many editors. — xaosflux 18:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that was a problem I imagined; though I do not want to discredit the work of IP editors, they are hard to keep track. Ca 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I suggested this idea back on December 8 at the VPR, so yes I would support it. Some1 (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Next steps

I see a broad consensus for including the number of active editors, but there seem to be a lot of discussion on the finer details, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Should I make a RfC for this? Ca 14:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, most of us want the number of edits/active editors in the banner, but an RFC might help figure out the smaller details we keep arguing about Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Informal RfC

MINIMAL PARTICIPATION Despite the RfC being open for 16 days and pinging previous participants, it attracted only two respondents, showing the lack of interest in this topic. I will assume most people did not see an issue with my original formatting suggestion when they !voted "support" and submit an edit request. This close does not preclude any future discussion about the formatting or new additions to the proposed text. Ca 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Five questions to decide on the formatting. Note that this doesn't preclude any further changes in the future.

Which figures should be added to the current text?

Active editors (original proposal)
Active editors and total edit count
Active editors and edit count in last 24 hours(bot required)
Active editors and all-time editors(bot required)

Support 4 if possible, support 1 as a lower-effort but still effective alternative. Oppose 2 and 3 per the concerns raised above that it would create confusion among new editors/readers who would not realise that the count cannot update immediately. UndercoverClassicist 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Prefer 1, then 3; dislike total edit count and all-time editors as too large numbers, with no sense of what is happening now. JMCHutchinson (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Which symbol should be used as the separator?

Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
Use comma

Support 1, neutral on 2. UndercoverClassicist 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins?

Use line break
Use comma

Support 1, neutral on 2. UndercoverClassicist 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

How should it be ordered?

Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
Bigger number(s) first

Support 1 or 2. UndercoverClassicist 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikilinks?

Wikilink all of the numbers to Special:Statistics (original proposal)
Wikilink only the first number to Special:Statistics
Wikilink "active editor" to Special:Statistics

Ca 12:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support 1, neutral on 2 and 3. UndercoverClassicist 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Support 1, unless active editors is the only statistic shown, in which case 3. JMCHutchinson (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

If a bot is difficult or resource hungry, an edit count for yesterday (preceding calendar day) would serve the same purpose as a count in the last 24 h. JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

From a maintenance and server load perspective, a bot updating daily is no different than a bot updating every minute (i.e., just a line of code's difference and resource usage that rounds down to 0). -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ca Do you expect people to respond here with their opinions on these 5 issues? Or is this just a draft for a forthcoming formal RfC?

If you plan on having another, better-publicized RfC, I'd recommend relisting the original question Should this be added at all?; the original consensus for this had less than 10 editors. ypn^2 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I should have been more clear, but yes, I was expecting people to give their opinions. However, I am waiting before pinging everyone to see if anyone have any more suggestions for the questions. I count 13 people who support the proposal and one who explicitly opposed it; I feel that a RfC is going to have the same consensus for inclusion. Ca 05:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

So perhaps you could split the five questions into separate subheadings, to allow for clearer discussion of each issue? ypn^2 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Good idea Ca 07:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd add a 4. option with both active users and all-time editors, as xaosflux suggested above. (Maybe after the total articles count, "... created by 48,526,662 editors"). Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added it, but using {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} would be inaccurate since it includes user accounts with zero edits. Ca 16:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Since a week has passed for suggested additions, I'll be pinging previous participants tommorow to decide on the formatting. Ca 16:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging participants: @Cremastra @Tamzin @Schwede66 @CanonNi @Jmchutchinson @J947 @Stephen @UndercoverClassicist @Kusma @Lee Vilenski @User:Joe Roe @User:Xaosflux @User:ApteryxRainWing @User:Modest Genius @User:Some1 @User:Ypn^2 Ca 12:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added my replies/thoughts under each individual item, which might help to keep/make consensus visible despite the many moving parts. There's a very large danger of WP:BIKESHED here! UndercoverClassicist 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Just to confirm, did you receive the ping? I'm afraid this RfC is going to flop. Ca 15:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think this is the best format for reaching consensus on relatively minor details. Maybe try just proposing a version based on the feedback above and iterate accordingly. – Joe (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe the lack of engagement here shows general apathy for the formatting. I don't want to try to wrangle in RfC after RfC, wasting community time. I plan to simply submit an edit request with the original proposed formatting if this RfC gets less than five responses. Ca 09:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that would be wise: consensus can be tacit, after all, and it seems reasonable to suggest that many editors who have seen this and not commented have done so because they have no strong opinion on the points of "contention". UndercoverClassicist 14:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I think for once Wikipedians' ability to bicker over a comma has disappointed you. Cremastra (u — c) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (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.

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Per above consensus, please implement the original proposal of replacing the following

<div id="articlecount">] articles in ]</div>

with

<div id="articlecount">] active editors · ] articles in ]</div>

The interpunct (·) should be replaced with a line break on small screens via Templatestyle ( Misplaced Pages:Main Page/styles.css ), which I am not how it'd be implemented. ChatGPT gave me a potential solution of using a ID'd span tag on the interpunct and hiding it on smaller screens, but I have limited CSS knowledge and can't verify if it would work properly. I know this is a technical request so I will be grateful if a technically-oriented admin can help out. Thanks! Ca 15:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I've created a mock-up of your proposed changes atMisplaced Pages:Main Page alternatives/(editable) and Misplaced Pages:Main Page alternatives/styles.css (based on the code at {{hlist}}). I'll hold-off actually making the changes since I don't actually see a RfC (only two informal discussions) and I'm unsure a local consensus is sufficient to change the main page. Sohom (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the mock-up! It works perfectly on my end. The Localconsensus issue was also a concern of mine. However, this discussion has been open for almost a month and in a dedicated forum for proposing main page edits. The participants include a wide variety of experienced editors, with very solid consensus for its addition (13 to 1). A more widely attended discussion would be very unlikely to change the results. The consensus for the current wording was achieved back at 2006 redesign of the main page, and I didn't see any mention of the active editor count in the discussions. So I don't think this proposal overrides any previous consensuses. Ca 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll leave this thread open for comments (technical or otherwise) for a bit. If no concerns are raised I'll +2. Sohom (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems good to me. — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the mock up. Looks splendid. From my perspective, this is ready for implementation. Schwede 66 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. Cremastra (u — c) 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. UndercoverClassicist 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Just a small additional comment. "English" is an everyday word and probably does not need linking to English language. But that's a separate discussion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I just saw this editor count on the main page and wanted to come by and say I love it. Not just an interesting statistic but a reminder to all visitors that this is a volunteer project not just a faceless and hegemonic Establishment entity. Nicely done everyone!! Proud to be one of the 116,430! jengod (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Bye Bye Jimmy Carter, hello "the PDC World Darts Championship"?

Sorry, the PDC World Darts Championship is just not important, period. Jimmy Carter doesn't even appear in recent deaths as of 2025-01-06...— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJohnea (talk • contribs)

TheRealJohnea It's not a reflection of importance, just turnover. The usual complaint we get is that there isn't enough turnover, not too much. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Carter died 10 days ago, the world has moved on. Step hen 22:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like Jimmy Carter did appear in In The News. Here's a snapshot of In The News on January 1. It's been a week since it happened though so the news item has fallen off and been replaced by newer news items. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Carter was there for a week (29/12 to 04/01). And even if the darts didn't exist, would have been removed by the Trudeau posting today. I suspect the OP simply doesn't understand how ITN works. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: delink "English"

Propose to remove the link from "English" to English language. This is an everyday word and per WP:OVERLINK, we should avoid linking everyday words. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't find the previous discussions on this, but the main page isn't an article, and it doesn't seem an overlink to link to the language the encyclopedia is linked to when introducing the encyclopedia. We WP:SEAOFBLUE "free" and "encyclopedia" too, it's a limitation of the format. CMD (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"Free" (in the sense we use it) and "encyclopaedia" at least plausibly something that a reader might need defining for them. There's nobody reading the English Misplaced Pages that doesn't know what English is. – Joe (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Knowing what a topic is is not the bar for a link. I certainly don't think it's less defined than "encyclopaedia", and speaking of encyclopaedia, I've seen enough engvar "typo" fixes to know there's a lot about the English language many readers don't know. That's not to be demeaning, there's a lot I can learn from it too, it's the only Good Article out of the four articles linked. CMD (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I would oppose removing it. The main page serves as a place for readers to see examples of the kind of work we do, and perhaps become engaged to write and edit themselves. As such, English language, which is a GA and looks quite well structured and referenced, is a good link to have. It also shows how linking to other topics works, alongside encyclopedia and Misplaced Pages. As CMD says, it's also the language of our project. — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
English Misplaced Pages might be a more appropriate target, but I can't see the benefit of linking for the sake of linking. Plenty of links to good and featured content lower down the page! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

In actual articles, I 100% agree with this - in practice this being used means that most articles have a nation or language as a link almost immediately. However, the main page isn't an article, and if we were to start using all the MOS on it, it would be a completely different look. Lee Vilenski 13:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose removal, per Amakuru's excellent points. It's a good link to have, and there are probably quite a few people who make their first edit as a result of clicking through it. Step hen 22:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. 'English' can have multiple meanings; our English article is itself a disambiguation page. This is not an encyclopaedia about England, or English people, or any of those other meanings. The link to English language is necessary to clarify how the Main Page is using that word. Modest Genius 12:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:

Main Page discussions