Misplaced Pages

Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:40, 26 August 2014 view sourceAnna Frodesiak (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users117,216 edits →Get ready for some asscrack: fix← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:28, 9 January 2025 view source Modest Genius (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,313 edits →Proposal: delink "English": opposeTag: Disambiguation links added 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion}}
<!---
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}}}<!--
Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page using the "'''NEW SECTION'''" tab, or use the '''EDIT''' link beside the section heading to add to it. The section edit link and "'''New section'''" tab are important, so please use them.
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}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
-->{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-vandalism}}}}
{{Annual readership|title=the Main Page}}
{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200k |maxarchivesize = 200k
|counter = 181 |counter = 207
|minthreadsleft = 2 |minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(3d) |algo = old(3d)
|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
{{MPH alert}}
{{bots|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=539296113#Could_we_maybe_turn_off_SineBot_on_this_page.3F -->
{{Centralized discussion}}
{{bots|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 ] -->
]
__TOC__ __TOC__
{{clear}}


=Main Page error reports= = Main Page error reports =

{{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}} {{Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors}}
<!-- ---------------
Please do not write anything here.
Please go to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors to place an error report.
To discuss the contents of the Main Page, please start a new discussion using the "New section" button above, or use the "" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.
--------------- -->


=General discussion= = General discussion =
{{Shortcut|T:MP|WT:MP}} {{Shortcut|T:MP|WT:MP}}
<!-- --------------- <!-- ---------------
Please ''start'' new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT link beside the section heading to add to it. The edit link is important, so have the courtesy to use it. Please *start* a new discussion at the bottom of this talk page (e.g. using the "New section" button above), or use the "" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.
------------------- --> ---------------- -->

== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Mian Page}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 01:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


==Add number of editors in the topmost banner==
== Robin Williams ==
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)
Why does Robin Williams' death get a headline, whereas other people who "recently die" do not, and are reserved in the "recent deaths" area at the bottom? ] (]) 07:11, 19 August 2014 (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">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*I shall lend my support as I like this idea. It ties in well with the post on social media by the Wikimedia Foundation (earlier today, yesterday?) about "Misplaced Pages in numbers". ''']]''' 09:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*Support - and maybe also add a edit count? Something like this might work: <div id="articlecount">] total edits · ] active editors · ] articles in ]</div> <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 09:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*I can't see any downside of adding the number of active editors, which is an impressive number given that the count is just for the last month. The number of edits seems a bit meaningless since it is a huge number that is hard to grasp and since what constitutes an edit is so variable. ] (]) 09:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*Also support this. It's a minor but potentially quite impactful addition. ''']]''' ‡ <sup>]</sup> 09:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
* Good idea; I like the model that {{u|CanonNi}} proposes above. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 17:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*I like Ca's suggestion of just including the number of editors. I'm not super keen on adding the number of edits as it is fairly meaningless to most casual visitors. Also, it will always be off because of caching (and I don't want us to get useless reports of "I made an edit but the number didn't go up!"). —] (]) 17:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Very good point, Kusma, about useless reports. ''']]''' 18:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
* The interpunct might need to be replaced with a line break on mobile devices, for aesthetic reasons. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 10:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Maybe just a comma to separate them. ]] 11:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Personally, I think a comma would be out-of-place since this is not a list. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 11:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::It’s a list of two counts ]] 11:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


:Id support. Maybe something somewhere which explains what active means. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:The relevant decisions are made at ]. ] (]) 07:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
::The wikilink to ] already provides an explanation. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 13:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:(ec) There was a consensus for a blurb at ]. ] (]) 07:17, 19 August 2014 (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)
::JDiala - To translate, what you called a headline is what The Rambling Man described as a blurb. ] (]) 08:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
::::The number of articles link also goes to ], though. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::] generally those at ITNC decide that based on the level of news coverage, attention, and other factors. Recent deaths is generally for posting the deaths of notable people, while a blurb is given to notable deaths(where the death itself is an event as opposed to just a famous person dying of old age or illness). ] (]) 09:11, 19 August 2014 (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)
::::In Williams case the manor of death received significant attention far beyond simply the fact that he was dead.--] (]) 04:25, 20 August 2014 (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)
:::::Well, it was big house, but I wouldn't go that far... <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 19:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
*Sounds like a good idea. I would but the editors after the number of articles, though – best to lead with the bigger number. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:This is English Misplaced Pages and it tends to prioritize topics from English speaking areas, including deaths of notable US actors. We posted the death of ] as a full blurb but we didn't post despite massive global coverage. You may call it ] but it's quite logical and above all, it's a matter of consensus. Not a big deal. --] (] / ]) 07:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
::Basically if you're an American and kill yourself, you'll get the full blurb. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC) *This appears to be ] problem; I believe it would be best if we went ahead with the original formatting and discuss the minute details later. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I never said it was a problem, just a suggestion. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Not if you're black and a cop kills you. :p –''']]]''' 17:33, 22 August 2014 (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)
:::Touché! --] (] / ]) 06:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Maybe, but it was 11 days ago. I'm just a little confused as to why news from 11 days ago is on the main page. That day and the next day, sure. It's not news any longer. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC) *Displaying the 'active editors' variable significantly discounts all of prior editors associated with those millions of articles being discussed in the same line. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I suppose you could say something like, "] articles in ] written by ] editors" to be maximally precise. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 16:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If you're confused, please engage with the community at ] where this sort of thing is discussed. Cheers. ] (]) 21:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
*::What I'm saying is that the {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}</nowiki> is certainly way more than the {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}</nowiki>, and that the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}</nowiki> certainly would not have been possible with only the later. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Advertising how many "active" users we have isn't necessarily a problem, I'm saying we shouldn't in anyway suggest that such a low number of contributors has led to the number of articles we have to casual readers, reporters, etc that would read the line. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Perhaps something like "currently maintained by X active editors"? (Which also discounts all of the many unregistered editors). — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::"by over" maybe.... — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Why, though? "X active editors" isn't saying that that's all the editors who've ever been. It's doing the opposite, by qualifying "active". Getting a bot to keep a tally of total editors ever, per Joe, could be a cool idea, but there's nothing misleading or incorrect about just listing active users, and it's potentially of more interest to readers. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::I'm not opposed to somehow advertising the currently active editors, just saying we should ensure that such a figure isn't associated with the total count of all articles made by a much much larger group. (As the original problem is suggesting that readers are underestimating the number of volunteers that have built Misplaced Pages). — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


:I absolutely support this. Maybe also include the number of edits made in the current calendar day? ] | ] | ] 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
'''As a layout,''' the juxtaposition of the picture to the blurb at the immediate left looks disjointed. Over the past several days it looks like Williams is either a) part of the Bank of America Settlement, b) victim of a Japanese landslide, or c) really good at chess. Also - what was the math woman's picture taken down and Williams' put back up? Not "celebrity" enough? That'll teach her!
:No, her picture was deleted as it was considered a copyright violation. But why let the truth get in the way of a good cynical reaction? ] (]) 21:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC) ::Better would be in the last 24 hours, especially as most readers will not know when Misplaced Pages's midnight is. Certainly better than a count of all edits since Misplaced Pages began, although not a priority in my opinion. ] (]) 09:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] Well, Jimmy Wales lives in the Carolinas so it could reset at midnight Eastern. Although last 24 hours works as well ] | ] | ] 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thinking it about it a bit more, maybe the preceding calendar day ("yesterday") would be computationally easier. We certainly don't want a figure that increases from 0 each day, and it may be undesirable to have one that fluctuates minute to minute. Instead maybe consider over the last week up to and including yesterday, to iron out variation over the weekly cycle. ] (]) 14:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I don't see the point in this, or the relevance of this number to readers. It might make sense on a page intended to be viewed only by editors, but the Main Page is for readers. None of the bullet points are convincing e.g. I've never heard anyone suggest that there are only 100 editors. It's a only minor bit of clutter but would serve no useful purpose. Besides, it's not clear what constitutes an 'active' editor - the very different numbers quoted above suggest this could be seriously misleading. ] ] 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:], where the number comes from, defines it as "any editor that has performed an action in last 30 days", which appears to include IP editors as well. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 23:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It is labeled Active <em>registered</em> users - of which IP editors are not. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Thanks for the correction; when the language is set to Spanish, it just reads "active editors". I wonder if it is possible to get a count of all editors, including IP editors. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 02:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::A single editor could have many IP's and a single IP could have many editors. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Yes, that was a problem I imagined; though I do not want to discredit the work of IP editors, they are hard to keep track. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
* I suggested this idea back on December 8 at the VPR, so yes I would support it. ] (]) 03:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
===Next steps===
I see a broad consensus for including the number of active editors, but there seem to be a lot of discussion on the finer details, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Should I make a RfC for this? ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 14:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:Yes, most of us want the number of edits/active editors in the banner, but an RFC might help figure out the smaller details we keep arguing about ] | ] 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
why is his death still up there? it's been over two weeks now, it's hardly 'news' anymore.


===Informal RfC===
== ] ==
{{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?====
Why do not we see ] on the main page? Cencorship?] (]) 06:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
# Active editors (original proposal)
:Nobody cares? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
# 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)
: It's being discussed ]. ] (]) 07:04, 21 August 2014 (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? ====
Regardless of your decision on this, I think the Chess Olympiad has certainly overstayed its run as main item. The championship was held 1–14 August 2014 and today its 21 August, seven days past the event. How is it still staying as our main choice amazes me. Actually nothing significant happened from 14 to now to overtake this chess item in Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 12:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
# Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
# Use comma


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:News items are placed in chronological order. There is no 'main choice'. If you would like to nominate more recent stories, or comment on which ones should be listed, please go to ]. ] ] 15:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


====Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins? ====
Heh. The German and French ITNs have this story. The English ITN, presumably the language in Ferguson, doesn't. How on earth. –''']]]''' 15:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
# Use line break
*Well that's because we don't consider the level of coverage of a topic, or how good the article is or isn't, or how much it is in the news anywhere. The only thing that matters is "Is it happening in, or related to, the U.S. in any significant way" If the answer to that question is ever "yes", we're not allowed to post it. It's the unwritten rule of ITN. --]''''']''''' 03:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
# Use comma
::Where exactly was Robin Williams from, then? Or Lauren Bacall, for that matter. ] (]) 08:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Let's just say it'll be much easier to post a 1993 Super Bowl championship from a Los Angeles NFL team to ITN than the ]. –''']]]''' 13:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Being over 20 years old, I doubt either would meet ITN's 'newer than the current oldest item' criterion. ] ] 13:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Heh. I was going to make a ] example but they suck. A Los Angeles NFL team winning this season's Super Bowl, a sure ITN shoo-in, has a higher chance of happening than that from St. Louis. –''']]]''' 14:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::You wrote 1993 Super Bowl, not 2015 Super Bowl. --anon. ] (]) 20:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I was going to reference the 2015 Super Bowl, but the St. Louis Rams suck. So I used another example of an NFL team in a city where people rioted. I was implying that the 1993 Super Bowl would be easier to post to the English Misplaced Pages ITN ''now'' than the events in Ferguson because that's how bad ITN is. People have been ranting elsewhere that there are no ITN events, and Robin Williams stuck too long. Well, they skipped this one and they're still ranting. –''']]]''' 20:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Ah, so you should have written ''Had Misplaced Pages existed in 1992 and a team from Los Angeles won the Super Bowl in 1993...'' But doesn't a blurb about the Super Bowl appear in ITN every year regardless of which teams played in it? --anon. ] (]) 23:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm talking about ''now''. Can you imagine how massive it would be if the result of any of the Super Bowls was overturned or vacated? It will be nuts. And yes, it doesn't make sense that the Super Bowl has a free pass while stories like this are shot down. –''']]]''' 03:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::: --anon. ] (]) 08:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm too surprised, this was one of the most discussed topics (along with Ukraine, Ebola and Gaza) in the news media in my country in the past week. I was even more surprised when I noticed the disapproving reaction of editors at WP:ITNC and then I found the article by ]. The US-centric or Euro-centric attitude plays its role I would say. The Ferguson sad story seems to be stale for WP:ITN now. --] (] / ]) 14:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


====How should it be ordered?====
Considering the whole event has been a storm in a teacup, there's little wonder it wasn't posted here, and more of a negative for the other Wikipedias who posted it that let the bright lights of American media "outrage" blur their vision. ] (]) 21:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
# Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
: --anon. ] (]) 01:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
# Bigger number(s) first


* '''Support 1 or 2.''' '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:The biggest problem with ITN is clearly simply the lack of variety - so much so that it's hard to be sure ''how'' it's biased, except "a few stories the regulars want to keep up there for half a month or more." Anyone want to start an AfD to get rid of it completely? It fails ] (obviously) and it's too depressing to keep arguing in circles about it. ] (]) 02:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


====Wikilinks?====
::The biggest problem really is how small that number of ITN regulars has become. ] (]) 03:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
#Wikilink all of the numbers to ] (original proposal)
#Wikilink only the first number to ]
#Wikilink "active editor" to ]
] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 12:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2 and 3. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree completely, ]. I participated in the discussions in the past but I was discouraged by the cumbersomeness of the process. --] (] / ]) 09:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support 1''', unless active editors is the only statistic shown, in which case 3. ] (]) 22:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


====Discussion====
== Azadi March & Inqilab March of Pakistan ==
:If a bot is difficult or resource hungry, an edit count for yesterday (preceding calendar day) would serve the same purpose as a count in the last 24 h. ] (]) 08:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::From a maintenance and server load perspective, a bot updating daily is no different than a bot updating every minute (i.e., just a line of code's difference and resource usage that rounds down to 0). <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:@] Do you expect people to respond here with their opinions on these 5 issues? Or is this just a draft for a forthcoming formal RfC?
:If you plan on having another, better-publicized RfC, I'd recommend relisting the original question {{green|Should this be added at all?}}; the original consensus for this had less than 10 editors. <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I should have been more clear, but yes, I was expecting people to give their opinions. However, I am waiting before pinging everyone to see if anyone have any more suggestions for the questions. I count 13 people who support the proposal and one who explicitly opposed it; I feel that a RfC is going to have the same consensus for inclusion. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 05:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::So perhaps you could split the five questions into separate subheadings, to allow for clearer discussion of each issue? <span style="font-family:cursive">]]</span> 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Good idea ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 07:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'd add a 4. option with both active users and all-time editors, as {{u|xaosflux}} suggested above. (Maybe after the total articles count, "{{green|... created by {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} editors}}"). ] (]) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::I've added it, but using <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}</nowiki> would be inaccurate since it includes user accounts with zero edits. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Since a week has passed for suggested additions, I'll be pinging previous participants tommorow to decide on the formatting. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Pinging participants: @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 12:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
* I've added my replies/thoughts under each individual item, which might help to keep/make consensus visible despite the many moving parts. There's a very large danger of ] here! '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Just to confirm, did you receive the ping? I'm afraid this RfC is going to flop. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I don't think this is the best format for reaching consensus on relatively minor details. Maybe try just proposing a version based on the feedback above and iterate accordingly. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 20:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I believe the lack of engagement here shows general apathy for the formatting. I don't want to try to wrangle in RfC after RfC, wasting community time. I plan to simply submit an edit request with the original proposed formatting if this RfC gets less than five responses. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 09:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I think that would be wise: ], after all, and it seems reasonable to suggest that many editors who have seen this and not commented have done so because they have no strong opinion on the points of "contention". '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Yes. I think for once Wikipedians' ability to bicker over a comma has disappointed you. '']'' (] — ]) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
===Edit request===
{{edit request|ans=y}}
Per above consensus, please implement the original proposal of replacing the following


<nowiki><div id="articlecount">] articles in ]</div></nowiki>
] & ] of ] both very important in the history of Politics of Pakistan must be added to the front page in Ongoing section Curent Events as both the events are very important from historical point of view of the country. ](]) 19:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
:]. --] (]) 20:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


with
== Get ready for some asscrack ==


<nowiki><div id="articlecount">] active editors · ] articles in ]</div></nowiki>
According to ], the next DYK update is going to feature an image of a minor child's butt crack as they stoop over to take a dump. Surely nothing bad could possibly come from that wise decision. ] (]) 22:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
::As the person who took that picture, I can assure the boy was ''not'' about to defecate. If you think he was, you have a dirtier mind than I. ] (]) 04:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
: --anon. ] (]) 00:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:*And it didn't happen.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 00:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:This is an outrage! Nothing bad ever came from a butt crack. Let me rephrase that. Never mind. Anyway, it is such a nice article. Oh, and the (see #8)! I'm so sorry, Daniel. I know what you put into that article. ] (]) 06:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:*Yes, this is a fine article. There's a reason the image was removed, however: a lack of consensus for something so likely to be controversial. Also, the ''Signpost'' screw up is completely unrelated. Why even bring it up?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 07:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I don't see how a toddler's bum could be controversial. I didn't know the Signpost image was a screw-up. I already said why I brought it up. Anyway, I'm glad to see the article at DYK in the end. It is a good topic. The image being omitted is not the end of the world. :) ] (]) 12:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Yes, can somebody please explain, in clear terms, what's wrong with the image? This is a serious request. ] (]) 12:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::::"Lack of consensus"? How do we ''know'' that. There was no discussion at ] over ''whether'' this was likely to be controversial, just how quickly it could be removed. Nor were other options, such as replacing the hook entirely while a discussion could be held pending later use, even considered. ]. ] (]) 15:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Where is the discussion about this going on? By my recollection the article was ] or something like that. This is ridiculous. We have a whorehouse as the most viewed DYK of all-time. How can this be worse than whorehouse?--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 19:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
]
:::::*The article was not in question. The image which accompanied it was. The brothel was run with its facade as the image. This would have been run with naked buttocks hanging out, had it gone through without the image being removed.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::And the problem with that is? ] (]) 00:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Take a look at the image as it would have appeared and tell me with a straight face that "naked buttocks hanging out" is an accurate description. ] (]) 01:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Good question. We are talking about what, 8 x 8 pixels of butt? And it is not hanging out. It is just showing. For an encyclopedia that is not censored, that is a big act of censorship for something so small. ] (]) 09:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


The interpunct (·) should be replaced with a line break on small screens via Templatestyle (
== "Dog Fart Rollercoaster" ==
]
), 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, a tiny triangle of a common sight on the streets of China has to be pulled out of DYK, but "Dog Fart Rollercoaster" is OK? Shouldn't we pull that, too, if we're don't want to lose the ] rating? ] (]) 05:05, 25 August 2014 (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)
:Oh, and it goes on: "... takes riders past a statue of a defecat­ing dog and "gives new meaning to the phrase 'the wind in my face'"?" What makes this any different? Why does this hook get special treatment? ] (]) 05:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, I'll leave this thread open for comments (technical or otherwise) for a bit. If no concerns are raised I'll +2. ] (]) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Seems good to me. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the mock up. Looks splendid. From my perspective, this is ready for implementation. ''']]''' 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks good. '']'' (] — ]) 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks good to me too. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{done}}. Just a small additional comment. "English" is an everyday word and probably does not need linking to ]. But that's a separate discussion &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 22:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:'''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)
::I'm confused. Is a defecating dog offensive? ] (]) 07:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


== Bye Bye Jimmy Carter, hello "the PDC World Darts Championship"? ==
:::See the section above. Daniel is annoyed that ] was pulled from DYK before it got to the main page. ] (]) 10:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, the PDC World Darts Championship is just not important, period.
Jimmy Carter doesn't even appear in recent deaths as of 2025-01-06...<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
:{{u|TheRealJohnea}} It's not a reflection of importance, just turnover. The usual complaint we get is that there isn't enough turnover, not too much. ] (]) 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Carter died 10 days ago, the world has moved on. ]] 22:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Looks like Jimmy Carter did appear in In The News. . It's been a week since it happened though so the news item has fallen off and been replaced by newer news items. –] <small>(])</small> 22:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Carter was there for a week (29/12 to 04/01). And even if the darts didn't exist, would have been removed by the Trudeau posting today. I suspect the OP simply doesn't understand how ITN works. ] 22:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== Proposal: delink "English" ==
::::So am I. Do the conservatives who forced that removal care about Muslims being offended by images of Muhammad? ] (]) 12:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


Propose to remove the link from "English" to ]. This is an everyday word and per ], we should avoid linking everyday words. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I am neither a conservative nor a prude. I have no problem whatsoever with either of these ''articles'' being on the main page and I have no intention to propose the image in question be deleted or anything like that. I just don't think it should be used on the main page if there are other alternatives that do not involve an ass crack.


: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)
::::::Daniel, I think you are taking this far to personally. It is not about you, I think you are fine person and I am well aware that you are one of the hardest working people at DYK. However, I believe that sometimes in the zeal to get something on to the main page people involved in the DYK process fail to think things through. As far as I am concerned the matter is resolved and I won't be responding to your various innuendos about me here and elsewhere. I apologize for your hurt feelings in this matter but I think this result is what is best for WP. ] (]) 18:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::"Free" (in the sense we use it) and "encyclopaedia" at least plausibly something that a reader might need defining for them. There's nobody reading the English Misplaced Pages that doesn't know what English is. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 08:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
]
:::Knowing what a topic is is not the bar for a link. I certainly don't think it's less defined than "encyclopaedia", and speaking of encyclopaedia, I've seen enough engvar "typo" fixes to know there's a lot about the English language many readers don't know. That's not to be demeaning, there's a lot I can learn from it too, it's the only Good Article out of the four articles linked. ] (]) 08:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the compliment. I did not call you either a conservative or a prude—HiLo implied that.<p>As for alternatives, there was a picture of the pants unworn in the article (''right'') that could have been used instead. Why wasn't this considered? ] (]) 21:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
*I would oppose removing it. The main page serves as a place for readers to see examples of the kind of work we do, and perhaps become engaged to write and edit themselves. As such, ], which is a GA and looks quite well structured and referenced, is a good link to have. It also shows how linking to other topics works, alongside ] and ]. As CMD says, it's also the language of our project. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::We would only an alternative if there was something wrong with a kid's slightly exposed bum in a context where such a thing is perfectly normal. Is there something wrong with it? I hope we're not judging one culture's standards by those of another. ] (])
*:] might be a more appropriate target, but I can't see the benefit of linking for the sake of linking. Plenty of links to good and featured content lower down the page! &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 10:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::*Daniel, as has been mentioned elsewhere there was very little time to decide what the 100% best course of action would have been. 15 minutes to MP when I got online, read the ping, and had to make a decision. I knew that once the article was there making a big change would have been much more controversial (especially moving the hook back to preps), and if it was left in the image slot there was a possibility that it could be pulled summarily (see the discussions cited below, as well as ] related to ] (NSFW)). I know how much people who write DYKs don't want their hooks pulled, and there was already a very nice image attached to another article, so I chose to switch the two's position in the queue. Very few other edits had to be made, and thus we didn't have to worry about DYK running late or accidentally running with the image (and thus possibly causing controversy). Had I had more time, I could probably have come up with switching to the image of the non-worn pants, or delaying the promotion of the one hook, but the world looks quite different with a 15 minute deadline.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 00:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent|8}}The question should be, at this point, ''why'' there was very little time. There was time to have the discussion when the hook was awaiting review. It was reviewed without this issue being raised at that time. Someone else could have considered it when they went through all the promoted hooks to put a set together. They didn't. And yet ''suddenly'' with 15 minutes to go this becomes an issue.<p>It is disingenuous to argue that there was no time to get an alternate hook in to complete the set. There were other sets of hooks available that had been similarly vetted; one of them would have done. In the future, please think harder when you find yourself in the same situation. Perhaps we need to review our reviewing process ] (]) 01:53, 26 August 2014 (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)
:::::::Beeblebrox - You say you are not a prude, but would prefer something different from a toddler's bum. Why? This is a serious question. If your reason isn't prudishness, what is it? ] (]) 20:49, 25 August 2014 (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)
:::::::*How about "avoiding the weeks of moaning and groaning" that would come with running the image? That's usually a good one. After all, these days it takes very little to end up at ANI with such delightful section titles as "DYK taking a crap on the main page" (if someone mistook the image for a child defecating) or "DYK making asses of us all". Or am I the only one who remembers how quickly some of the controversial hooks run in the past have ended up at that wonderful fortress of sanity?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Writ: ], ], and ]. All of these hooks were ''pulled summarily'' rather than reworked to avoid any possible issues. I should think that Daniel would have preferred that not happen.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 00:05, 26 August 2014 (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)
::::::::::In my Australian vernacular, avoiding this image because some prudes might complain, with no valid policy to back them up, is weak and gutless. ] (]) 00:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::*You'd be surprised how much I agree with you on a personal level (although I recognize what that makes me). On a professional level, however... let's just say I haven't forgotten , and that's why I believe we should try and have discussion beforehand.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 00:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::I remember that too. A bunch of conservative prudes wanting Misplaced Pages censored. Just like now. Sad. ] (]) 00:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent|9}} The different with Merkin was that we discussed it ''long'' before the image was on the main page. ] (]) 01:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:28, 9 January 2025

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

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


For questions about using and contributing to the English Misplaced Pages: To suggest content for a Main Page section:
Main Page and featured content
Main Page topics
Today's featured article
Featured articles
Did you know...
In the news
Current events portal
Selected anniversaries
Today's featured list
Featured lists
Picture of the day
Featured pictures
Featured topics
Page semi-protectedEditing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled due to vandalism.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.
Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

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

Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Main Page error reports

Wikimedia project page for Main Page error reporting Shortcuts
National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously: Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see a comparison of American and British English.

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

Main Page toolbox
Yesterday
January 8 		Today
January 9, 2025 		Tomorrow
January 10
TFA TFA TFA
SA/OTD SA/OTD SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v. POTD Main Page v. POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v. POTD regular v. POTD regular v.
  TFL (Friday)
In the news
candidates
discussion
admin instructions
Did you know
nominations
discussion
queue
BotErrors
Protected pages
Commons media protection
Associated
  • Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
  • Offer a correction if possible.
  • References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
  • Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 17:02 on 9 January 2025) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
  • Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
  • Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.
Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

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

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

  • Please wikilink Limia tridens, the little fish in the photo. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 12:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    It already links Limia, although hidden behind different text. Secretlondon (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Limia tridens and Limia are not the same thing. Also, per WP:SURPRISE, not having a wikilink for an obvious (or at least potential) article indicates (incorrectly, in this case) to readers that no such article exists. Abductive (reasoning) 13:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The photo is being used as an example of limia Secretlondon (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The idea is to boost the article that an editor made for a DYK. I understand that. But the Main Page is for readers, not editors seeking points in the WP:CUP. Abductive (reasoning) 13:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with Abductive - the caption should link to the species. It already uses the full species name, so just adding some square brackets is sufficient. Modest Genius 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Is it just me, or is the DYK about treatment of Jewish POW's a misrepresentation of the article to which it links, and potentially down-playing antisemitic activities of the Nazi regime? The text is: "... that while Germans murdered millions of prisoners of war during WWII, the survival ratio of Jewish POWs was generally tied to the army or nation they served with, and not to their ethnicity?" This can easily be read as Jewishness was irrelevant to their treatment. Reading the actual article, the article says there were very large differences in treatment of POW's depending on the country with which they fought, but in all cases referred to in the article, Jewish POW's were treated worse than non-Jewish from the same military background. It seems to me that this is a very contentious topic, a topic where right-wing extremists are happy to misinterpret any text they can find. We are doubly, triply obligated to be super-careful in our wording, and today's DYK falls woefully short of the necessary care. Could we take it out, and run it again after better wording has been agreed? Elemimele (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(January 10, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(January 13)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

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

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Shortcuts

"Mian Page" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Add number of editors in the topmost banner

I suggest this addition for the following reasons:

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

I suggest formatting it like this:


116,430 active editors · 6,937,830 articles in English


Ca 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Id support. Maybe something somewhere which explains what active means. Lee Vilenski 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
The wikilink to Special:Statistics already provides an explanation. Ca 13:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I dunno about other people, but because the link is the amount of people, I'd expect the link to be to the list of people. If it were "active editors" that was linked, I would click it to find out what "active meant". Lee Vilenski 13:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
The number of articles link also goes to Special:Statistics, though. – Joe (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that's also a bit dumb. Maybe if we linked both the term and the amount to the same link. Lee Vilenski 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
How about linking the number of active editors to Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians, where it is explained? Ca 12:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I absolutely support this. Maybe also include the number of edits made in the current calendar day? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Better would be in the last 24 hours, especially as most readers will not know when Misplaced Pages's midnight is. Certainly better than a count of all edits since Misplaced Pages began, although not a priority in my opinion. JMCHutchinson (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jmchutchinson Well, Jimmy Wales lives in the Carolinas so it could reset at midnight Eastern. Although last 24 hours works as well ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Thinking it about it a bit more, maybe the preceding calendar day ("yesterday") would be computationally easier. We certainly don't want a figure that increases from 0 each day, and it may be undesirable to have one that fluctuates minute to minute. Instead maybe consider over the last week up to and including yesterday, to iron out variation over the weekly cycle. JMCHutchinson (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see the point in this, or the relevance of this number to readers. It might make sense on a page intended to be viewed only by editors, but the Main Page is for readers. None of the bullet points are convincing e.g. I've never heard anyone suggest that there are only 100 editors. It's a only minor bit of clutter but would serve no useful purpose. Besides, it's not clear what constitutes an 'active' editor - the very different numbers quoted above suggest this could be seriously misleading. Modest Genius 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Special:Statistics, where the number comes from, defines it as "any editor that has performed an action in last 30 days", which appears to include IP editors as well. Ca 23:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is labeled Active registered users - of which IP editors are not. — xaosflux 23:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the correction; when the language is set to Spanish, it just reads "active editors". I wonder if it is possible to get a count of all editors, including IP editors. Ca 02:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    A single editor could have many IP's and a single IP could have many editors. — xaosflux 18:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, that was a problem I imagined; though I do not want to discredit the work of IP editors, they are hard to keep track. Ca 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I suggested this idea back on December 8 at the VPR, so yes I would support it. Some1 (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Next steps

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

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

Informal RfC

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

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

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

Which figures should be added to the current text?

  1. Active editors (original proposal)
  2. Active editors and total edit count
  3. Active editors and edit count in last 24 hours(bot required)
  4. Active editors and all-time editors(bot required)
  • Support 4 if possible, support 1 as a lower-effort but still effective alternative. Oppose 2 and 3 per the concerns raised above that it would create confusion among new editors/readers who would not realise that the count cannot update immediately. UndercoverClassicist 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Prefer 1, then 3; dislike total edit count and all-time editors as too large numbers, with no sense of what is happening now. JMCHutchinson (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Which symbol should be used as the separator?

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

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

  1. Use line break
  2. Use comma

How should it be ordered?

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

Wikilinks?

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

Ca 12:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

If a bot is difficult or resource hungry, an edit count for yesterday (preceding calendar day) would serve the same purpose as a count in the last 24 h. JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
From a maintenance and server load perspective, a bot updating daily is no different than a bot updating every minute (i.e., just a line of code's difference and resource usage that rounds down to 0). -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@Ca Do you expect people to respond here with their opinions on these 5 issues? Or is this just a draft for a forthcoming formal RfC?
If you plan on having another, better-publicized RfC, I'd recommend relisting the original question Should this be added at all?; the original consensus for this had less than 10 editors. ypn^2 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I should have been more clear, but yes, I was expecting people to give their opinions. However, I am waiting before pinging everyone to see if anyone have any more suggestions for the questions. I count 13 people who support the proposal and one who explicitly opposed it; I feel that a RfC is going to have the same consensus for inclusion. Ca 05:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
So perhaps you could split the five questions into separate subheadings, to allow for clearer discussion of each issue? ypn^2 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Good idea Ca 07:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd add a 4. option with both active users and all-time editors, as xaosflux suggested above. (Maybe after the total articles count, "... created by 48,526,239 editors"). Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I've added it, but using {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} would be inaccurate since it includes user accounts with zero edits. Ca 16:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Since a week has passed for suggested additions, I'll be pinging previous participants tommorow to decide on the formatting. Ca 16:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Pinging participants: @Cremastra @Tamzin @Schwede66 @CanonNi @Jmchutchinson @J947 @Stephen @UndercoverClassicist @Kusma @Lee Vilenski @User:Joe Roe @User:Xaosflux @User:ApteryxRainWing @User:Modest Genius @User:Some1 @User:Ypn^2 Ca 12:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I've added my replies/thoughts under each individual item, which might help to keep/make consensus visible despite the many moving parts. There's a very large danger of WP:BIKESHED here! UndercoverClassicist 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Just to confirm, did you receive the ping? I'm afraid this RfC is going to flop. Ca 15:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think this is the best format for reaching consensus on relatively minor details. Maybe try just proposing a version based on the feedback above and iterate accordingly. – Joe (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I believe the lack of engagement here shows general apathy for the formatting. I don't want to try to wrangle in RfC after RfC, wasting community time. I plan to simply submit an edit request with the original proposed formatting if this RfC gets less than five responses. Ca 09:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think that would be wise: consensus can be tacit, after all, and it seems reasonable to suggest that many editors who have seen this and not commented have done so because they have no strong opinion on the points of "contention". UndercoverClassicist 14:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes. I think for once Wikipedians' ability to bicker over a comma has disappointed you. Cremastra (u — c) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

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

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

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

with

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

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

I've created a mock-up of your proposed changes atMisplaced Pages:Main Page alternatives/(editable) and Misplaced Pages:Main Page alternatives/styles.css (based on the code at {{hlist}}). I'll hold-off actually making the changes since I don't actually see a RfC (only two informal discussions) and I'm unsure a local consensus is sufficient to change the main page. Sohom (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the mock-up! It works perfectly on my end. The Localconsensus issue was also a concern of mine. However, this discussion has been open for almost a month and in a dedicated forum for proposing main page edits. The participants include a wide variety of experienced editors, with very solid consensus for its addition (13 to 1). A more widely attended discussion would be very unlikely to change the results. The consensus for the current wording was achieved back at 2006 redesign of the main page, and I didn't see any mention of the active editor count in the discussions. So I don't think this proposal overrides any previous consensuses. Ca 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll leave this thread open for comments (technical or otherwise) for a bit. If no concerns are raised I'll +2. Sohom (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Seems good to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the mock up. Looks splendid. From my perspective, this is ready for implementation. Schwede66 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks good. Cremastra (u — c) 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. UndercoverClassicist 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

TheRealJohnea It's not a reflection of importance, just turnover. The usual complaint we get is that there isn't enough turnover, not too much. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Carter died 10 days ago, the world has moved on. Stephen 22:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks like Jimmy Carter did appear in In The News. Here's a snapshot of In The News on January 1. It's been a week since it happened though so the news item has fallen off and been replaced by newer news items. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Carter was there for a week (29/12 to 04/01). And even if the darts didn't exist, would have been removed by the Trudeau posting today. I suspect the OP simply doesn't understand how ITN works. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: delink "English"

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

I can't find the previous discussions on this, but the main page isn't an article, and it doesn't seem an overlink to link to the language the encyclopedia is linked to when introducing the encyclopedia. We WP:SEAOFBLUE "free" and "encyclopedia" too, it's a limitation of the format. CMD (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
"Free" (in the sense we use it) and "encyclopaedia" at least plausibly something that a reader might need defining for them. There's nobody reading the English Misplaced Pages that doesn't know what English is. – Joe (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Knowing what a topic is is not the bar for a link. I certainly don't think it's less defined than "encyclopaedia", and speaking of encyclopaedia, I've seen enough engvar "typo" fixes to know there's a lot about the English language many readers don't know. That's not to be demeaning, there's a lot I can learn from it too, it's the only Good Article out of the four articles linked. CMD (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I would oppose removing it. The main page serves as a place for readers to see examples of the kind of work we do, and perhaps become engaged to write and edit themselves. As such, English language, which is a GA and looks quite well structured and referenced, is a good link to have. It also shows how linking to other topics works, alongside encyclopedia and Misplaced Pages. As CMD says, it's also the language of our project.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    English Misplaced Pages might be a more appropriate target, but I can't see the benefit of linking for the sake of linking. Plenty of links to good and featured content lower down the page! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
In actual articles, I 100% agree with this - in practice this being used means that most articles have a nation or language as a link almost immediately. However, the main page isn't an article, and if we were to start using all the MOS on it, it would be a completely different look. Lee Vilenski 13:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal, per Amakuru's excellent points. It's a good link to have, and there are probably quite a few people who make their first edit as a result of clicking through it. Stephen 22:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. 'English' can have multiple meanings; our English article is itself a disambiguation page. This is not an encyclopaedia about England, or English people, or any of those other meanings. The link to English language is necessary to clarify how the Main Page is using that word. Modest Genius 12:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Category: