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 06:05, 24 August 2011 view sourceOldManNeptune (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users623 edits →USA! USA! USA!← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:03, 6 January 2025 view source Clovermoss (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators31,190 edits Never mind, should've scrolled downTag: Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion}}
<!---
{{#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''' button beside the section heading to add to it. The "section edit button and "'''New Section Tab'''" are important, so please use them.
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.
--><noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>]{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
-->{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-vandalism}}}}
{{Annual readership|title=the Main Page}}
{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200k |maxarchivesize = 200k
|counter = 161 |counter = 207
|minthreadsleft = 2 |minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(3d) |algo = old(3d)
|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
{{MPH alert}}
{{Centralized discussion}}
{{bots|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 ] -->
]
__TOC__ __TOC__
{{clear}}
<div style="right:100px;" class="metadata topicon">'''{{Currentdate}}'''</div>


=Main Page error reports= = Main Page error reports =
{{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}} {{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}}
<!-- ---------------
<!-- This is the old notice about the donation message from 2009 (?)
Please do not write anything here.
Please leave this stickied at the top of the page, to avoid repeated posts about it
Please go to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors to place an error report.
=How to remove the donation notice=
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 =
'''Logged-in users''': go to my preferences, select the 'Gadgets' tab, check the box 'Suppress display of the fundraiser site notice', click 'Save', then bypass, your browser cache (Ctrl + F5 on Internet Explorer, Ctrl + Shift + R on Firefox) to see changes.

'''Not logged in''': ] (this takes very little time, all you have to do is pick a username and password), then follow the above instructions. It is beyond the control of the English language Misplaced Pages to remove the donation notice for users not logged in. Alternatively disabling javascript may be used to prevent the article from being displayed, although
this may affect other script based browsing.
-->

=General discussion=
{{Shortcut|T:MP|WT:MP}} {{Shortcut|T:MP|WT:MP}}

<!-- --------------- <!-- ---------------
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 have the courtesy to 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.
------------------- --> ---------------- -->

== Today's featured picture ==

The caption says the Hohenzollern Bridge ''survived numerous Allied bombings in World War II, only to be destroyed by German engineers as the war drew to a close in 1945.''

There seems to be some confusion about syntax here. ''Destroyed,'' according to Webster's, means "demolished," "spoiled completely," "ruined." This, as opposed to heavily damaged. (One could draw an analogy with ''killed'' as opposed to ''seriously wounded''.) If a structure is destroyed, it can’t be repaired, though it, or something like it, can be reconstructed. Only a damaged structure can be repaired.

Compare the German Wiki entry, which says: ''... am 6. März 1945 wurden die Brückenpfeiler durch Pioniere der sich zurückziehenden Deutschen Wehrmacht gesprengt. Dabei wurden die uferseitigen Bögen teilweise nur gering beschädigt.'' Translation: On March 6, 1945, the bridge piers were dynamited by engineers of the retreating German Army. In this action, parts of the arches near the riverbanks were only slightly damaged.

Thus, the bridge was not destroyed, but only damaged. It seems it was repaired after the war, and later expanded with a third set of arches.

Excellent photo, though!

] (]) 20:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

== Compliments ==

Today's main page (]) was really enjoyable. The content in every section held my interest and I found myself constantly going back to it to follow all the various links. Just wanted to express my appreciation, as I'm just a reader rather than a contributor to the main page areas. -- ]] 07:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
:Makes a change from the usual complaints we receive on this page! Congrats to all involved. ] ] 16:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

== USA! USA! USA! ==

''Did you know...


== "]" listed at ] ==
'' ... that ] once banned popcorn?
]
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==
'' ... that ] published the first studies about ] women in college?
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)
'' ... that the Kneeland Prairie penny-cress is a mustard flower found only in the ]?
*''"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)
'' ... that ] was the first ] student at ], the first ] quarterback in the NFL and the first Japanese coach in ]?
::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. &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)
'' ... oh yeah, and something about a Canadian science-fiction series and a Spanish mouse...''
::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)
Seriously, four out of six items that "center" on the United States do not suggest that Misplaced Pages has an international scope. A parochial scope, yes. An insular scope, definitely. An Americocentric scope, without a doubt. But ]. ] (]) 19:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


===Informal RfC===
: I made up that list of 6 items, so I do apologize deeply to any to whom "the Kneeland Prairie penny-cress is a mustard flower with spoon-shaped petals and spatula-shaped leaves" causes offense. Because so many US-centered articles are submitted, typically roughly 50% are US-related. I did not realize the penny-cress was offensively US-patriotic; otherwise I could have stuck it into a different prep, thus rendering this set of DYK only 3 of 6 US-related. Please, please, please submit articles focused on a country you favor to DYK, we would love to have more of them. <font style="font-family:sans-serif;color:black;"> <span style="text-shadow:#0099cc 0.12em 0.12em 0.12em; class=texhtml"> ''''']'''''</span> ] 20:12, 19 August 2011 (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?====
:(ec) DYK articles on the Main Page reflect articles submitted at ]. Although it fluctuates, in general about half of the articles submitted there have to do with the US, and so about half of any DYK update will deal with the US. We realize that coverage is not balanced; perhaps you'd like to help at ]? Or you could watch ] and submit suitable non-US articles to DYK. Thanks, ] (]) 20:18, 19 August 2011 (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)
::I invite anyone curious to take a look at to see how rare it is to find a set with "Seriously, four out of six items that "center" on the United States." Which makes us all the more grateful for the intense vigilance of logged-out anonymous editors flagging unintended but nevertheless hideously offensive bias. Thank god for those <s>brave</s> whistleblowers! <font style="font-family:sans-serif;color:black;"> <span style="text-shadow:#0099cc 0.12em 0.12em 0.12em; class=texhtml"> ''''']'''''</span> ] 20:54, 19 August 2011 (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? ====
:::Without comment on the rest, the fourth item is rather strange or poorly phrased. How is it possible anyone other then an American could be the first Asian American (student at an American college/quarterback in the NFL). Are there Asian Americans that are not Americans? I know people sometime claim that certain things are obvious but this is rather different since it seems to be something that by definition has to be. If the item is trying to illustrate that same person was all these things, surely it could still be better phrased? IMHO just calling him by name would have been better then what we have. And he isn't living so there aren't BLP concerns either. ] (]) 08:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
# Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
# Use comma


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::None of the items actually appeared in <span class="plainlinks"></span> as written above by 87.114.100.56 (who modified their wording to introduce deliberate absurdity). —] 08:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


====Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins? ====
:::::Ah okay, apologies, I thought they sounded odd but rarely pay much attention to DYK so decided that must be how they're usually written nowadays ] (]) 11:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
# Use line break
:I find it funny that "some Spanish mouse" had nearly twice the hits as the rest of the set ''combined''. The power of Spanish mice should not be dismissed out of hand, I guess. ] (]) 13:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
# Use comma
::It might make more sense if you look up the traditional uses of ] and then consider that recollection for search purposes often tends to be imperfect. - Tenebris 15:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:time of year I suspect. If you run the stats I suspect most of the time the most extreme bias (in terms of DYKs to population ratio) is actualy towards the UK.©] 16:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


====How should it be ordered?====
:I fail to see the problem. The US accounts for roughly 2/3rds of the native English speaking world population. It is true that Misplaced Pages's philosophy is a world approach, but it's also acknowledged that in practice, editors write what they know. The "bias" towards articles with some vague, tangential relation to the US is a reflection of editor population bias more than it is systematic political bias. - ] ] 06:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
# Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
# Bigger number(s) first


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


====Wikilinks?====
''This true-color satellite view of the Hawaiian Islands shows that most of the vegetation on the islands grows on the northeast sides''—not at that resolution, it doesn't. If we're expecting readers to pick out detail like that, we need to make the image bigger. What's the reluctance to render the TFP at a resolution at which it has a chance of being useful? ] &#124; ] 23:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
#Wikilink all of the numbers to ] (original proposal)
:Well it might cause a minor issue for the ~1-2% of users who still browse Misplaced Pages at less than 1024x768 resolution. Whereas of course when it comes to diagrams putting them in SVG format, which is completely unsupported by the browsers used by ~50% of web users (IE 6, 7 and 8) is completely acceptable.
#Wikilink only the first number to ]
:There is no good reason not to double the size of the image IMO. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 23:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
#Wikilink "active editor" to ]
::It would definitely skew the main page for me (1024x600). Don't loading times have something to do with it as well? ] (]) 23:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 12:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Looking in my web developer tools the image in question is currently 9.53kB out of 200kB to load the main page (uncached). If we doubled the width and height that would quadruple the area and therefore increase the image size by a factor of 4 to 38.12kB increasing the amount downloaded by ~ 14%. Far more critical to loading times is the fact that I need to download 46 different files to load the main page and the latency of doing that.
:::Additionally it looks fine at 1024px width: ]. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 23:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
::::Not everyone maximises their browser window, so even on nominally high resolution monitors there isn't always a huge amount of space. But it could certainly be, say, 500px wide. ] ] 00:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::Width isn't a a matter, but height is. The preview on the file page barely fits between my address bar and the search bar (Firefox 6.0, Windows XP). Rather distracting. ] (]) 05:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::The preview is at a much higher resolution than double the main page resolution as it is in my screenshot. My screenshot only made the image 500px wide. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 06:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
{{hat|Comments about SVG's}}
::SVGs are rendered by the servers as PNG for most display purposes so it isn't an issue. (Our rendering engine is somewhat outdated and does have issues but then again this is useful since it serves as a baseline for people to test compatibility.) The benefits of using SVG still remain and in fact a lot of them also apply to those using rendered SVGs. We don't reject high resolution images uploaded to our servers even if we require consideration of using high resolution images in articles etc. Incidentally, no one has ever produced statistics for our actual users, and last time someone produced statistics for users of '''other''' websites it was IIRC 3 or 4% so making the claim only 1-2% of our users have less then 1024x768 is quite misleading. In fact since IIRC we were only really considering horizontal resolution it may even be higher if you specify x768 (and it can be an issue as illustrated by Crisco in this case). Looking at the specific case, the image size could have been increased, but that doesn't excuse using misleading statistics. One issue is the template isn't able to fall back gracefully to putting text below the image if needed. (I believe this is done manually for landscape images.) I don't know if this is possible, but if it is possible to design the template so it can fallback gracefully to placing the text below when necessary, then this would reduce concerns about having the image too wide. ] (]) 06:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:::BTW other then other issues, I can't help thinking two of the reasons the image was kept small is because it would be distracting if so large at many resolutions; and aesthically it looks odd given the small amount of text, more so the greater the browser resolution particularly the horizontal resolution (i.e. it's worse for people with widescreens and large resolutions). Look at ] with such a monitor (it doesn't look as bad in the example above precisely because of the small horizontal resolution). ] (]) 06:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
{{hat|Comments about SVG's}}
::::{{ec}} The benefits of SVG are that if you wanted to blow a PNG image up to the size of a billboard that you'd be unable to do so and in theory (but not practice) that its technically superior. The other advantage - that its easier to create multiple versions at different resolutions is basically solved by getting users to upload a high resolution PNG and then resizing that. The disadvantages are that they don't render natively at all in the browser used by half the audience, support in other browsers is also incomplete, that they are also far harder to edit and that the PNG conversion code is poor and doesn't work properly - that that helps "compatibility" is a lame excuse. If I create a PNG it displays perfectly in every browser after IE 7 and as long as it doesn't have transparency it displays perfectly in IE 6 too. Additionally if I created the image in Inkscape or Omnigraffle rather than writing the code by hand there isn't anything I can do about that incompatibility even if I wanted to. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 06:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
{{hab}}
::::The fundamental point of the matter is that we are prepared to penalise large numbers of users and editors so that billboard users can use Misplaced Pages diagrams and so we can use a theoretically technically superior format. Whereas we are unable to penalise 1-2% (or 3-4%) of users who browse the internet at below 1024 width even though every other website on the internet does. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 06:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::Hold on, we're having two separate discussions here: one about image sizes ''in general'' and another about PNG vs SVG. Let's try to keep it to one topic or the other. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::I've been bold and collapsed the comments on SVG's they are basically a rant anyway (at least on my part). -- ] &lt;]&gt; 17:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::The point is we're not penalising them. In fact, as I said SVGs are still often an advantage even to those without native support. Yes I know you've collapsed the rest of the discussion so I won't reply to you other misleading claims <small>(except to say edibility is often an advantage not a disadvantage of SVGs)</small> there but as long as your IMO extremely misleading claim here stands, this is a fair reply. ] (]) 23:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2 and 3. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That sandbox does indeed look ugly, but on my old laptop (1024x768, but browser not maximised, So something like 900x700). The text spills over more height than the image occupies, and because most of the width is image it horribly messes with the text justification. Which I think is the opposite of the point you were making! ] ] 18:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::This is why most websites have a fixed width layout. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 19:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC) *'''Support 1''', unless active editors is the only statistic shown, in which case 3. ] (]) 22:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::That's a problem but the one which would be fixable if it's possible to make the text appear below image when necessary as I suggested. The oddity of a large image vs. a tiny amount of text particularly visible at higher resolutions is not something easy to fix except perhaps by always putting the text below or by increasing the amount of text (which sort of defeats the purpose of it being TFP). ] (]) 23:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


====Discussion====
:This proposal is predicated on the premise that displaying featured pictures at substantially larger sizes on the main page is desirable (provided that it's technically feasible). I disagree.
: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)
:Misplaced Pages isn't an image gallery website. It's an encyclopedia, whose images are presented in a manner intended to complement the textual content. Our featured pictures aren't standalone entitles; they're encyclopedic assets selected because their high quality or unique significance enhances articles to an exceptional extent.
::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)
:We don't use giant image sizes in articles, so I see no reason to do so on the main page (thereby presenting featured pictures in a context contrary their reason for being). In my view, this would convey "here's a cool image" instead of "here's a valuable element of the encyclopedia."
:@] 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?
:Readers are, of course, able to click on the featured picture to view it at a higher resolution, just as they would when reading an article. Perhaps we could actively encourage this (which also would serve to inform newcomers of the function). —] 19:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
: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>
::Enhancing the size of an image to a resolution at which the text makes sense would most certainly be useful. At the resolution of yesterday's TFP, there was no way to tell those brownish-greenish blobs on a blue background were islands, much less that vegetation was more prevalent on one side than the other. If we're not going to render the TFP at a useful resolution, let's scrap it altogether. I'd rather see a permanent TFL or GAs or featured topics or something that requires more than uploading an image from NASA's website. But if we're going to have a "Today's Featured ''Picture''" (not "Today's Featured ''Caption''"), we shouldn't display it at such low resolution that readers can't even tell what the picture ''is''. ] &#124; ] 20:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


with
:::If an image's subject is ''unrecognizable'', I agree that this is problematic. I had no difficulty discerning the islands (or even the vegetation distribution), but perhaps this is because my resolution is lower than yours. I'm not arguing that we mustn't make the thumbnails ''any'' larger, but the sandbox/screenshot example strikes me as over-the-top.
:::Indeed, this is "today's featured ''picture''," but that doesn't mean that it should be displayed on the main page at anything approaching its native resolution. We include only a small sample of "today's featured article," with the expectation that interested readers will click through to access the real thing. I see no reason not to apply this principle to the featured picture, just as we do when using images in articles. —] 20:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


<nowiki><div id="articlecount">] active editors · ] articles in ]</div></nowiki>
::::Well, the TFA blurb is very informative, even without reading the entire article. It's the lead, a nice concise summary. A smaller version of a picture isn't exactly the same as a summary.<br />
::::One important point is that at ], the full resolution is the deal breaker. A very large resolution is required for images to even be considered, and minor flaws (observable only at the full resolution) are often the reasoning for oppose votes. Now, in ], we also judge the entire article (even though only the blurb will actually feature on the main page) but I think there's a more direct connection there. Firstly, it's unlikely the blurb will be good if the rest of the article isn't, and secondly, the page views for TFA are much more than the full size views for POTD.<br />
::::An unrelated point is that on most monitors, the POTD isn't visible until you scroll (I personally am annoyed by this, I find POTD far superior to the high-profile ITN). <br />
::::Summary: the current judging criteria at ] rely on the full resolution, but only a minority of readers ever see that. At the mainpage thumbnail, the pictures don't really have the qualities (excellent sharpness, wow factor, high detail) they are chosen for. I like ]'s 1024px width box. ] (]-]) 21:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


The interpunct (·) should be replaced with a line break on small screens via Templatestyle (
:::::I don't mean to imply that an image thumbnail is "exactly the same" as an article summary, and I agree that it's as important for an image to be displayed at a useful size as it is for a blurb to convey useful information. But just as the TFA blurb doesn't illustrate every consideration behind the FA promotion, the TFP thumbnail needn't illustrate every consideration behind the FP promotion.
]
:::::We want readers to click through to featured content of interest to them. That relatively few readers do so with the featured pictures is unfortunate, but it obviously is no more feasible to display the full-resolution version on the main page than it is to display a full article there. That's why I suggest that we actively encourage readers to click, perhaps via a format similar to the one occasionally used for animated GIFs. —] 21:50, 22 August 2011 (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)
::::::Displaying it at full resolution would plainly be impractical—it would take up a huge amount of space and it would be murder on the load times—but I think we're a bit too conservative with resolutions. We could easily make the TFP slightly bigger without any adverse effects, and it wouldn't be necessary even to do it for every TFP—the resolution was okay for the (very cute) koalas, and it's not bad for today's battleship, but it was inadequate for the image which prompted me to start this thread, and has been for others (especially landscapes) in the recent past. ] &#124; ] 02:17, 23 August 2011 (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)
:::::::"Slightly bigger" strikes me as quite reasonable, particularly when such an issue arises. —] 02:26, 23 August 2011 (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)
:::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)
::::Seems good to me. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the mock up. Looks splendid. From my perspective, this is ready for implementation. ''']]''' 16:25, 6 January 2025 (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)


== Bye Bye Jimmy Carter, hello "the PDC World Darts Championship"? ==
*Support enlarging TFPs on the main page. I think 100% in height and in width would be excellent, failing that, 41% (doubling of the area on screen) would be good. --] ] 02:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, the PDC World Darts Championship is just not important, period.
*:I prefer the idea of slightly increasing the size when necessary and actively encouraging readers to click through to the image page. —] 03:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
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>
*::Lets' not be too vague here. Please define 'slightly'. --] ] 03:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
:{{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)
*:::However much is needed to address the problem described by HJ Mitchell, which would depend on the specific image. —] 04:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
:Carter died 10 days ago, the world has moved on. ]] 22:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Hahaha. Nice try. 'Piece of string' argument. ;-) --] ] 04:53, 23 August 2011 (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)
*:::::Sorry, I don't know what that means. (I see the emoticon, so I assume that it's humorous to some extent.) —] 05:15, 23 August 2011 (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)
*::::::Yea, . --] ] 07:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
*:::::::Okay, but that isn't a comparable context. I don't advocate that the images' dimensions increase by a finite amount (or ''at all'' unless the issue described by HJ Mitchell arises, in which case it would depend on the specific image's characteristics), so I'm unable to provide the sort of response that you sought. —] 17:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
*:"100% in height and width": do you mean the picture should be displayed at 100% of ''its'' height and width, or do you mean 100% of the ''container's'' height and width? The former is obviously impractical because most of the images are several megapixels in resolution and several megabytes in file size. If you mean the latter, that's not technically possible: images can only be set to a fixed size, not a relative size. The best you could do is a Javascript hack that calculates the available space and then dynamically loads the right size. However, the drawback to that is that MediaWiki creates thumbnails on an ad-hoc basis. The Main Page being one of the site's most requested pages, we are going to have a huge variety in browser screen widths. That means MediaWiki will end up creating that many different thumbnail images. Disk space may be cheap (and even then, you'd need to consider that having N thumbnails per image per day will quickly eat up disk space anyway, and almost all of those thumbnails will never be used again), but processing power isn't, so that's not really practical either. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 16:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
*::The wording confused me as well (with both of those interpretations coming to mind). I then realized that Ohconfucius was referring to a 100% height/width ''increase'' (quadrupling the image's size). In my view, even doubling the image's size (mentioned as a second choice) is excessive. —] 17:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:03, 6 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 6 		Today
January 7, 2025 		Tomorrow
January 8
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 (Monday)  
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 16:14 on 7 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

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)

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 · 6,936,610 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 48,515,515 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)

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)
Category: