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 00:01, 20 May 2015 view source176.12.140.114 (talk) →i want to report man for blocking: new section← 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}}

{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-vandalism}}}}
-->{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Annual readership|title=the Main Page}}
{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200k |maxarchivesize = 200k
|counter = 184 |counter = 207
|minthreadsleft = 1 |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 please 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.
------------------- --> ---------------- -->

== Formatting/Layout of "Did you know..." ==
I feel that the line "from Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content" should be moved below the bulleted list. Here is a screenshot to better explain: http://i.imgur.com/AUb9G2e.png I feel very strongly about this for some reason. ] (]) 15:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

:I can't really say that I agree. Looking at the picture, I'm not sure how that would be better. Perhaps you could elaborate further? <span style="font-family: sylfaen">]/]</span> 19:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

::Where it is now interrupts the flow of the phrasing. "Did you know..." is a lead in clause to each of the items listed. It should be read as "Did you know...that at least one species of the goblin spider ''Unicorn'' (male pedipalp pictured) practices genital mutilation?" Moving the "From Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content" to the end allows this to be more evident. I would suggest changing it to "All of the above are from Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content." to improve the grammar. Alternatively, one could simply switch the "From Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content" and "Did you know...". It's like those "Caution Automatic Door" signs that, going on actual word order, really read "Automatic Caution Door". --] (]) 20:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

:::Better idea: move the "From Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content" to the end and rephrase as "...that all of the above are from Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content?" --] (]) 13:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

::::And when the equipment starts answering back the word 'caution' could become a verb. :) ] (]) 15:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::Thank you all. The Caution Automatic Door is a great analogy. At least I know now that the flow of phrasing doesn't bother just me.] (]) 19:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::Yes, if it's to be moved to the bottom it needs rephrasing. That flow always has bothered me; but at the bottom, the colon looks weird. On the subject of automatic caution doors: <span style="font-family: sylfaen">]/]</span> 22:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

{{unindent|6}}Or we could change the name of the section to "From Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content", and put "Did you know…" inside the box just above the items. A much more logical sequence. ] (]) 00:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

:Are there any bold admins around? <span style="font-family: sylfaen">]/]</span> 01:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

::Awien: that was my other suggestion, I just like putting the "from Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content" last because it can then be worked in as a final item in the list. Eman235: You'll notice that my last suggestion changed the colon to a question mark to make it fit into the pattern. --] (]) 01:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

:::Sorry, Khajidha, didn't mean to steal your idea. In any case, either suggestion is better than the present fractured grammar, but as for finding a bold admin ... lots of luck! ] (]) 03:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


== "]" listed at ] ==
::::Does anyone else think there should be an RfC about this? <span style="font-family: sylfaen">]/]</span> 21:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Mian Page}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 01:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


==Add number of editors in the topmost banner==
:::::Nobody disagrees that a fix is in order. I'm fine with moving "The above are drawn from Misplaced Pages's new or improved content" (or similar) to the bottom, so nobody who has expressed an opinion has any problem with that. RfC seems kind of a big deal when what's really needed is a bold admin, but if that's what it would take ... ] (]) 15:01, 10 May 2015 (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)
::::::Use {{tl|admin help}}? Ask Jimbo? Look through ] and ask ALL of them? <span style="font-family: sylfaen">]/]</span> 23:49, 10 May 2015 (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)
{{unindent|6}}No objection, but no action … sigh. ] (]) 13:13, 13 May 2015 (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. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, that's also a bit dumb. Maybe if we linked both the term and the amount to the same link. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::How about linking the number of active editors to ], where it is explained? ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 12:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*Sounds like a good idea. I would but the editors after the number of articles, though – best to lead with the bigger number. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*This appears to be ] problem; I believe it would be best if we went ahead with the original formatting and discuss the minute details later. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I never said it was a problem, just a suggestion. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Sorry, I didn't mean to reply to you in particular. I've changed the indentation level. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*Displaying the 'active editors' variable significantly discounts all of prior editors associated with those millions of articles being discussed in the same line. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I suppose you could say something like, "] articles in ] written by ] editors" to be maximally precise. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 16:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::What I'm saying is that the {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}</nowiki> is certainly way more than the {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}</nowiki>, and that the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}</nowiki> certainly would not have been possible with only the later. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Advertising how many "active" users we have isn't necessarily a problem, I'm saying we shouldn't in anyway suggest that such a low number of contributors has led to the number of articles we have to casual readers, reporters, etc that would read the line. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Perhaps something like "currently maintained by X active editors"? (Which also discounts all of the many unregistered editors). — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::"by over" maybe.... — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Why, though? "X active editors" isn't saying that that's all the editors who've ever been. It's doing the opposite, by qualifying "active". Getting a bot to keep a tally of total editors ever, per Joe, could be a cool idea, but there's nothing misleading or incorrect about just listing active users, and it's potentially of more interest to readers. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::I'm not opposed to somehow advertising the currently active editors, just saying we should ensure that such a figure isn't associated with the total count of all articles made by a much much larger group. (As the original problem is suggesting that readers are underestimating the number of volunteers that have built Misplaced Pages). — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


:I absolutely support this. Maybe also include the number of edits made in the current calendar day? ] | ] | ] 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:(Adds) Just to recapitulate, what we have now is this:
::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)
:Did you know...From Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content:…that the globehead parrotfish etc.
:::@] 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)
:In other words, fractured syntax.
:::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)
:Seriously, isn't there ONE admin who cares? ] (]) 16:14, 13 May 2015 (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)
::"Did you know . . ." is already deliberately fractured to be completed by multiple statements, '. . . that'. The explanatory phrase in italics acts as a parenthetical, it's the ". . .", that break the syntax, not the explanatory phrase -- so that's probably why you don't get people getting all that up in arms about it. ] (]) 17:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


===Informal RfC===
:::You have a point, and I can see how the proposed re-wordings would be clearer. I think your problem finding a bold admin is the location of this discussion. I'm going to link to it from ].
{{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?====
::::Thank you, ONUnicorn(?). Fingers crossed. ] (]) 18:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
# Active editors (original proposal)
# Active editors and total edit count
# Active editors and edit count in last 24 hours(bot required)
# Active editors and all-time editors(bot required)


*'''Support 4''' if possible, '''support 1''' as a lower-effort but still effective alternative. '''Oppose 2 and 3''' per the concerns raised above that it would create confusion among new editors/readers who would not realise that the count cannot update immediately. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Leave it alone -- it's perfectly fine as it is. As {{u|Alanscottwalker}} has explained, the syntax isn't fractured because the typography makes it easy to see that there's an interruption (or suspension, if you will) between the ellipses ... ellipsises ... ellipseses ... whatever. ] (]) 22:58, 13 May 2015 (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? ====
::::::Pretty imperious for just a fellow editor, EEng. Also not much of a grammarian. ] (]) 00:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
# Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
# Use comma


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
{{unindent|6}}I hide the true extent of my knowledge so as not to overawe you. But in any event this isn't a question of grammar. ] (]) 02:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


====Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins? ====
:I'm not so moved by the argument about "fractured syntax" as about the idea of improving the flow. ]'s screenshot makes a direct connection from "Did you know..." to "... that the globehead parrotfish..." That catches the reader's eye. At the end, we could make the line into a sentence: "]." ] (]) 00:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
# Use line break
# Use comma


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Or alternately -- rename the section "from Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content", then put "''Did you know...''" where that text used to be. <span style="font-family: sylfaen">]/]</span> 04:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


====How should it be ordered?====
:::Alanscottwalker and EEng, the two sets of suspension marks don't alter the fact that "Did you know that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram etc. etc. " is a grammatically correct sentence, or as some people prefer to phrase it, one that flows. "From Misplaced Pages's new and recently improved content:" is a sentence fragment that can't be inserted into it because it's a completely separate idea and therefore needs a sentence of its own. An example of a real parenthesis in the DYK sentence could be something like "Did you know (that's a rhetorical question, because we know you don't) that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram etc. etc. " The suspension marks simply serve as a visual link between the question in the heading and the various items completing it.
# Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
# Bigger number(s) first


* '''Support 1 or 2.''' '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::As for getting up in arms about it, bitter experience teaches us that getting anything on the Main Page changed is a bit like trying to push the Naha up a mountain. But we did succeed in getting "Today's Featured Article" changed to "From today's featured article", and "More" to "Full article…" and the sky didn't fall. Hear that, admins? Six in favour, only two against, with either solution acceptable to the six. ] (]) 21:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


====Wikilinks?====
:::::You're preoccupied with sentence structure, but not everything is or needs to be a sentence. ] (]) 13:30, 15 May 2015 (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)
::::::"Did you know . . ." is a section title, and the sub title is not a separate idea, it is another way to complete the idea. It says where ''Did you know'' comes from. Did you know our new content. And it's not here where this would be decided, it is an RfC on the ''Did you know'' project page. (And no, several different ideas of 'do something else', don't make a consensus)] (]) 22:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support 1''', unless active editors is the only statistic shown, in which case 3. ] (]) 22:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


====Discussion====
{{unindent|6}}Well...if no-one objects to an RfC at ], I'm going to go ahead and start one! <span style="font-family: sylfaen">]/]</span> 00:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
:If a bot is difficult or resource hungry, an edit count for yesterday (preceding calendar day) would serve the same purpose as a count in the last 24 h. ] (]) 08:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::From a maintenance and server load perspective, a bot updating daily is no different than a bot updating every minute (i.e., just a line of code's difference and resource usage that rounds down to 0). <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#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>
:Eman235, ONUnicorn already mentioned the question at ] and linked here, but it might help if you were to add a summary of the discussion so far, along with a clear proposal as to what change(s) we're suggesting. I can't now, it's past my bedtime. Cheers, ] (]) 01:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


with
::An RfC would be good. Some previous discussions I found:
:*] (Oct 2012)
:*] (Dec 2012) ] <sup>]</sup> 15:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


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


The interpunct (·) should be replaced with a line break on small screens via Templatestyle (
Right now, all section footers use a mdash-separated list for their footer links. For technical reasons, I was asked to make {{tl|In the news}} less error-prone because it is all hand-formatted (including the logic). I fixed that in {{tl|In the news/sandbox}}, and turned the footer into a proper horizontal list (using a ]), which shows bullets instead of mdashes. That change is well received, but in the interest of consistency, we felt the need to ask if this is an issue here? If this inconsitency is too much of a problem, we can do two things:
]
# Don't use bullets for In the news.
), 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)
# Make other sections use horizontral lists/bullet as well.
The first option is, understandibly, ''very'' undesirable, as it forces ITN to revert to an unworkable template. The second option is an oppurtunity to make all section footers more accessible by using proper HTML lists, and makes managing the sections a whole lot easier. Note that the languages section already uses horizontal lists. I'll be happy to adapt any relevant templates. <code style="font-size:small;white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 10:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support option 2''' and thanks for your work. ] (]) 20:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support option 2.''' To the best of my knowledge, the current formatting exists because someone happened to create it years ago and we've yet to replace it with something better. Indeed, Edokter, thanks for enabling us to do that. —] 20:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support option 2''' &nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 05:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support option 2''', thanks Edokter, ]] 22:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
*Option 2, and if someone could write a script to generate it based on the previous days' TFAs, even better. - Dank (]) 01:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
**POTD has this, but not in any reusable way. This will have to be a separate project. <code style="font-size:small;white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 11:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
** So does TFL. TFA in fact goes all the way back to February 2004. ] (]) 15:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
*** Dank means the line with "Recently featured:". TFL (and all ohter, except POTD) still requires those links to be added manually. <code style="font-size:small;white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 16:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
**** Yes, I understand that now. So for future TFA and POTDs that have not been created, I guess for now we can only change the preload templates {{t|TFA preload}} and {{T|POTD row}} to display the lines instead of the bullets. And as for TFL, I believe the change should be made on the example code on ]. ] (]) 18:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
*****POTD is good. TFA, TFL will switch June 1st. The main point is that maintaining those recents line will be much easier, as they are now regular wikilists instead of non-semantic, hand-formatted, ndash-separated lines. <code style="font-size:small;white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 12:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''I don't care''' but for the record, they're ndashes, not mdashes. ] (]) 01:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
*:Thanks for coming. ] (]) 20:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Love it''' Looks very clean and nice, dig what you've done for ITN in the new template, go with option 2 and make this main page standard. The subtemplate idea is long overdue, and will make posting of RD and ongoing much easier. --]] 04:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
* Option 2 is excellent! Makes it easier for the admins as well, as mentioned above. --''']''' 15:31, 17 May 2015 (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)
Very well! I have already prepared all the changes and I will roll them out between now and wednesday, starting with ITN. Not all changes will be immediate; most TFA and TFL pages are already prepared until the end on the month, so their 'Recently featured' lines will still show dashes until then (the actual changes are made in their /preload templates). I will post updates here. Please post bugs when you see them (not that I expect any). <code style="font-size:small;white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 11:54, 18 May 2015 (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)
;Updates:
:::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)
:*Today's featured article {{done}}, now visible ('Recently' visible June 1st)
::::Seems good to me. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:*Today's featured list {{done}}, now visible ('Recently' visible June 1st)
::::Thanks for the mock up. Looks splendid. From my perspective, this is ready for implementation. ''']]''' 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:*In the news {{done}}, now visible
::::Looks good. '']'' (] — ]) 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:*On this day {{done}}, now visible
::::Looks good to me too. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:*Did you know {{done}}, now visible
{{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)
:*Picture of the day {{done}}, visible from May 20th
:<code style="font-size:small;white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 12:17, 18 May 2015 (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)
'''Please do not replace any dashes with middots by hand. It is not proper list markup and creates inconsistencies in the archives. Thank you.''' <code style="font-size:small;white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 11:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


== Bye Bye Jimmy Carter, hello "the PDC World Darts Championship"? ==
== U.S. Constitutional convention ==
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" ==
Actually, 12 states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention--Rhode Island didn't send any. ] (]) 20:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
:Is this an error report? If so ] is your venue. ] (]) 20:44, 17 May 2015 (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)
== ITN proposal: All sports items go to a sports "ticker" ==


: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)
For those interested, there is a discussion at ] on ''']''' to put all sports items into a sports ticker (presumably like "Recent deaths" and "Ongoing" currently are. Please comment ''there'' if you have any input. -- ''']''' 04:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
::"Free" (in the sense we use it) and "encyclopaedia" at least plausibly something that a reader might need defining for them. There's nobody reading the English Misplaced Pages that doesn't know what English is. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 08:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Knowing what a topic is is not the bar for a link. I certainly don't think it's less defined than "encyclopaedia", and speaking of encyclopaedia, I've seen enough engvar "typo" fixes to know there's a lot about the English language many readers don't know. That's not to be demeaning, there's a lot I can learn from it too, it's the only Good Article out of the four articles linked. ] (]) 08:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*I would oppose removing it. The main page serves as a place for readers to see examples of the kind of work we do, and perhaps become engaged to write and edit themselves. As such, ], which is a GA and looks quite well structured and referenced, is a good link to have. It also shows how linking to other topics works, alongside ] and ]. As CMD says, it's also the language of our project. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:] might be a more appropriate target, but I can't see the benefit of linking for the sake of linking. Plenty of links to good and featured content lower down the page! &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 10:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:In actual articles, I 100% agree with this - in practice this being used means that most articles have a nation or language as a link almost immediately. However, the main page isn't an article, and if we were to start using all the MOS on it, it would be a completely different look. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 13:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== i want to report man for blocking ==
*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)
listen i dont know how it is done so im write here if any of you from the wikipedians see that please block http://en.wikipedia.org/User:RolandR he twisting wiki facts only cuz he can not accept them and does not fit to his opinion thank you.

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 9 		Today
January 10, 2025 		Tomorrow
January 11
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 08:30 on 10 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

Please change the final sentence to "They have been displayed in the Museo Egizio in Turin since their arrival, and an entire gallery is devoted to them." Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(January 10, today)

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:


116,790 active editors · 6,938,061 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 48,529,167 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: