Misplaced Pages

Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:59, 7 March 2008 view sourceRJRocket53 (talk | contribs)223 edits →Computer game article yesterday← 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}}
<!-- ''Please start'' new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. This "section edit button" is important, so please use it
{{#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}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-vandalism}}}}
{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}
{{Annual readership|title=the Main Page}}
{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 200k
|counter = 119
|counter = 207
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(3d) |algo = old(3d)
|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{MPH alert}}
{{Main Page discussion footer}}
{{Centralized discussion}}
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{bots|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 ] -->
{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
]
<div style="right:10px;" class="metadata topicon">'''{{Currentdate}}'''</div>
__TOC__
{{clear}}

= Main Page error reports =
{{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}} {{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}}
<!-- ---------------
Please do not write anything here.
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.
--------------- -->


=General discussion= = General discussion =
{{Shortcut|T:MP|WT:MP}}
__TOC__
<!-- --------------- <!-- ---------------
Please start new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT button beside the section heading to add to it. The edit button is important, so please use it. 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.
------------------ --> ---------------- -->

== DYK ... WP:ERRORS ... ==

DYK that the current first DYK says "that that" where it should say "that"? ] (]) 04:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

: Report at the errors at the top please, thanks. ] (]) 05:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::Be thankful for people reporting errors and just live with people putting them in the "wrong place". <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::There is no reason why someone who has posted an error to the wrong place can't be politely informed so that in future, they and others who see errors will report them in the correct place so that they are dealt with more efficiently and are more likely to be dealt with in the first place ] (]) 13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Or you could just get used to the fact that this happens, has happened for years, and will continue to happen. Either develop a way to prevent such comments entirely or accept them and live with them being here all the time. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::We seem to be going around in circles. No one is denying it happens and will continue to happen. All we're saying is, we already have a way to deal it which is to politely inform those who post in the wrong place to try and reduce instances of it happening in the future. If you have another alternative, why don't you do something about it, instead of complaining about people who are already doing something about it? Bearing in mind neither of the 3 people here are admins so you can do just as much as any of us 2 about it... Your suggestion that if we fail to prevent comments completely then we have somehow completely failed frankly makes no sense ] (]) 15:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Protect this page and force people to choose from a few different links: Report an error, Help desk, Reference desk, Village pump. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::::And where will legitimate comments be placed? ]] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 16:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::At the most relevant location, quite probably Village Pump. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
<small>(outdent)</small> Ummm, why would we place legitimate comments about the development of the Main Page on the Village Pump? ]] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:Not a problem - create a subpage for discussing the Main Page itself. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: Such a subpage will end up closely resembling this talkpage. Sigh... --] (]) 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::No it wouldn't, because the number of people that actually want to discuss the Main Page itself is very small, and the link to the talk subpage would be small too. It makes it more difficult for people to comment about the Main Page. "Sigh" <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Yes, and making it more difficult to comment about the Main Page will solve all our problems. ]<span style="color:red"><small><sup>], not ]</sup></small></span> 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes Misplaced Pages makes me think that I'm actually ], and the rest of my existence is just a dream. --] 02:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the fuss? ] is on the top of this page. It's impossible to miss it. --'''] ] ]''' 04:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
:Obviously, it isn't. That stupid-ass 'go-away-you-stupid-newbies' banner at the top is ineffectual, uninviting, and counter-productive. It was identified as such from the beginning. --] 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
::I agree, the banner is too big! --'''] ] ]''' 03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this such a big deal? I mean, when somebody misplaces a comment here, it takes about 45 seconds to direct them to the correct place, or 75 seconds to move it there. Even with three misplaced comments a day, it isn't a huge issue.<br />If we don't like having a huge talk page we could do it "Czech Misplaced Pages style". Take a look at ]. There are only three threads, and keep in mind that the page isn't archived so the oldest one is from November. The low talk page activity is because each of the sections (Article of the week, DYK, ITN, picture of the week, OTD) has it's talk page to be discussed at, so the main talk page only contains stuff like, "Maybe we should use central Europe time instead of UTC on the Main Page". But I personally don't think this layout is good-when I want to see somebody's comment about the Main Page, I expect to be able to hit the "discussion link" and see all the criticism&praise in one place. I don't want to have to check out six talk pages or click through a disambiguation-I want to be able to see everything at a glance. ] (]-]) 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

== EU v Microsoft ==

Why does the news report of a fine for breach of ''European'' law use the ''American'' legal term "antitrust"? 11:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
::Competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, said in a statement: "Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of EU competition policy that the Commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision." <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::Did he/she say that in English, or is that an American translation of what was actually said? 12:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::The European Commission uses the expression 'antitrust', as in this sentence from one of its official English language press releases: "The Commission will continue to conduct antitrust investigations in the energy sector." <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Thank you, ]. Please be encouraged to get an account and contribute your knowledge to Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 17:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. What does it tell us about the way the world works that they use American terminology rather than that of their own English-speaking members. 11:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:That cultures and languages borrow words from each other on occasion? ] (]) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== Admins editing main page ==

Since when has the community supported making admins into super-editors? The general view is that admins are janitors. Here we see admins being given a priviledged editing position. What community discussion took place to make this so? ] (]) 01:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
:Please see ] ]] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 03:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
:I should probably point out that it takes a serious amount of discussion to get any non-bug-fixing edit to the main page approved. If an admin were to make an edit based on his/her personal taste it would be quickly reported and reverted. ]] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

::Thank you for your response but it does not address my issue. Semi-protect would accomplish the same thing, that is to stop vandalism. By Full-protect, we create super-editors out of admins. The community never created a super-editor position, and never authorized admins to wield it, full-protect does that inherently. Full was not initially created for this purpose, semi was. Semi-protect is the appropriate protect level. ] (]) 18:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::My God, no it isn't. Sleeper accounts would vandalise. Well meaning editors would accidentially vandalise. Annoyed editors would vandalise. Well meaning editors would add their own content when it was not appropriate. Well meaning editors would add their own or someone elses content but format it incorrectly. Spammers would spam, constantly. It would be an absolute mess. This does not make super-editors out of admins; quite the opposite, we do not add our own material to the main page due to COI concerns- instead, we add what the community agrees should be added from various places- ] and the like. ] (]) 18:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::::As a non-admin, I have to agree with J Milburn. The Main Page would be an horrific mess if it were only semi-protected...--]] (] • ]) 19:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Plus, you can't cascading protect when it is semi-protected. ] (]) 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I gonna throw in that thats basically what I said :) ]] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 19:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The community never agreed to create permanent full-protection for this sort of thing. In my opinion, it's a significant violation of our standard of trust to state that vandalism is an appropriate rationale for this. That same vandalism argument could be applied to all of Misplaced Pages, or all significant pages, or all pages with rampant vandalism. ] (]) 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:It has been like this for as long as I remember. What advantage to you believe unprotecting the main page would have? From the minutes where the main page ''has'' been unprotected after accidental/rogue admin actions, we can see that it ''is'' instantly vandalised, over and over. ] (]) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:I think the community overwhelmingly agrees that it should be full protected, indeed you're the first person I've ever seen make a serious objection to it. ] ] 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::As the ] states, the Main Page is highly visable, and therefore has indefinite full protection. There isn't any content on the main page anyway, so I'm not sure what you're objecting to, ]. Everything that appears on the Main Page actually comes from templates, all of which receive their content from admins and non-admins alike. The only "admin editing" that occurs, is when an admin moves the prepared content from an unprotected source (such as ]) to a protected template (such as ]). This is very much in keeping with the janitorial/maintenance/housekeeping role admins play. - ] ] 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Not that I disagree with the permanent protection, but discussion has occurred in regard to specific templates, such as ITN. For more info on that, see the appropriate section at ]. But as a rule, full protection here = good idea :) ] (]) 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

== 4 March 1804 ==

Your comment of the event of a convict rebellion in New South Wales should be rewritten to include the article ]] (]) 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
: . Next time, pls use ]. --] (]) 09:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


== Urgent - March 4 on this day! ==


== "]" listed at ] ==
:''moved to ].''<small> --17:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small>
]
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==
== Help making a "Arthur Polson" page on Misplaced Pages ==
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:
<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)
I tried to add an article for Arthur Polson, a famous violin player, but as I searched Arthur Polson there were other options showing up in the Wiki Search. I need some help for making this article. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned2 -->
*''"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">&#91;]]</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)
: Please see ]. --] (]) 20:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::The wikilink to ] already provides an explanation. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 13:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
: Or post a {{tl|helpme}} on ]. --] (]) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (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. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<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. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<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. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<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. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<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">&#91;]]</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)
== Quick Question ==
::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)
How many times can one article be featured as the featured article?--´)÷¤-'''</span>]] 21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Quick answer: 1. ]] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 23:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks!!! I think they should be allowed more than once.--´)÷¤-'''</span>]] 02:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:::But there are ] which have not yet been there... ] (]) 02:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Ok...--´)÷¤-'''</span>]] 04:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


===Informal RfC===
:::::And apparently the rate of FA passes is greater than one per day so I last heard when this issue was raised, so it is in fact impossible. ] (]) 08:07, 7 March 2008 (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?====
::::::<small>In January 2008 82 articles were promoted to FA status and 9 were demoted. So the number of FAs increased by 73 articles. That's 2.355 articles promoted a day. In February 2008, 69 articles were promoted to featured status and 10 were demoted. So the number of articles increased by 59, that's 2.034 articles a day. Source: ]. ] (]-]) 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)</small>
# 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)
== Photo ==
*'''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? ====
I've noticed this for some time: Is there any technical reason the "in the news" photo can't move in tandem with the brief it illustrates? As a former newspaper editor, I find it very odd that, for example, a mug of Medvedev is displayed next to a brief about McCain. This seems a fairly glaring fault, as readers will look at the pic & wonder why it's not McCain & who the heck it is.
# Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
# Use comma


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


====Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins? ====
:Kinda. The template is used on more pages, and in some of them it's in a horizontal format (]). If we aligned the photo with the hook, it would look great on the Main Page, but really really horrible on others.<br />I myself don't find this valid. If worst came to worst, we could duplicate efforts and have admins update two templates (a vertical one where the image would be aligned, and a horizontal one). This could even be done by a bot (provided the community is willing to give adminship to a bot-kinda controversial). But I'm sure there's a solution-the current situation is kinda ugly.<br />The hooks always have "''(pictured)''" to help you identify the person, and if you hover over the image, it will display the caption. This helps reduce the confusion, but not eliminate it completely. ] (]-]) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
# Use line break
# Use comma


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Sca is right, it should be done, it makes us look stupid half of the days of the week, and the above whining (about unnamed pages that are one-one-billionth as important as the Main Page) is all you ever get by complaining about it. The French wikipedia does it. ] (]) 21:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


====How should it be ordered?====
:::I'm sorry if my comment came across as whining. I myself disagree with not aligning the photo, and I had tried to make that clear in my above post. I was trying to provide the reason it is not done-I wasn't agreeing with that reason. Again, I apologise. ] (]-]) 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
# Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
# Bigger number(s) first


* '''Support 1 or 2.''' '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
== FA photo ==


====Wikilinks?====
Would http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/49/Corpse_of_Lucien_Lachance._Oblivion_2007-07-11.png/180px-Corpse_of_Lucien_Lachance._Oblivion_2007-07-11.png work for the FA (sorry if this is late). ] (]) 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
#Wikilink all of the numbers to ] (original proposal)
:No, that's a fair use image. The general consensus is that we don't use fair use images on the main page. Thanks for the suggestion. ] (]) 19:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
#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)
== Colorado river released into Grand Canyon ==
*'''Support 1''', unless active editors is the only statistic shown, in which case 3. ] (]) 22:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


====Discussion====
Hey ppl where do i find info about this??
: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">&#91;]]</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. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<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>
Probably worthy of putting a link on "In the News" <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Didn't the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon??? --'''] ] ]''' 03:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
::I believe they recently have/will soon be intentionally flooding the canyon, I'm guessing that's what the question was about. ] (]) 13:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
::: I believe that the question is about whether we have an article on being conducted right now at ]. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 17:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


with
== Computer game article yesterday ==


<nowiki><div id="articlecount">] active editors · ] articles in ]</div></nowiki>
Is a link to ] on the front page featured articled combined with a ] promotion to schools a bit bold? Maybe it wouldnt be censored as an article, but is it worthy of the front page? New release hardcore sex movies dont get the six o clock news in the Netherlands or the Dutch lands, do they? Would you give ] a pulitzer prize? No, but you would give it to Freddy does Dallas and provide special links to Debby does ]. I could see that topics involving both children and sex are monitored so that "no bias" may be implied in one manner or another. Should sex and violence not be banned from the main page? Would such graphic sex and violence fiction be notable enough for the front page of an encyclopedia?</br>] (]) 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


The interpunct (·) should be replaced with a line break on small screens via Templatestyle (
:: I don't see the problem - the hot coffee article is an article about lots of relevant social issues. --] (]) 19:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
]
::*Rubbish, Frederick. The article was 99 per cent description of ]. If it was about the social issue, the pictures and description would be of the "controversy".] (]) 09:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
), 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)
::]. I don't think sex and violence should be banned from the Main Page. That would mean we couldn't feature military related stuff. ] (]-]) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (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)
::*Is that what excluding sex and violence fiction from the front page would mean to you, Puchy? Censorship? You have no opinion on anything that is '''not''' suitable for the '''front page'''?] (]) 09:31, 7 March 2008 (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)
::: Well hang on. War is not as corrupting to a person as is sex. People can commit sexual acts, but how many '''ordinary''' people (so not state leaders) who read wikipedia have the ability to wage war? Few, if any. ] (]) 08:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Seems good to me. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*War is an informative topic. '''Graphic sex and violence fiction''' is an eyesore or a questionable passtime. It is not informative. Fiction that gets a prize for peace or something is notable. Fiction that gets banned for being disgusting is hardly notable for the front page. A good article on blow job might get a few laughs, but its hardly fair to put it on the front page and then advertise it to little kids as Misplaced Pages 1.0 is to be. '''For instance'''- "Blow jobs were banned from public places. Here is a detailed description of them and a load of pictures." - Hardly suitable for the front page. How are the computer game articles any different to this? Anyone wants to see porn and violence fiction on the front page of the encyclopedia is a wind up.] (]) 09:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the mock up. Looks splendid. From my perspective, this is ready for implementation. ''']]''' 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::*What? Whoever said we want kids to be visiting the wikipedia website without supervision anyway? We don't... ] ] (]) 13:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Looks good. '']'' (] — ]) 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks good to me too. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 21:28, 6 January 2025 (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 &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 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! ] (]) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
My God, I am sick and tired of people saying 'Misplaced Pages is not censored, but we mustn't let people see anything that might offend them.' We cover all topics; if people want to pretend that things they don't like don't exist, then they can ]. People may be interested in these topics, and the featured article is to offer people something they may wish to learn about. Seeing as everyone else is throwing their opinions around as fact, I will too- a controversial book is of far more interest than a Booker prize winner. Booker prize winners ''suck''. If given the choice between '']'' and '']'', I know damn well which one I would read or read about... ] (]) 17:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages isn't censored, but nothing is said about the main page. ] (]) 17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


== Bye Bye Jimmy Carter, hello "the PDC World Darts Championship"? ==
== Team Origin ==
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">—&nbsp;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" ==
In en.wikipedia there are two page about the english sailing team Team origin: ] and ]. Team Origin must be merged into TEAMORIGIN. --] (]) 20:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Propose to remove the link from "English" to ]. This is an everyday word and per ], we should avoid linking everyday words. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:There was nothing in ] that wasn't already in ], so I've redirected the first to the second. - ] ] 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
::And this really doesn't belong here. Next time, ]. ]] <small><sup>]</sup></small>/<small><sub>]</sub></small> 22:00, 6 March 2008 (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)
:::Huh? Though I'll agree it doesn't belong here, it doesn't belong on the place you linked either. It's a page where you edit the instructions for filing a report about a vandal.<br />The best place to have raised this would probably have been ], but that doesn't matter now. ] (]-]) 22:11, 6 March 2008 (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. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 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. ] (]) 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, ], 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. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (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! &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 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. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== Nick Presson ==
*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)


:'''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)
Currently A work in Progress.. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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 suggest content for a Main Page section:
Main Page and featured content
Main Page topics
Today's featured article
Featured articles
Did you know...
In the news
Current events portal
Selected anniversaries
Today's featured list
Featured lists
Picture of the day
Featured pictures
Featured topics
Page semi-protectedEditing 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

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: 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)
In the news
candidates
discussion
admin instructions
Did you know
nominations
discussion
queue
BotErrors
Protected pages
Commons media protection
Associated
  • 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 17:31 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. Schwede66 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 · 6,937,841 articles in English


Ca 00:50, 10 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)
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?

  1. Active editors (original proposal)
  2. Active editors and total edit count
  3. Active editors and edit count in last 24 hours(bot required)
  4. 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?

  1. Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
  2. Use comma

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

  1. Use line break
  2. Use comma

How should it be ordered?

  1. Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
  2. Bigger number(s) first

Wikilinks?

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

Ca 12:27, 21 December 2024 (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 48,526,367 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. Schwede66 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. Stephen 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. Stephen 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: