Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:18, 1 June 2006 view source201.17.137.10 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:06, 10 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,725 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Main Page/Archive 207) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Main Page discussion ~~header~~}}		{{Short description\|Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion}}
			{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|autoconfirmed\|{{pp-vandalism\|small=yes}}}}<!--
	=Sveasoft=
			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}}}}

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

			{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
	<!-- Please scroll down and post the latest talk at the BOTTOM. Thanks! -->
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 200k
			\|counter = 207
			\|minthreadsleft = 1
			\|algo = old(3d)
			\|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{MPH alert}}
			{{Centralized discussion}}
			{{bots\|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 ] -->
			]
			__TOC__
			{{clear}}

			= Main Page error reports =
	== May 23: Henrik Ibsen died 100 years ago ==
			{{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 =
	The death of ] in 1906 (100 years ago today) should be on the main page (). Some admin need to help. This is a major celebration. ] 05:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{Shortcut\|T:MP\|WT:MP}}
			<!-- ---------------
			Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this talk page (e.g. using the "New section" button above), or use the "" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.
			---------------- -->

			==Add number of editors in the topmost banner==
	:we all know that his writings are sometimes dreary and depressing, but that's no call to go celebrating his death! --] ] ] 05:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
			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)
	::It's rather the playwright that is celebrated. ] 06:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
			*''"100 or so admins edit Misplaced Pages" factoid actualy just statistical error. average admin does not edit Misplaced Pages. ], who lives in cave & passes RfA 10 times each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.''{{pb}}But yes, this seems like a great idea! <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I shall lend my support as I like this idea. It ties in well with the post on social media by the Wikimedia Foundation (earlier today, yesterday?) about "Misplaced Pages in numbers". ''']]''' 09:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Support - and maybe also add a edit count? Something like this might work: <div id="articlecount">] total edits · ] active editors · ] articles in ]</div> <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 09:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I can't see any downside of adding the number of active editors, which is an impressive number given that the count is just for the last month. The number of edits seems a bit meaningless since it is a huge number that is hard to grasp and since what constitutes an edit is so variable. ] (]) 09:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Also support this. It's a minor but potentially quite impactful addition. ''']]''' ‡ <sup>]</sup> 09:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Good idea; I like the model that {{u\|CanonNi}} proposes above. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 17:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I like Ca's suggestion of just including the number of editors. I'm not super keen on adding the number of edits as it is fairly meaningless to most casual visitors. Also, it will always be off because of caching (and I don't want us to get useless reports of "I made an edit but the number didn't go up!"). —] (]) 17:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Very good point, Kusma, about useless reports. ''']]''' 18:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			* The interpunct might need to be replaced with a line break on mobile devices, for aesthetic reasons. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 10:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Maybe just a comma to separate them. ]] 11:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Personally, I think a comma would be out-of-place since this is not a list. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 11:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::It’s a list of two counts ]] 11:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Id support. Maybe something somewhere which explains what active means. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::: I think Pommem meant the death is "commemorated" today on the 100th anniversary, while we "celebrate" Ibsen's life and work. Anyway, it's posted now. Please consider mentioning some of the commemoration activities on Ibsen's wikiarticle. -- ] 06:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
			::The wikilink to ] already provides an explanation. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 13:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I dunno about other people, but because the link is the amount of people, I'd expect the link to be to the list of people. If it were "active editors" that was linked, I would click it to find out what "active meant". '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The number of articles link also goes to ], though. – ] <small>(])</small> 12:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Yeah, that's also a bit dumb. Maybe if we linked both the term and the amount to the same link. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::How about linking the number of active editors to ], where it is explained? ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 12:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Sounds like a good idea. I would but the editors after the number of articles, though – best to lead with the bigger number. – ] <small>(])</small> 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*This appears to be ] problem; I believe it would be best if we went ahead with the original formatting and discuss the minute details later. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I never said it was a problem, just a suggestion. – ] <small>(])</small> 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Sorry, I didn't mean to reply to you in particular. I've changed the indentation level. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Displaying the 'active editors' variable significantly discounts all of prior editors associated with those millions of articles being discussed in the same line. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I suppose you could say something like, "] articles in ] written by ] editors" to be maximally precise. – ] <small>(])</small> 16:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::What I'm saying is that the {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}</nowiki> is certainly way more than the {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}</nowiki>, and that the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}</nowiki> certainly would not have been possible with only the later. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Advertising how many "active" users we have isn't necessarily a problem, I'm saying we shouldn't in anyway suggest that such a low number of contributors has led to the number of articles we have to casual readers, reporters, etc that would read the line. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Perhaps something like "currently maintained by X active editors"? (Which also discounts all of the many unregistered editors). — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::"by over" maybe.... — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Why, though? "X active editors" isn't saying that that's all the editors who've ever been. It's doing the opposite, by qualifying "active". Getting a bot to keep a tally of total editors ever, per Joe, could be a cool idea, but there's nothing misleading or incorrect about just listing active users, and it's potentially of more interest to readers. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::I'm not opposed to somehow advertising the currently active editors, just saying we should ensure that such a figure isn't associated with the total count of all articles made by a much much larger group. (As the original problem is suggesting that readers are underestimating the number of volunteers that have built Misplaced Pages). — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			:I absolutely support this. Maybe also include the number of edits made in the current calendar day? ] \| ] \| ] 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Table of Contents not showing on some pages? ==
			::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)
	The TOC seems to be not showing on the main and some other articles (XP/IE6, tried Opera, logging out, and non-monobook skin as well)... of course, it is late so I may be going insane, plus adding <nowiki>__TOC__</nowiki> works for me though... ] 08:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

			===Informal RfC===
	If it's on this talk page then it is probably because someone has vandalized it. It usuallly happens but the page will other wise be reseted.]]<span>
			{{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?====
	interesting
			# 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)
	:There is no TOC on the main page. Most articles don't have TOCs. You can change it in your preferences, though. --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>(] \| ] \| ])</sup> 22:59, 27 May 2006 (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? ====
	== Lordi ==
			# Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
			# Use comma

			* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	Is it just me, or has the "Monster rock band Lordi earns Finland's first ever victory in the Eurovision Song Contest." news been on the front page too long? It just doesn't seem very important, relevant or interesting. Is there a reason this is still on the front when breaking news of disasters, politics, etc. isn't?
	] 20:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It has worldwide, or at least Europe-wide, relevance, unlike political events (generally). ] is, unfortunately, a big deal. Besides, it hasn't been there for more than a day or so. <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—'''<font color=DAA520>]</font><font color=green>]</font><font color=6495ED>]</font><sup><font color=F4A460>]</font>\|<font color=4682B4>]</font></sup>'''<span style="font-size:85%;">, ], ] ] @ 22:16 ]</span>'''<!--Cuivienen's signature ends here-->
	::Ok, now it's definitely been here for more than a day. Seen it, done that. I feel we're playing demographic at this point (i.e. people on wikipedia care more about this than most of the population.) There is more pressing news, isn't there? No? It's a shame if a list of headliners-- namely the UN Health Agency leader's death, or China forbidding Iran to develop nukes, details about Iraq's establishing gov.-- slow news day maybe? It could just be my narrow opinion, but the concert was mediocre and doesn't affect the masses much beyond how it distracts or entertains them. ] 09:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	::: ''In the news'' (ITN) is not a 'news site', but a section on Misplaced Pages's MainPage to feature wikiarticles updated with recent news. (The bolded link connects to that updated page.) To propose new items for ITN, please go to ]. If you want to read/write about news and current events, please go to ] or ]. Thanks. -- ] 10:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Right. I have nominated some suggestions (ok, maybe just one-- the release of a Pentagon plane crash tape) for ITN. I just don't like how Lordi gets precedence over global politics, etc., though. Call it a poor bias. Thanks kindly for your response; it did clear some things up for me. ] 10:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Bordello, welcome to wikipedia, the 💕 where anyone can make suggestions and have them shot down by the established hacks. --]]]]] 16:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Again, the point is that Misplaced Pages does not have a full-time news "staff" devoted to putting up fresh items every single morning. We're all volunteers. So those wishing to see something different should ''volunteer'' to get off their ass and help things out by adding things (preferably updating article as well) to ITN. I only just yesterday noticed there had been no item about ] and the ], which is why it did not make the main page. Well, if I had thought of it at the time, I should have added it to ITN. --] \| ] 17:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::: The relevance of Lordi is that they won with the only non sweet & sickly pop song in the competitions history. For years, "real" music aficionados in my county (UK, where popular/rock music is superior), have been puking at the contents of the competition. Now, At last, an act with some balls has been voted (and it's the voting that is relevant here) winner. All hail Lordi! etc etc. Let's hope this result changes a previously awful competition into something a little more musically competent (some hope). The relevance of this event is of particular cultural interest, and as such is important enough to have made the front page for a day or two. OLD NOW THOUGH! (The band are a bunch of sofyies really)(] 16:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

			====Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins? ====
	== Wikispecies ==
			# Use line break
			# Use comma

			* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	The link at the bottem still links to the old URL. It's now species.wiki'''media'''.org. ] 10:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Apparently this is not an issue. See ] for an explanation. - ]] 18:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

			====How should it be ordered?====
	== i need to know! ==
			# Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
			# Bigger number(s) first

			* '''Support 1 or 2.''' '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	This page is very hard to figure out who made this web site i need to know. {{unsigned\|151.204.41.2}}
	:If you want to know ''how'' Misplaced Pages is written, please see the ] article. If you need an author for a citation, please see ], though you should read ] to figure out if you really want a Misplaced Pages citation. - ]] 13:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

			====Wikilinks?====
	== Long Live Joan of Arc! ==
			#Wikilink all of the numbers to ] (original proposal)
	I think she is one of the best things that happened to the French people even though she did get captured because she inspired a lot of people, even the French Canadians (like me.) But what do you think of her? Do you think she did the right thing?:--]]<span>
			#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)
	:There are a lot of mysteries about Joan of Arc...was she crazy? was she genetically a man? was she actually divinely inspired? The controversy that surrounds this enigmatic historical figure often outshines her actual deeds. During the Dark Ages, "right" and "wrong" were relative terms. I would not go so far as to say that she did the "right" thing, but she did help to drive the English out of France and establish a French national identity, which had profound effects on the later course of history. Sadly, her legacy is most likely tied directly to her gender. Had she been a man, she would never have had a main page article about her. However, she is undeniably an important woman in history. Historical perspectives aside, though, I love any historical figure who affected the future as much as she did...anyone who, through words or deeds, made the world what it is today (okay, except maybe Hitler, although admittedly nobody could envision a world without him) my verdict: LONG LIVE JOAN OF ARC!] 17:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Support 1''', unless active editors is the only statistic shown, in which case 3. ] (]) 22:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			====Discussion====
	Yes, though it is very sad about the rumours of her and her gender in question. I doubt that there was anything wrong with her and the English must have started those rumours because of their anger towards her. ]]<span>
			: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)
	:The rumor about she was a man make me think about this one who said that ] was a man. It went so far that she had to proove it that she hadn't any esthetic surgery. The hoax came from internet and the guy now have big problems with justice. I really hope it will be the same for the Jeanne d'arc diffamer because it is really a calamity I think. --] 20:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
			::From a maintenance and server load perspective, a bot updating daily is no different than a bot updating every minute (i.e., just a line of code's difference and resource usage that rounds down to 0). <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@] Do you expect people to respond here with their opinions on these 5 issues? Or is this just a draft for a forthcoming formal RfC?
			:If you plan on having another, better-publicized RfC, I'd recommend relisting the original question {{green\|Should this be added at all?}}; the original consensus for this had less than 10 editors. <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I should have been more clear, but yes, I was expecting people to give their opinions. However, I am waiting before pinging everyone to see if anyone have any more suggestions for the questions. I count 13 people who support the proposal and one who explicitly opposed it; I feel that a RfC is going to have the same consensus for inclusion. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 05:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::So perhaps you could split the five questions into separate subheadings, to allow for clearer discussion of each issue? <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Good idea ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 07:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I'd add a 4. option with both active users and all-time editors, as {{u\|xaosflux}} suggested above. (Maybe after the total articles count, "{{green\|... created by {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} editors}}"). ] (]) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I've added it, but using <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}</nowiki> would be inaccurate since it includes user accounts with zero edits. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Since a week has passed for suggested additions, I'll be pinging previous participants tommorow to decide on the formatting. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Pinging participants: @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 12:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I've added my replies/thoughts under each individual item, which might help to keep/make consensus visible despite the many moving parts. There's a very large danger of ] here! '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Just to confirm, did you receive the ping? I'm afraid this RfC is going to flop. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I don't think this is the best format for reaching consensus on relatively minor details. Maybe try just proposing a version based on the feedback above and iterate accordingly. – ] <small>(])</small> 20:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I believe the lack of engagement here shows general apathy for the formatting. I don't want to try to wrangle in RfC after RfC, wasting community time. I plan to simply submit an edit request with the original proposed formatting if this RfC gets less than five responses. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 09:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I think that would be wise: ], after all, and it seems reasonable to suggest that many editors who have seen this and not commented have done so because they have no strong opinion on the points of "contention". '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Yes. I think for once Wikipedians' ability to bicker over a comma has disappointed you. '']'' (] — ]) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			===Edit request===
			{{edit request\|ans=y}}
			Per above consensus, please implement the original proposal of replacing the following

			<nowiki><div id="articlecount">] articles in ]</div></nowiki>
	I read a very cool book about Joan of Arc by Mark Twain. Most people don't realize that he wrote a history and considered it one of his finest works. <span style="color:#206030;">Michael</span>

			with
	== Wikisource ==
	Wikisource has a logo. Could you please change this. Thanks. --] 14:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	:] on the front of ] has not changed. The new image at ] appears to be used in their version of the Signpost and has not yet been adopted for the project as whole, as far as I can tell. Note image disagreement in the history of the ] article. - ]] 15:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I like the old one better. ] (]) 20:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I'm an admin at the English Wikisource & can confirm that the logo hasn't changed. There has been a lot of debate & discussion on the possibility of changing the logo, which you can but nothing has been decided. We do have a new logo for wikisource news, our version of your signpost, at ] but this isn't replacing the overall wikisource logo. ] 07:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

			<nowiki><div id="articlecount">] active editors · ] articles in ]</div></nowiki>
	::The german Wikisource is the only project that has made the changed yet. But the logo will soon be changed for all the Wikisource projects. /] 09:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Anonymous user, could you please provide verification for that assertion, say a link to where a new wikisource logo was selected, as as far as I and anyone else at the English wikisource knows no project-wide decision has been made, as can be seen from my link to the discussions. ] 12:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

			The interpunct (·) should be replaced with a line break on small screens via Templatestyle (
	::::In the Wikisource ] Jimbo Wales said that the new version should be used on all Wikisource projects without delay. /] 12:54, 25 May 2006 (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)
	:::::So now this is a dictatorship, not an anarchy that decides things by concensus? ] 09:50, 26 May 2006 (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.  — ] (]) 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 — Martin <small>(] · ])</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)
	::::::LOL! But I like the new logo better as well. --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>(] \| ] \| ])</sup> 22:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	== ST ~~Cyril~~ ~~and Methodius~~ ==		== Proposal: delink "English" ==

			Propose to remove the link from "English" to ]. This is an everyday word and per ], we should avoid linking everyday words. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	This holiday is not celebrated only in Bulgaria, but in Russia and Macedonia too. So please, do change it right away, as I find this rather offending. And I am writing this here and not on the article's discussion page since this is a featured article in the "on this day" section - found on the main page. It's really not human how you make some cultures great (bulgarians), and some worthless (every other slavic nation who has its alphabet in cyrillic). <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2\|}}}.</small><!-- -->
	:The item has been fixed to list Macedonia, because that is in the article. Russia is not; if you have information to add to the article, it will be welcomed. The editors involved in selecting the holidays to list have a very long list to choose from every single day, and the front page is only a partial representation of the available items. There was probably no reason other than space or editorial time that only Bulgaria was listed. --] \| ] 17:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: Please disambiguate Macedonia. -- ] 20:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: ], this is a ]. I find it rather offending that you chose to complain here and accuse people of being "not human", instead of sharing your knowledge and help improve pages such as ] and ]. ] is not listed on either pages. --] 20:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	::I believe that person meant to say "Not Humane"...but that doesnt make any sense either. Regardless, it's not appropriate to lash out at the author of the blurb on the main page and assume that he or she was trying to stifle slavic culture by pursuing a pro-Bulgarian agenda. Please don't assume that every article is biased or that Misplaced Pages is attempting to make some cultures seem 'great' and others 'worthless'. I could understand that sort of vitriolic comment if it had said "The holiday of St. Cyril and Methodius is celebrated in awesome and beautiful Bulgaria where everyone is perfect, but not in Russia or Macedonia where people eat babies and live in yurts made of rotting corn husks". I guess I'm just trying to say that nobody meant to offend anyone in the first place, so there's no reason to take offense. Please try to remember this in the future.] 00:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::This might be a good time to mention ]. -- ] <font color="#474645">\|</font> ] 14:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::: And ]. -- ] 05:09, 26 May 2006 (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)
	== Victoria Day ==
			::"Free" (in the sense we use it) and "encyclopaedia" at least plausibly something that a reader might need defining for them. There's nobody reading the English Misplaced Pages that doesn't know what English is. – ] <small>(])</small> 08:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	I don't see a mention of Victoria Day. Did I miss it on the 22nd? It is a stat holiday here in Canada. It's on the Monday closest to the 24th of May, Queen Victoria's birthday. I would think it's a holdiay in other Commonwealth countries too.
			:::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.  — ] (]) 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! — Martin <small>(] · ])</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)
	:It was mentioned on the appropriate day. Perhaps you looked in after about 10:00EDT on that day and saw "tomorrows" page becuase of the time offset? According to the article, Victoria Day is celebrated only in Canada. ] 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
			*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)
	==referendum figures==
	it is unclear whether "55.5% support out of an 86.3% voter turnout" means "55.5% yes, 30.8% no, 13.7% abstain" or "47.9% yes, 38.4% no, 13.7% abstain", please clarify (the intended meaning appears to be "55% ''of'' a 86.3% turnout". taking percentages of percentages may be confusing.). ] <small>]</small> 21:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Turnout is ignored. (This is usually the case in ]s.) Only people who voted are considered, so the 55% threshold was reached. <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—'''<font color=DAA520>]</font><font color=green>]</font><font color=6495ED>]</font><sup><font color=F4A460>]</font>\|<font color=4682B4>]</font></sup>'''<span style="font-size:85%;">, ], ] ] @ 21:48 ]</span>'''<!--Cuivienen's signature ends here-->
	::yes, my point is that it is wrong to say "55% out of 86%" in this case, it should be "55% of 86%". ] <small>]</small> 10:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

	:::The problem is that the actual news is false and essentially incorrect. Those are only ''preliminary estimated'' results. The final results will be known by the end of this week. These news say as if the referendum passed... --] 11:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Proposal to change format of the FA box on the mainpage ==

	Please comment on the proposal at ].--] 00:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Minor fix needed for the news section ==
	:''Moved to ]. -- 06:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

	==East Timor Crisis==
	This current event should be on the news page, Australia has just sent troops to stabilise the country.
	http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/australian-troops-arrive-in-dili/2006/05/25/1148524807943.html
	<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 08:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- -->

	: This is currently being discussed on ]. --] 10:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

	: Actually, it's already on the news page: ]. There since yesterday.... -- ] 10:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


	== Ascension Thursday ==

	The quantity of information boxes in the article ( ] ) linked to in On This Day are somewhat off-putting; one of them seems to float over one of the sections. Sadly I have no idea how to fix them, but maybe someone else does? ] 10:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

	: Perhaps you should complain at ]. -- ] 14:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Request image change in Template:In the News ==

	Hi,

	The "In the News" template currently has India's flag as the picture. I think that since now there are more relevant pictures like ], the flag can be substituted. Thanks, -] (]) 12:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)



	== Vandalized! ==

	This article has been vandalized:http://en.wikipedia.org/Electronic_dance Please revert it to it's original form. Thank you and best regards, :--]]<span>
	: Perhaps you should complain at ] instead of here. -- ] 18:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Two things: 1. you can do it yourself. See ] for more info. 2. you mean "its", not "it's". --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>(] \| ] \| ])</sup> 22:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	==Towel Day==

	Today is ]. Is it possible to mention that in On this day...? Thanks. ] 15:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Not likely.--]]]] 15:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Kitsumiti ==
	Can someone please get rid of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/Kitsumiti as it is about me and I wish to keep my privacy. Thank you and best regards,]]<span>
	: Perhaps you should complain at ] instead of here. -- ] 18:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::already done. but not by me! --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>(] \| ] \| ])</sup> 22:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Tiger ==

	That tiger is yawning, not roaring. - ] 07:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Either yawning or roaring, that's not a good picture for the current DYK items. --] 08:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Most frequently viewed and edited articles on Misplaced Pages? ==
	Does anyone know how to get a (real-time?) list of the articles that are most frequently viewed and edited on Misplaced Pages? I've searched pretty hard on Google and Misplaced Pages but no luck so far.

	----

	:Maybe the most edited, but not viewed, and not in real time.--]]]] 17:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

	::Misplaced Pages does not collect statistics ("hits") for page views, as doing so would put too much extra burden on the servers. However ] provides a list of the most edited articles. -] (<small>] \| ]</small>) 17:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Requested article ==

	] (Life of Jesus) by ]. --] 14:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Probably a better place to request that would be at ]. -- ] <font color="#474645">\|</font> ] 18:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

	==Re: Japanese copyrights==
	: 日本人ウィキペディアンのコメント, 漫画ページについて
	<strike>*漫画やアニメなどの画像を載せるのは違法じゃないんですか？著作権者からの許可はもらっているのですか</strike>
	:Sorry this is the english language Misplaced Pages - can you address your question in english? If you are refering to the copyright of images on Misplaced Pages each image page has the copyright information on it. If you have a cncern with images on wikipedia that you own the copyright for you can address that issue on the image's discussion page. This may help: ] --] 01:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::We should assume it's vandalism. ] 03:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::]というアメリカの法律で違法ではありません。それより難しいですが、私は日本語が忘れてしまって]を読めばいいんです。ほかの質問が残れば遠慮しないで日本語のウィキペディアの]で聞きくのか]のユウザアを聞くのをやってみてください。- ] 04:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Naw, he was just asking why using images from manga and anime wasn't illegal. Hopefully I pointed him to the Japanese fair use article and some relevant places for further questions but my Japanese is so rusty I may have just asked if elephants tango at dawn. - ] 04:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::LOL yes I got the jist of what was being asked. But I wasn't sure if they had a problem with something on an article or were asking a general policy/copyright question. --] 07:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Vandalism? I've seen some strange comments, but that takes the cake. We're supposed to assume good faith, remember? --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>(] \| ] \| ])</sup> 22:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::"Assume good faith" within reasonable limits. We can't even begin to read those posts. ] 07:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Clearly you are incorrect as "we" could. Users from other language editions of Misplaced Pages occasionally leave messages here and there's almost always a Wikipedian with the relevant language skills wandering by who can give them some advice. - ] 19:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I can read it. ] <small>]</small> 20:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::In that case, someone else is assuming good faith while that right is being taken away from those that only speak native languages. What is this, California? ] 17:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::From ]:
	:::::''So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism.''
	:::::It would be pretty silly vandalism to merely post a new, single-line bit in a talk page. Hence, we can reasonably assume it wasn't an edit made with malicious intent. — ] <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 22:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Vandalized Main Page ==

	This user: 169.204.230.6 keeps on vandalizing the talk main page and taking away the navigational box which shows all the titles people have made. It is getting very annoying to the point in which I need to inform an Admin of this. I do not wish to keep on scrolling down the page looking for the subjects that I have written. I do not wish for anybody to be annoyed as much as I am. Please revert it to the way it was. If it already has been reverted before I post this please ignore my post. Thank you and best regards, ]]<span>
	:He seems to have stopped after being warned, so no action looks necessary unless he returns. In future, reports like these should go on ], though first the vandal should be warned with the appropriate ] (anyone can do this, not just admins) and only after they continue past a final warning should they be reported for blocking. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	Okay thank you Mr.Blanning. I will keep that in mind! Thank you and best regards, ]]<span>

	== Mbah ==

	Since I noticed that none reply long ago written posts, I am noting here to make people pay attention. Please re-read about the referendum. --] 22:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Pay attention to which referendum? --] 01:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Perhaps the Serbia and Montenegro referendum maybe?--] 14:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	The only one in the news - the Montenegrin referendum (the news is incorrect, like can be seen in the corresponding pragraph on this talk page). --] 14:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	: Try ], or propose a rewrite on the ITN candidates page -- before this item gets displaced by more recent news. -- ] 16:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	== ''Dracorex Hogwartsia'' "did you know" not consistent with article ==

	According to the corresponding article, the dinosaur called ''Dracorex Hogwartsia'' was ''not'' named for the Hungarian Horntail in Harry Potter (it says so just that explicitly), but was just inspired by the series in some more general way. I think an admin ought to remove this from the main page, or, since it is interesting, keep but rewrite the sentence. - ] 18:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	: DYK has been "refreshed" a few hours ago. This item is no longer on the Main Page, otherwise, I would've moved this to ]. Admin response is usually quicker there. --] 21:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	==Error in Did You Know?==
	Danny Greene was Irish American, not Irish. Can someone amend this please? ] 18:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	: DYK has been "refreshed" a few hours ago. This item is no longer on the Main Page, otherwise, I would've moved this to ]. Admin response is usually quicker there. --] 21:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	== All Portals ==

	:''duplicate post, answered at ], -] 09:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)''

	==Spelling error==
	In the feature article "The Norwegian Jarmann M1884", fireing should be firing. ]
	: Go to . ]<font color="green">]</font>] 03:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Admins, don't go and check now. It's already fixed. -- ] 15:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	==In other languages -box?==
	Why isn't it in the mainpage? It's in every other Wikipedias.

	:It grew too large for a box down the left side, so it's now a page width box down the bottom of the main page "Misplaced Pages languages". --] 10:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Time to update the number of articles ==
	Hey people, I thought that may be it is time to update the number of English Misplaced Pages articles...--] 22:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)]
	: I thought the number on the Main Page updates itself. No ? --] 03:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, the article count is a "live" count using the special command <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}</nowiki>. It's as up to date as you can get. - ] <small>(])</small> 03:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Addition ==
	Would somebody please add "and that number is expected to rise" for the indonesian earthquake blurb in the "in the news" section? I believe that this is to be expected. --Gus
	:Three reasons not to:
	:# It goes without saying, yet ...
	:# ].
	:# I hope such a tragic number will stay low.
	:-- ] 03:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Remove the title header? ==

	Anyone know how to remove the title header on the Main Page on my own wiki, like they've done on Misplaced Pages? Thanks! ] 05:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:This has been asked before recently, perhaps look in the archives. I forget what the outcome was, sorry. --] 08:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks for your help. The answer, if anyone cares, is to copy the contents of ] to your own wiki. ] 18:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	== The Image at Top Left ==
	Something's wrong with the Image. Is anyone else experiencing this?
	] 07:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Could you be more specific? It looks okay at my end. --] 08:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	::On my side,the words Misplaced Pages: The 💕 is blacked out. Does that answer your question? hello ] 22:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	:::Okay - not happening here. Anyone else seeing this? (Have you tried refreshing the image by itself?) --] 03:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	== On This Day ==

	I'm not sure if this should go under errors, but for events celebrated on this day, it is the ] ] in the ]. <font style="color:#BB0055">'''s'''murrayinch</font>]<font style="color:#BB0055">ster<sup>(]), (])</sup></font> 08:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	:That's neither an error, nor main page general discussion material. Have a look ]. I don't think that the date is remarkable enough to get into the OTD box, however. --] 08:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Agreed it's not an error, but someone referring to what they see as an omission in the list of dates on the main page is, surely, entitled to post here? But in any case, Whitsun is a religious term — it's the ''Spring Bank Holiday'' (]). ] 10:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	::I probably came over a little terse. Sorry Smurrayinchester! What I was trying to do was point out the appropriate starting point for thinking about sugesting OTD entries. --] 12:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	:::Perhaps it's worth thinking about how to guide people a bit better on the Main Page - say, a "discuss this list" or "add to this list" link for each of '''In the news''' and '''On this day...'''? It might go to, say, ] or an equivalent. ] 13:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	::::<s>Actually you made me realise that there wasn't a coresponding (suggest a new entry) link for OTD at the top of this page. So I added one.</s> (RV self - That was stupid of me) - But are you suggesting that similar links go on the main page itself? --] 15:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	:::::Yes. Anything to make things easier for people who aren't familiar with the current arrangements (which seem to change from time to time anyway) for commenting, adding to or discussing the various Main Page components. Normal article pages are easy, but the Main Page seems generate difficulties like this. The hard part, of course, is working out how to add such features without causing clutter and/or confusion! ] 12:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I'm not sure if it could be put on the main page without clutter. We have to think about that. But perhaps instead of having this talk page here, it should be replaced with a set of options one of which is this discusion on a different page. Along with all the other options. --] 12:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	==Make wikipedia your homepage...==
	I think the main page of wikipedia would really benefit from an option to allow the user to make the page their homepage. Misplaced Pages is the largest encyclopedia on the internet (I think!) and a I think lot of people would choose wikipedia to be their homepage. ] 09:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	:That's the kind of option that should be done at the browser's end not on the website (IMO). A user can make any site they like their homepage. If you use Firefox WP is already an option in the search box. Who knows, maybe one day it will replace Google as the default. ;) --] 11:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Yeah, such an option would be superfluous. There are also no text size increaser/decreaser buttons, for example. A browser is expected to provide those. —], 14:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Bravo! ==

	This website site is absolutely excellent! I love the way the encyclopiedia expands on everything!
	Gives you a sufficent amount of information.
	Keep it up!
	:Thanks on behalf of all of us -- it's always nice to hear good things from users. Misplaced Pages gets enough criticism as it is. ;-) --] \| ] 05:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Talk:Main Page history it says this person is an "anon". That's prety good for an anon. He/She is very right. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 21:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Uzbek Misplaced Pages ==

	Hello Admin,
	uzbek wikipedia reached 1000 Articles. Please could you add it to english main page. Thanks.
	--] 17:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Ismanov

	Done. -- ] / <sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> / <sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 17:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Congratulations Uzbek editors! --] \| ] 05:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Daily Mail.uk ==

	would be a perfect article for the main page, especially because if there was even a hint of organized eugenics in the United States, every NGO and socialist government would (ironically) be screaming bloody murder. ] 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It would appear only if there were an existing article in wikipedia that reached a degree of encyclopedic quality. As articles on the front page are sourced from wikipedia articles, not external websites. I fear that such an article would be the target of much argument and heated debate, however. It would be a beast to find a ] and bring in all sides of the discussion. --] 12:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Suggesting stuff ==

	How can we suggest the admins to put stuff in the main page?
	--] 18:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Several different places: for "Did you know", see ]; for "In the news", see ]; for "Featured article", take a look at ]; for "Selected anniversaries", see ]; and for "Featured picture", see ]. All those pages describe the process of having stuff appear on the front page. Hope this helps! --]<sup>]]</sup> <small><font color="brown">]</font></small> 21:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)



	==ITN Pictures==
	=== Merkel Pictured @ ITN===
	Any chance of a picture of Java or a flag of Indonesia instead?--] 14:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	:: I thought the same thing, the Merkel picture is utterly unnecessary and irrelevant... --] 16:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	:::There should be a photo of the train station instead. ] 16:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::A train station with dead bodies? What? ] 07:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::: Or the ]. --] 16:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Done and done. Added the Indonesian flag, though I had problems with the <nowiki>{{border}}</nowiki> tag. --] 19:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::: {{tl\|border-notinline}} works better on ITN. -- ] 21:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

	=== Please choose photos that help in some way to inform readers ===

	As the Indonesian flag contributes very little to inform about the earthquake, could you please post a portrait of the activist instead? ] 03:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	: Not just any pic can get onto the Main Page. What is the copyright status of this pic of ] ? -- ] 03:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Says something in a language I cannot understand but has a public domain sign: , . ] 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	::: The he.wikipedia page says 'fairuse'. So it probably cannot be used on the Main Page.
	::: Hopefully, someone can get the ] page expanded and updated soon, so that we can put that and the ] on ITN. -- ] 03:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	:A flag, at least, my teach some what that particular country's flag looks like. The flag is a default for when a more suitable picture can't be found (due to copyright or other issues). It is important, in many people's opinions, to have the lead article the one with the picture. Much confusion occurs when it is not.

	:What else could you picture in such a disaster? Perhaps a location map? Certainly not pictures of those injured or worse. That's simply disrespectful. --] 08:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	::A location map would certainly be more informative than a flag in this instance. The small inset maps at or look the right sort of thing, but someone would have to produce a set for different regions of the world. Alternatively, a cropped version of a would do. ] 13:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	===Change ITN picture please===
	]
	] 15:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

	]
	:This won't work at ITN. The usual size is 100px. Too small to show anything meaningfully. (see right)-- ] 02:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	:: I like ] better. See my suggestion at ]. -- ] 03:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Impressive: Lipany ==

	I'm currently doing a research paper on the Hussite Wars, so I was pleasantly surprised to be reminded that this is the 672nd anniversary of Lipany. However, do you really think Lipany is so important as to merit mention on the home page? How is this stuff decided, anyway? Is it done at random? ] 01:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	: No, not random. The effective end of the ] in ] seems important enough to me to be included.... Usually the "best" pages get selected from a list on the day's page, in this case ], featuring something different in history every day. Like everything on the Main Page, this section is maintained by administrators. See ] for more details. -- ] 03:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	==DYK==
	..could be updated to include the launch date of the referred to iteration of HMS Ocean, to avoid confusion with e.g. the present incarnation. ] 02:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Bias in Selection of Featured Articles? ==

	Has anyone else noticed that there appears to be a bias in selection of both Featured Articles and Did you Knows?

	For example, both Australia and Scandinavian Firearms appear as FA's far more frequently than their relative prevalence in the Misplaced Pages world would suggest. I'm an Australian interested in firearms, so I'm not overly fussed, but the bias certainly seems to be there.

	Also, in recent times in Did You know?, we have had a succession of Australian swimmers, including both the Konrads. Again, worthy subjects, but what about Australian basketballers, or Dutch swimmers, or Latvian townships, or asteroids?

	Is it possible that those who compose this page are subconsciously letting their own interests have sway?

	--] 07:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	: It's probably not bias in selection, but a systemic bias (in available wikicontent) due to the knowledge base of available contributors. -- ] 08:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (& 21:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
	::I'd agree with 199. At the very least, the DYK box can't reasonably be accused of bias on the part of the admins working on the main page, since they largely put whatever is suggested on ] up there, and that page is added to by pretty much whoever wants to. As to the choice of FA, there's some input into the order at ] but choices are mostly made by ], who has a very limited base of articles from ] to choose from. Any bias present isn't so much from the administrators as from contributors to Misplaced Pages in general, at least in my humble opinion. But I'd agree that ''at the moment'' the english-language Misplaced Pages has a distinct Anglophone/Western bias (which is understandable considering). ] <sup>]</sup>⁄<sub>]</sub> <small>• 10:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)</small>

	:::See also: ]. -- ] <sup>\] \]</sup> 10:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::The connection was Anglophone/Western bias is tenuous to say the least. It's simply that there are only a small number of featured articles to choose from, and a few people with specific interests (which often don't match the overall skewing of the content very closely at all) produce quite a lot of them. ] 15:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	== what has happened? ==

	why are all the links now underlined? It looks very weird. ] 22:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Just refresh the page, that happens sometimes. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	::Refreshing doesn't help. Should i clear my ]?] 22:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	:::Either that or simply telling your browser to not look stuff up in the cache when refreshing should do. The way to do that is Ctrl + F5 in Firefox and perhaps the same in Internet Explorer. ] ] 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

	::::nevermind. i fixed it. ] 23:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


	] 01:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	How did you fix this problem? I have the same thing happen and am wanting to go back to the default look.
	:Clear the ] ''and'' restart your browser. The same thing happened to me and this could fix it. --] '']'' 11:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	== May 31: News ==

	Can someone please update the news column? The quake in Indonesia killed over 7000 people, according to reports from authorities. Also, there should be mention of the State of Emergency declared in East Timor. ] 09:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:"Over 5000" (last I checked) was still accurate, as 7000 is more than 5000. Misplaced Pages is not a news page and it isn't our job to get the absolute latest figures the moment they come off the newswire. Also, the East Timor emergency is in the News column, with ] (not the best name, being discussed at Talk there) highlighted. --] \| ] 04:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Student Protest ==
	The student protest in India has been withdrawn after intervention by the Supreme Court. Could some one please update the news section? regards --] 04:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	: see also above ]. -- ] 04:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Runescape Page ==

	It is unable to be edited, but several times throughout it, there's a person saying to email your username and password to Blank email address for free members and up to seven items.

	This is wrong. This is a scam, and the person who recieves this information will log onto the player's account and relieve them of their items. Please delete each one of those, or make it able to be edited, and I will. -- Commented added by ] 20:13, 31 May 2006

	:This would be best addressed on the ]. I just had a (very) quick look and couldn't see any email addresses in the text of the article. The page is protected due to vandals, probably scammers as you mention. --] 12:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	::It was removed a while ago. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Stubs in DYK ==

	The article on ] is a pitiful stub. I wonder how it got on the Main Page. Are the updating admins not aware that stubs are not eligible? --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	: Are admins updating the Main Page at all ? ITN hasn't changed for days, except for the death toll in the Java earthquake. -- ] 20:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	I skipped using that one, since it was so short and lacking content, but another admin decided to use it. Hopefully some user will "prefer fix attempts over complaints of various sorts." :) — <small><sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">]</span></sup> • 2006-06-01 02:36</small>

	::It's far from comprehensive, but it's more than a ] (over 1000 characters) and certainly well beyond "pitiful". DYK items are new articles, and are not expected to be of Featured Article quality. The usual response to an article that needs more information is to .... add it. --] \| ] 05:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::It got on the main page Ghirla because I put it there. I'm sorry that you feel it was inappropriate, but I thought it was an interesting topic worthy of being listed. Yes, the article is short but it meets the size guidelines for DYK, and the exposure on the main page is worth it for the possibility of improvement to the article. Selection of articles for DYK is a balancing act and a judgement call but hey, that's what we admins get our monthly paychecks for ''':'''-) --<font color="2B7A2B">]</font> <font size="4">]</font> 06:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::The topic is interesting, I agree, yet I would prefer to stick to the old requirement of at least 300 words in an article. My MS Word tells me that the article, bibliography and table of contents removed, has 215. I don't know who introduced 1000 characters threshold and what is the reason behind it. There is no lack of new articles complying with the old requirement. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 06:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::You're probably right, 1000 characters is less useful than 300 words as a determining criteria, and does seem more arbitrary. I was unaware that there used to be a 300 word requirement, maybe this should be raised at ]. --<font color="2B7A2B">]</font> <font size="4">]</font> 06:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	== on the DYK template ==

	How come " '''Archive – Start a new article''' " is on the rightside of the DYK template, but on the leftside on the Main Page ? Due to an extra <nowiki></div></nowiki> on the TFA template ? Am I the only one seeing this ? --] 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	==New pages==

	Clicking 'newest articles' on the Main Page now brings me to ] rather than to ]. Clicking 'Archive' already has this function, so there's now two links doing the same, and none doing what I want it to. Why has this happened? ] 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Where is 'newest articles'? ]<font color="green">]</font>] 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:: This first line in DYK, the one above the bulleted items. -- ] 03:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::It was recently changed. Discussion for this is underway at ]. --] \| ] 05:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	== fijians in melbourne ==

	hi everyone i need 2 know how many fijians live in melbourne.
	:Hi, you would have better luck asking at ]. This page is for discussion of the Main Page of Misplaced Pages. - ] 02:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Reliable ==

	Misplaced Pages isn't reliable, is anyone trying to fix that?

	:Don't ]. Of course there are people trying to fix that. --] ] ] 02:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	::The guy isn't trolling. Get ahold of your ego please. ] 02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::It certainly sounds potentially trollish to me, particularly without the ability to detect sarcasm vs. naivete on the Internet. — ] <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 05:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	: What is more reliable on the internet ? Use some common sense, please.
	:: Sane people trust www.bbc.co.uk/news over wikipedia.
	: Misplaced Pages is as reliable as anything available on the internet, and it's easy to fix any errors quickly. Asking for anything more is asking too much. -- ] 03:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	: ], but you never hear much about that, either.

	== Pirate Bay vs. Earthquake ==

	People, the discussion of what is put in the news box has been there before, but putting the Pirate Bay raid above the Indonesian earthquake with 1000s of dead is not only systemic bias but decadent, taste- and heartless. PLEASE change at least the order. wtf! ] 06:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Hi Gbrandt, the earthquake is a terrible and ongoing event, however ITN is presented in date order. It's not a "news box" but a list of articles that have been recently updated with current events. The Java earthquke has been on top for around 4 days. I believe there is no systemic bias involved in this case. ] --] 09:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	::Pirate Bay shouldn't even be on ITN. It's only there due to Misplaced Pages's systemic bias. That is, there is a more than average number of technology-savvy editors (unsurprisingly). Not in itself a problem, but it does manifest itself in undue weight being given to stories that in the general sphere are only a minority interest.

	::I suggest this is removed and a more general news story added to correct this.

	::] <span style="color:green; font-size:larger"> ♣</span> ] 10:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::That could be argued. But it goes deeper than simply a techno savvy article. This is about a US company influencing the law makers and enforcers of another country. It speaks to copyright issues in law and in society, about the line between civil and public prosecution. In fact the article has very little to do with the actual technology behind their activities, it's more regarding law and society. --] 12:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::Big Woopty do. That may all be entirely correct, but it does not mean that the article is worthy of being in a section that only has around 5 world headlines. Go on, have a look at the major news stories at the moment. Pirate Bay is way down there on all but the tech news sites. ] <span style="color:green; font-size:larger"> ♣</span> ] 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::Ok, its gone, thanks. This was the second most insensitive thing i saw on Misplaced Pages since the "live coverage" of ] execution. ] 13:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	What seems strange in this discussion is that no one is objecting to the opening of a train station in Germany among these headlines. ] 13:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	::The german hauptbahnhof is a technological and architectural marvel of our time, which could be compared to the 1855 Glass Palace of the british world fair. It certainly deserves mention as largest in entire Europe and first in the world with true multiple-staired railway crossing. The fact that there is almost no train travel in USA is a shame rather than a viewpoint for wikipedia administration.

	:You're right, its systemic bias again (i for one look forward to using that station). in any case the amok run at the opening should be mentioned over the opening itself, but then this is not an article, and its not WikiNews here. ] 14:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	== On this day ==

	Very Anglo-Saxon centered ] and not very interesting IMHO. ] and the ] could have given some balance. ] 10:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Apartheid FP ==

	I propose "races" be quotemarked. Without the quotations, it implies support for the concept of multiple races. In my opinion, as the sentence begins with "under apartheid", using quotes would convey that that was the term employed by the regime of South Africa. "Ethnic groups" would be preferable, though, as it arguably avoids any POV. ] (]) 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Author(s)? ==

	Who writes the main page?
	:"They" do. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC).</small>

	:: To clarify at ] ? --] 16:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Earthquake ==

	"An earthquake on the island of Java, Indonesia (location pictured) kills at least 6,200 people"
	:Last time I saw this it was at 5,800! May the people rest in peace.
	]]<span>

	== Disgusting apartheid advocacy ==

	The front page write-up on the apartheid beach table is really disgusting, it conveys apartheid is borderline normal or something like that. In fact apartheid has been classified in mandatory UN resolutions as evil and inherently criminal under international jurisdiction, which even wikipedia cannot ignore, since UN general assembly resolutions are delivered in the name of the entire mankind. Therefore apartheid must not be portrayed as "petty" or insignificant. Especially in the light of South Africa's planned negrocide in the Angola invasion (which was stopped only by cuban soldiers landing) and its amassing of atomic bombs for the purpose (with no little help from Dimona), we must say apartheid was en par with the Hitler's Third Reich.

	I understand how the west and zionists want to suppress and lessen criticism and condemnation of apartheid regime, since USA and Israel were the main open and clandestine military backers of South Africa during the period of international sanctions, claiming anti-communism supercedes racial opression. Yet, if wikipedia emulates that, than wikipedia is no more than a cold-war propaganda megaphone. ] 15:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Huh? ] 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	::Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, 195.70.32.136. I still say the caption needs some amendments, but meh :-) ] (]) 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::On a par with the Third Reich? Yes, obviously beind denied access to the same beach as white Boers is every bit as bad as having half of your race exterminated in gas chambers etc. ] 16:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	== non-interesting DYK ==

	In contrast to DYK requirements, ] in DYK has no hook, is longish and full of technicalities. As a result of its inclusion, the template is too long and looks disproportionate. Please consider removal. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:06, 10 January 2025

Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion

↓↓Skip header

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

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

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

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

To suggest content for a Main Page section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Centralized discussion

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

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Main Page error reports

Wikimedia project page for Main Page error reporting Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Main Page toolbox

Yesterday January 11	Today January 12, 2025	Tomorrow January 13
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)

Main Page queue

In the news: candidates; discussion; admin instructions

Did you know: nominations; discussion; queue; BotErrors

Protected pages: Commons media protection; Associated

It is currently 13:28 UTC.
Purge the Main Page
Purge this page

Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
Offer a correction if possible.
References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 13:28 on 12 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

"... that Adrien Nunez (pictured), despite limited playing time, was more highly paid than some NBA draft lottery picks while in college?"

The source says that he is ranked higher than projected top-five NBA draft pick Jaden Ivey and North Carolina star Caleb Love.. That's singular—"projected top-five NBA draft pick Jaden Ivey". This doesn't support the hook's some and plural picks. It's one pick, and the hook is missing the source's projected. Jaden Ivey was not in the NBA at the time, and the comparison is to his pay in college, not in the NBA.

Suggest change to "~~some~~a projected NBA draft lottery picks" @TonyTheTiger, BeanieFan11, SL93, and AirshipJungleman29: Courtesy ping to nom participants.—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Your change sounds good to me, but I'm saying that as someone who isn't all that knowledgeable about sports. SL93 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed—Bagumba (talk) 06:41, 12 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 17)

Monday's FL

(January 13, tomorrow)

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

I honestly doubt that John Henry Turpin meets the "up to scratch" bit of WP:POTD/G; it has six citation needed tags and an orange-banner uncited section. Definitely nowhere near GA, although that's far from a POTD requirement. charlotte 02:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I've removed all of the uncited information, although now I'd say it's too short for a GA. E_F 02:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Shortcuts

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:

116,790 active editors · 6,938,960 articles in English

Ca 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I strongly support this addition. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
"100 or so admins edit Misplaced Pages" factoid actualy just statistical error. average admin does not edit Misplaced Pages. Sockpuppets Georg, who lives in cave & passes RfA 10 times each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.But yes, this seems like a great idea! -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I shall lend my support as I like this idea. It ties in well with the post on social media by the Wikimedia Foundation (earlier today, yesterday?) about "Misplaced Pages in numbers". Schwede 66 09:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Support - and maybe also add a edit count? Something like this might work: 1,264,233,903 total edits · 116,790 active editors · 6,938,960 articles in English ''']''' (talk • contribs) 09:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't see any downside of adding the number of active editors, which is an impressive number given that the count is just for the last month. The number of edits seems a bit meaningless since it is a huge number that is hard to grasp and since what constitutes an edit is so variable. JMCHutchinson (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Also support this. It's a minor but potentially quite impactful addition. J 947 ‡ 09:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Good idea; I like the model that CanonNi proposes above. UndercoverClassicist 17:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I like Ca's suggestion of just including the number of editors. I'm not super keen on adding the number of edits as it is fairly meaningless to most casual visitors. Also, it will always be off because of caching (and I don't want us to get useless reports of "I made an edit but the number didn't go up!"). —Kusma (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Very good point, Kusma, about useless reports. Schwede 66 18:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The interpunct might need to be replaced with a line break on mobile devices, for aesthetic reasons. Ca 10:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe just a comma to separate them. Step hen 11:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I think a comma would be out-of-place since this is not a list. Ca 11:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
It’s a list of two counts Step hen 11:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds like a good idea. I would but the editors after the number of articles, though – best to lead with the bigger number. – Joe (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
This appears to be WP:BIKESHED problem; I believe it would be best if we went ahead with the original formatting and discuss the minute details later. Ca 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I never said it was a problem, just a suggestion. – Joe (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to reply to you in particular. I've changed the indentation level. Ca 15:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Displaying the 'active editors' variable significantly discounts all of prior editors associated with those millions of articles being discussed in the same line. — xaosflux 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I suppose you could say something like, "6,925,100 articles in English written by <number of users that have made >0 undeleted mainspace edits> editors" to be maximally precise. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the 48,539,073 {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} is certainly way more than the 116,790 {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}, and that the 6,938,960 {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} certainly would not have been possible with only the later. — xaosflux 16:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Advertising how many "active" users we have isn't necessarily a problem, I'm saying we shouldn't in anyway suggest that such a low number of contributors has led to the number of articles we have to casual readers, reporters, etc that would read the line. — xaosflux 16:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps something like "currently maintained by X active editors"? (Which also discounts all of the many unregistered editors). — xaosflux 16:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
"by over" maybe.... — xaosflux 16:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Why, though? "X active editors" isn't saying that that's all the editors who've ever been. It's doing the opposite, by qualifying "active". Getting a bot to keep a tally of total editors ever, per Joe, could be a cool idea, but there's nothing misleading or incorrect about just listing active users, and it's potentially of more interest to readers. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to somehow advertising the currently active editors, just saying we should ensure that such a figure isn't associated with the total count of all articles made by a much much larger group. (As the original problem is suggesting that readers are underestimating the number of volunteers that have built Misplaced Pages). — xaosflux 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Next steps

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

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

Informal RfC

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

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

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

Which figures should be added to the current text?

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

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

Which symbol should be used as the separator?

Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
Use comma

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

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

Use line break
Use comma

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

How should it be ordered?

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

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

Wikilinks?

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

Ca 12:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd add a 4. option with both active users and all-time editors, as xaosflux suggested above. (Maybe after the total articles count, "... created by 48,539,073 editors"). Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request

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

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

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

with

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: delink "English"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:

Main Page discussions