Talk:Main Page/Archive 180

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 175 Archive 178 Archive 179 Archive 180 Archive 181 Archive 182 Archive 185

Introducing Media Viewer on the Main Page

Media Viewer lets you browse larger images on Wikipedia.

Hi folks: we'd love to hear what you think about Media Viewer, a new tool that aims to improve the viewing experience on Wikipedia and its sister sites.

This multimedia browser displays images in larger size and with less clutter, providing a more immersive user experience, as described here. It has been tested it on the Main Page, where it is likely to be used often, and it seems to work fine. An earlier glitch with pictures 'In the news' was resolved a couple weeks ago, thanks to the gracious help of a volunteer editor. This tool was developed in collaboration with many community members -- including over 12,000 beta users here on English Wikipedia, who have been testing it since November 2013. The current plan is to release this tool gradually in coming weeks: it is already enabled by default on over a dozen sites (including the Dutch, French and Polish Wikipedia), and will be deployed more widely throughout May, as described in this release plan.

Can you share your feedback about this tool, to help address any critical issues before its May 15 release on the English Wikipedia? To try it out, please log in and click on the small 'Beta' link next to 'Preferences' in your personal menu. Then check the box next to 'Media Viewer' in the Beta Features section of your user preferences — and click 'Save'. You can now click on any thumbnail image on this site to see it in larger size in the Media Viewer. For more info, check out these testing tips or this Help page.

Once you've tried the tool, please share your feedback in this discussion, to help improve this feature. You're also welcome to take this quick survey -- or join this in-depth discussion on, as you prefer. Thanks for sharing your insights! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[]

  • Fabrice, considering how much undue hate birds get on this talk page, I'd have probably chosen a different image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[]


One of the points from "On this day..." reads "1995Croatian War of Independence: Serb forces began firing rockets on the Croatian..." "Serb forces" should not link to Serbian Army, which was not involved in the conflict and was only re-established in 2006. The Serb forces in this case fought under the Army of the Republic of Serb Krajina, the armed forces of the Croatian Serb state during the 1990s. I expect this error to be corrected quickly. 23 editor (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[]

 Done. howcheng {chat} 10:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Can 'the proverbial someones...

please develop articles to Main Page standard that will cause 'wailing and gnashing of teeth and references to children and everything going to the dogs', or at least 'there is an excess of articles on...(preferrably something bizarrely obscure)'. (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[]

  • Here, I've got a bird picture for ya. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[]
    • I recently added an article dealing with race, religion, politics, and an old west shoot-out for consideration at SA/OTD. Does this help? --Allen3 talk 11:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Image protection redux

Currently, some main page sections rely on the Commons protection bot. I check it very rarely, but often find it failing, like today (TFA and TFP images were not protected). I guess the thinking has always been "don't fix until the vulnerability is actually exploited". Materialscientist (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[]

It appears that KrinkleBot stopped working about six days ago. It's more than a bit troubling that the problem has just been pointed out now.
I keep trying to convince people that the task (which was set up as a fallback and has failed on multiple occasions) shouldn't be relied upon as a first-line protection method, but few are willing to listen.
And this issue isn't confined to Wikipedia. Some of our fellow Commons administrators have actually unprotected main page images (including those used in ITN, the one section whose images aren't transcluded at the bot-watched Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow or DYK queues well in advance) on the basis that the bot's cascading protection has rendered conventional protection unnecessary.
Sadly, you might be right that the matter won't be taken seriously until some very embarrassing imagery appears on the main page. Of course, this already has occurred numerous times; that's why the bot task was devised in the first place. Unfortunately, this has been mistaken for encouragement to be less diligent. —David Levy 02:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TFA Protector Bot 2 has stalled. Any bot operators like to take it over? BencherliteTalk 08:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[]
Such redundancy certainly would be helpful. —David Levy 15:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[]
I notified Krinkle, who now has the bot up and running again. —David Levy 15:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Which was used as a reason for rejecting my request to protect the POTD images on Commons (at least for today) "just in case". I doubt there could be much redundancy when one doesn't have the admin bit on both Commons and English Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[]
I don't understand ChrisiPK's rationale. At worst, manual protection of the next day's image would have been a redundant safeguard. It couldn't possibly have caused any harm.
This is an example of the attitude to which I referred above. Legitimate protection is being undone/denied because of a misguided belief that the bot has rendered it obsolete. —David Levy 03:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Precisely... and local uploads aren't feasible for all FPs... those over 100mb can't be uploaded locally owing to the size limit, and a lower resolution version is unfeasible because that's not the version promoted (and thus not the version we're supposed to be showing). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Interesting. The DYK bot won't post unless the picture is already protected. When I post a picture to ITN, I always upload a local copy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Recent deaths

A minor thing, but didn't this link used to be on the bottom left-hand side of the ITN section and not the bottom right? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[]

It is on the right when there are no front-page worthy deaths and on the left when there is at least one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Use of "first-ever"

"First-ever" (as in "The first-ever outbreak of chikungunya in the Caribbean") is a colloquial expression that carries connotations that you are addressing a skeptical audience that will not believe you unless you make your claim in the strongest terms. It is unsuited for use in formal or encyclopedic prose. The word "ever" should be dropped, as doing so has no effect on the meaning. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Thanks. This kind of issue can be raised at WP:ERRORS in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[]
Not necessarily sceptical - 'first ever...' implies high to complete certainty (Neil Armstrong was the first ever man on the moon); 'probablly the first' and/or 'first known' implies a lower degree of certainty. (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[]
I agree with 80.254. This is probably an ENGVAR issue. --ThaddeusB (talk)
If anything, "first ever" isn't formal enough, at least as long as encyclopedias are concerned... –HTD 14:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[]
'First' means exactly the same thing as 'first ever'. The second word adds no extra information and merely makes it sound more sensationalist. Modest Genius talk 16:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[]
Certainly "ever" is not necessary, and if it conveys something like Wolfman says to some readers that is a good reason to remove it. I was just pointing out that it doesn't convey anything like that to me (or the IP). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[]
This is not an ENGVAR issue at all. "First ever" is a sensationalist version of "first", as Modest Genius says. The IP's introduction of the word 'probably' reduces the certainty of the sentence, but Wolfman didn't suggest adding any such qualification. Removing the word 'ever' has no effect whatsoever, no matter what part of the English speaking world you come from. Athomeinkobe (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[]
The only thing "sensationalist" here is the claim using "first ever" is sensationalist; redundant and unnecessary, sure; informal, perhaps; sensationalist? come on now... But, good to know you are an expert on all variations of English across the entire world, so much so that you understand all subtle variations in word usage in all local dialects. I guess I must be mistaken about my own English understanding. Geez. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[]

A better word?

Quote from the main page (picture of the day): "Here, the frontside and backside hemispheres ....". Now I know this is an international encyclopedia, so we can expect various varieties of English, but in a lot of the english-speaking world "backside" is simply another word for bottom, rear, buttocks etc. In fact, it has no other use. I know in other areas (e.g US) it doesn't have such a meaning, but even so, maybe we could find an alternative? It just looks so funny to many english speakers in its current use on the main page. (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[]

I missed this one, but I agree with the IP that an ENGVAR-neutral phrasing should have been used. 'front and back hemispheres' would have been a simple alternative. 'frontside' doesn't seem to be recognised in any dictionary except as a surfing move. Modest Genius talk 16:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[]
If you watched the greatest American football game of all time, the epic Butt fumble, you'd hear "back side" at least once. So, it's certainly not WP:ENGVAR. –HTD 01:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[]

RSS feed for in the news?

There seems to be RSS feeds for featured pictures and articles and on this day, but shouldn't there be a feed for in the news, too? (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[]

  • Also, where did the link for past news go? (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[]

hi please can we advertise Wikipedia:2014 main page redesign proposal this because it seems tohave stalled and they are just two people who have created two different designs. this project is to help people create new ideas for the main page and to have a refresh look. because it has not been updated since 2006. (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[]

The "stalled" condition should tell you something: The Main Page does not need a redesign. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[]
And if it does, history has shown that this is the wrong way to do it. —David Levy 15:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[]
The endeavor has stalled because editors realize that this method has been tried repeatedly, failing every time. I don't know why the aforementioned "two people" believe that it will suddenly work now.
What type of advertising do you suggest? —David Levy 15:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[]
Doesn't this belong at the Village pump?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[]
Again with the tightly controlled processes and RFCs that do nothing else but to expose the community's devided viewpoints... All we need is a few people that actually do some design work in a collaborative fashion, present the result and just put it up there. Edokter (talk) — 10:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Proposal to implement new framework for main page

There appears to be consensus for this change, particularly as the concerns of some opposers have been addressed. Number 57 11:47, 12 May 2014 (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.

We've had our fun. Now let's get back to business. The fonts were a joke (obviously), but the proposal itself is quite genuine.

After an extensive discussion exploring the general idea of redesigning the main page, a general consensus has emerged that a radical redesign is not a viable short-term goal. But the underlying framework of that design has proven to be a potent foundation on which any future design can be built, and replaces the aging layout practices of 2006 to bring it more inline with today's layout recomendations.

With that in mind, we would like to replace the underlying layout with this new foundation. Several advantages include:

  1. Flexible layout which allows future modifications to be implemented more easily.
  2. Responsive design; sections will stack instead of being pushed off-screen. This also makes the page more mobile-friendly (for those prefering desktop view on mobile).

Other than that, the main page should look very familiar. Some older version of Internet Explorer may show a small gap between colored sections, but that is a small trade-off, as the flexibility of this design is more future-proof then the current layout. Please test the page in any way you can, under any platform, and report any bugs.

Please state your opinion below. Edokter (talk) — 01:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]


  1. Support The benefits of using this framework are many. Especially the fact that it eliminates tables and makes the whole thing easier to modify, and therefore, other incremental proposals would be easier to pass. It is a strong improvement over the current design, and it has been developed over the course of many weeks. The differences between the current main page are almost non-existent, except for a few behavioural changes which can be explained. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  2. Support assuming we can get the IE11 bug below fixed, and any other browser compatibility issues fixed. Glad to see this finally happen! Legoktm (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  3. Support and looks great in Windows 8.1. All the rest are just software tweaks. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 04:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  4. Support. Very well done, though as per Legotkm all compatibility issues should be checked and fixed. If they can't be fixed they should be documented and this poll restarted - it may still be worth going ahead but we should be clear of about any problems.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  5. Support. A great start. Worth it for the responsive aspect alone. — Pretzels 21:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  6. Support Tested on latest Firefox and Chromium on Arch Linux with no issues. Note that I'm using Arimo as my default sans font and Tinos as my default sans-serif font, so my results might not be representative of Firefox and Chrome using other defaults (e.g., DejaVu Sans or Arial) on Arch Linux. Cloudchased (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  7. Support. Looks good in Safari on my Mac.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  8. Support subject to full testing. Big improvement. Suggest use of automated cross-browser testing tools (example). (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  9. Support Looks great in Chrome. I'm all for making things easier to modify, which will better allow for improvements to be made to the Main Page in the future. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  10. Support with full testing, of course. I've been following this proposal since it was on the village pump; it's a great improvement on the back end. Novusuna talk 21:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  11. Support. It's practical and looks nice. Please don't implement until you've tested it on mobiles, tablets and desktops with all the popular operating systems and browsers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  12. Support Doesn't look all that different on Firefox. Gizza (t)(c) 11:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  13. Strong Support with a condition I would Strongly Support this proposal if it is properly and thoroughly tested. Otherwise I will oppose the proposal until it is tested. I am assuming that it will be tested thoroughly here as I can't see a reason why it won't be. Zell Faze (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  14. Support Provided you test vigorously on mobile devices and make it responsive like you say. Also please kill all use of the nomobile class in the process so that the mobile site shows all the content the desktop site does. That would be a great step in the right direction. Happy to be of assistance in helping with mobile optimisation in any way - please keep me involved in this process. Jdlrobson (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  15. Support its obviously going to need a lot of testing but a responsive system seems the way to go and is very current in the web-design world. Will it actually apply to mobiles don't they get a separate skin?--Salix alba (talk): 05:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  16. Support - Definitely looks alot better than the 2006 one, I hate changes but this is 1 change I actually really like :), Obfourse per above testing before deployment is the best option possible. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  17. 'Support. Well done! should go online after testing. Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  18. Support and support for the whole redesign. I couldn't tell the difference until I resized a window or looked closer. The only (slight) problem is the positioning of the group of portals is off the current alignment. (But then again, that problem doesn't exist with the full redesign) Tomásdearg92 (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  19. Support and bug The "Today's featured picture" text does not currently stack under the image like everything else does. This needs to be fixed before this goes live.--v/r - TP 18:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    I have no control over that; POTD is transcluded as a table to the main page. Edokter (talk) — 18:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    To be technical, all of us have control over it. It's freely licensed. But to be clear, I meant before it goes live this needs to be fixed. It's part of the main page whether transcluded or not. Our readers don't know the difference and it needs to be fixed before we call this mobile or flexible CSS. We could create a duplicate POTD template or just wait until just before going live to make the changes. But before this page goes live, those changes must be made. My support is conditioned on that.--v/r - TP 18:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[]


  1. Layout fails catastrophically in IE 11. Can't really be considered for deployment until this is fixed. (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    Can you provide a screenshot? --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    Sure, see [1]. The page is about a million miles wide, and most or all of the missing content appears way off to the right somewhere. (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    Confirmed. Not million miles, but lines don't wrap on IE11. Materialscientist (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    I can't see the screenshot; it looks like the image was removed. Edokter (talk) — 10:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    I don't know why the image has disappeared. Even so, to fix and test it someone will need IE 11 anyway, so will be able to see for themselves. (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    I fixed the wrapping issue, but I cannot see if the boxes still align at the bottom (they should though). Edokter (talk) — 11:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    Everything looking good to me now in IE 11. Thanks for that. (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  2. Oppose, strictly because this proposal is premature. I'll support the change after all of the necessary testing (across various browsers and operating systems) and troubleshooting have occurred.
    Has accessibility via screen readers been checked at all? (Note that the 2006 main page redesign initially broke functionality therein — something that we should explicitly seek to avoid repeating.) —David Levy 14:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    It is an illusion to think we can put up a page that is entirely bug free without subjecting it to some form of testing. This poll is one such form. Already, one bug has been remedied (by actually simplifying the implementation). This is the testdrive, so I think it's not entirely fair to oppose on that ground. As for screenreaders, the framework is fully complient, but some parts need work. The banner is one piece still using a table splicing up a list in three columns. I'd much rather see that changed, but as I understand it, this proposal calls for an exact 2006-look, so my hands are tied here. Edokter (talk) — 17:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    It is an illusion to think we can put up a page that is entirely bug free without subjecting it to some form of testing.
    Agreed. There appears to be no dispute that further testing is needed. That's why I regard this poll as premature (if it's needed at all).
    This poll is one such form.
    I see great value in the discussion. I don't see value in asking users to "support" or "oppose" the deployment of code that clearly isn't ready to be deployed.
    Already, one bug has been remedied (by actually simplifying the implementation). This is the testdrive, so I think it's not entirely fair to oppose on that ground.
    What, if not the existence of serious bugs, would be an entirely fair reason to "oppose"?
    I've stated that I'll support the change after all of the necessary testing and troubleshooting have occurred, so if you prefer to think of my response as conditional support, that's fine. I just don't feel comfortable placing it in the "Support" section, as that doesn't describe my current position accurately.
    As for screenreaders, the framework is fully complient, but some parts need work.
    Has testing occurred? (The 2006 code was supposed to be fully compliant, but we learned after its deployment that the headings weren't read properly — a problem that hadn't existed beforehand.)
    The banner is one piece still using a table splicing up a list in three columns. I'd much rather see that changed, but as I understand it, this proposal calls for an exact 2006-look, so my hands are tied here.
    My main concern is that new flaws not be introduced. But as I commented previously, I personally didn't expect your reworked code to replicate the current output exactly. If improvements to the underlying infrastructure necessitate that the page's appearance be approximated, I'm fine with that. I suspect (but can't be certain) that the community would agree, so that might be a sensible poll question. —David Levy 21:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  3. Oppose, for now - the new code shouldn't go live until the bugs are worked out and reliability has been proven. Until then, swapping out the underlying structure should not even be considered. This proposal is premature, but the design warrants further development. Please resubmit the proposal after the design has undergone an adequate error-free testing period. Three months of glitch-free operation should suffice. The Transhumanist 22:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    I am left wondering: glitch free to which userbase? All users, or only certain configurations? How can we determine that the userbase uses the page daily, and experiences no glitches for a three month period? --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    The same userbase that Wikipedia has now. It should work at least as well as the current main page. To the extent that it doesn't will determine the size of the flood of complaints you'll get when you put the new code in place. The Transhumanist 04:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  4. Oppose, The new fonts look awful. I do not like this at all. In all honesty I find the new framework to be repellant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    You appear to have misunderstood the nature of the change proposed above, which is unrelated to the typeface change discussed below. —David Levy 02:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  5. Oppose - for now at least - because on Ipad each box (TFA, ITN and so) takes the whole screen in length, even though there's enough width on tablets to show two columns of items and it's how the current MP is displayed (with only one row, it's too much unnecessary scrolling down). For some reason, the second box is also DYK instead of ITN, and we've in all discussions wanted ITN to be the second most important item after TFA. All browsers are affected. Cenarium (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    I've lowered the threshold for collapsing a bit. How does it look now? Edokter (talk) — 20:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    It's the same. Here's the suggested version, as you can see there's also an issue with the header box. And when you scroll down you see DYK first. The current main page is here for comparison, and it's almost identical to the PC version. Cenarium (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    Reduced treshold to 800px screen width. I don't have an iPad to test, so I hope this should suffice. Edokter (talk) — 22:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    On my iPad I have TFA with DYK underneath, both full width, in the green box; and ITN with OTD underneath, again both full width, in the blue box. Stephen 11:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  6. Very strong oppose as per WP:VE. Do not release buggy code. Red Slash 21:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[]


  • It seems slightly spacier than the existing version (viewing in the latest version of Mozilla Firefox) and the column balance is somewhat different. More space is needed in the left column between TFA & DYK. I quite like the behaviour at narrow widths, but I'd suggest cutting to the single-column format at a slightly narrower width. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
It may or may not be considered a bug, but with my font size at 26, the words "Technology" and "All Portals" in the upper right extend out of the rectangle that starts at "Welcome to Wikipedia". It looks funny but it still works that way. Firefox 28.0 Windows 8.1 1920x1080 pixels Art LaPella (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Where has it been established that "a general consensus has emerged that a radical redesign is not a viable short-term goal"? Was there an RfC that was closed with a determination that this is the consensus? A straw poll of some sort? A count of comments with diffs so the count can be verified? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  • When you've been trying to get consensus on something for over 5 years, and failing, is it fair to say that it isn't a viable short-term goal? And are you really prepared to oppose this change on the basis that it isn't some bigger change? (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Broken on Dolphin Browser 10.2.8 (no wrap, just lots of white space on the right) on Android 4.1.2 but works fine with Chrome 33 on the same device (Droid Razr Maxx HD. Looks great in Firefox 28, Chrome 33, & IE 10 on Windows 7. --mav (reviews needed) 14:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    • Can't win 'em all... I don't know if you have JetPack as well, which is a heavily hacked version of Webkit. Though I intended it to be mobile-friendly, it is primarily a desktop page. Edokter (talk) — 15:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
Many people (including me) use desktop layout on tablets. There is no reason to use the mobile version on a tablet-sized screen with a fast WiFi connection. In my opinion it really ought to work with the major Android browsers. (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[]
I also use Dolphin on my phone, perhaps you are experiencing the same layout problem; the box for TFP has the text to the right of the picture, making that box stretch right, and all the other boxes have the bottom text (Archive, start a new article, nominate an article) justified right, so it stretches those boxes too. This could be solved by modifying the TFP box so that the text wraps under the picture at lower resolutions. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Can you provide a screenshot of some kind? Edokter (talk) — 17:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Broken on Chrome for Android, tested with a Nexus 7. See these screenshots: 1, 2 --Nicereddy (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[]
    • That's not so much broken on Chrome, as it is blroken on Mobile view. It seems inject divs that break the layout. Not sure if I can control this. Should definitely be fixed in MobileFrontend. Edokter (talk) — 10:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Android with Dolphin browser on a Samsung tablet looks fine in mobile and desktop formats.
    Android with Samsung's default browser on a Samsung tablet looks fine in mobile and desktop formats. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Pinged wikitech-l to let them know about this discussion. I've asked if they have any sort of browser testing framework that we could use here and if they would be willing to let us use it. I think good testing would go a long ways to making everyone worry less. Zell Faze (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[]

Some thoughts about re-designing the Front Page:

  • Why? This, in a word, is my initial response: it doesn't appear to be broken, so what needs fixing? While this may sound flippant, there is a deeper point here: if there is a reason for changing it -- other than "it's the same old layout we've had since 2006" -- you need to make that argument to attract support for changing it. (Maybe there are good reasons for this; I honestly don't know.)
  • The primary changes I see are (1) getting rid of the gutter down the middle, & (2) adding a box to encourage people to edit. The first is a matter of design, & isn't a matter I believe anyone could seriously object to. The second, on the other hand, could be used to draw more input into this redesign process: instead of an RfC about redesigning the front page (which is too vague of a proposal to incite much interest for or against), it's a specific improvement that people can form an opinion for or against. (And it would tie into the perennial attempts by the Foundation to improve the numbers of active editors.)
  • Will this new format be adopted by the other Wikipedias? If not, is there a risk of losing brand cohesiveness? (I apologize for using that bit of trendy jargon, but it does touch on an important issue: all Wikipedias need to have some uniformity in appearance in order to overcome their diversity of language; there needs to be a way for people to think of them togther.)
  • Any change, no matter how good, will result in a certain amount of negative reaction. Like it or not, most people don't like change. The best way to handle it is to start a campaign to announce the change, once it has been decided upon. And not just on en.wikipedia: I figure a change in the front page of one of the 10 most popular websites is news the media will be interested in reporting.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't change the Front Page. (Beyond my initial response, I don't have a strong opinion on the matter -- except to hope I receive notice when it happens ahead of time.) I'm simply saying there are matters to consider to make any change successful. -- llywrch (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[]

Some thoughts in response, as a supporter of this proposal:
  • As I understand them, the primary changes here aren't actually content changes at all; all of the main page content is transcluded. Rather, it's an attempt to change the code to make it easier to modify in the future and bring it up to speed with modern web design standards. There should be very little change in how the page actually looks between the current page and the new framework.
  • Will other Wikipedias adopt the framework? I don't know. But I also don't know if we have much "brand cohesiveness" to begin with. The various Wikipedias already have quite a few differences in their main pages, both in terms of style and in terms of the code. Compare, for example, the source code of the current English main page with the German or Chinese Wikipedia main page.
Announcing the change to users in advance is probably something that will have to be done, but it's important not to oversell this change. This is primarily a tweak to the backend code of the main page, so it shouldn't look very different at all to the ordinary user. Novusuna talk 21:27, 19 April 2014 (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.

Featured List POV Issues

Isn't the featured list summary today rather POV? Whoever wrote it was obviously aware of POV issues, but seems to have tried to address them by writing in as skeptical a tone as possible, rather than by presenting opposing points of view neutrally. GoldenRing (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[]

I'm not seeing any major issues, perhaps you have something specific in mind? If you have any suggestions for improvement, don't hestitate to post them at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[]
I read the title as The Twelve Inmans at first. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Discussion which may interest editors of this page

At WT:POTD there is a discussion regarding whether an image of Michele Merkin should run on the main page as picture of the day. If you are interested in weighing in, please comment at the discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[]

About time for a MP article which will generate 'much wailing and gnashing of teeth and complaints about the impact upon hypothetical children' (IMHO the Conservapedia Main Page has a serious 'damage the children' problem - links to all sorts of dubious things) (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[]
For some decades I have been told by others that certain things will morally harm me, or children, or somebody... No doubt those telling me this have seen the content. I therefore worry for their moral safety. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[]
  • This discussion is slated to run another week, in case anyone else wants to weigh in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Today's Featured Mushroom

While, I appreciate all the high quality fungus articles and occasionally find them interesting, sometimes it feels like we are violating WP:UNDUE by featuring mushrooms much more often than we should, at the expense of other interesting topics. If we have a shortage of featured articles about other topics, could we discuss how to create a better balance? Jehochman Talk 12:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[]

  • I'm not sure that there's mushroom for improvement on the featured article side of things. I feel like we've had a healthy balance of various article categories so far, and any semblance of a pattern is usually coincidental. What of the criteria for posting should be changed exactly? (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[]
As a duck advocate we need more birds. –HTD 12:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[]
You bring the duck, I'll bring the hoisin sauce... yum. BencherliteTalk 14:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[]
  • I think I've still got ducks too, Bencherlite; what quality hoisin sauce are we talking about? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[]

The Featured Articles process welcomes everyone's contributions, User:Jehochman. To nominate an FA for main page go to WP:TFA. I can see you've developed a couple of FAs in the past, but others may not know that to nominate an article you've improved to become a featured article or to help review a candidate article (the process is always desperately short of reviewers) go to WP:FAC. --Dweller (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[]

The ones I worked on were scientific or technology topics, which are rather hellishly difficult. If you look at Gamma ray burst you'll see that I dodged a lot of problems by shunting lower grade content into daughter articles, replacing with crisp summaries in the main article. I also needed help from an astrophysicist to complete the job. We ought to increase participation at WP:FAC, yes indeed. Jehochman Talk 13:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[]
(e/c) Thank you for your question, Jehochman, which gives me an opportunity in my <joke>very important and highly paid role</joke> as TFA coordinator, to correct your mistaken impression about mushrooms, and to explain a few of the realities of TFA scheduling that I have discovered in the last 18 months since foolishly agreeing to take on this task. If we check WP:TFAREC we see that this is only the third mushroom in 2014 - hardly excessive in absolute terms (and, for comparison, exactly the same number of days as we've had constellations appearing as TFA in 2014, but I don't remember any complaints that we're featuring too many star systems or somehow being NPOV in that respect, whatever a breach of NPOV re mushrooms is meant to mean...). It's only the fourth mushroom TFA since 1st September 2013, in fact, so I think your memory is definitely playing tricks on you.
Next, if we check WP:FANMP we'll see that there are 1,320 FAs yet to appear on the main page. In fact, there are a number of FAs on that list which don't meet modern standards but which nobody has taken to FAR as yet - see User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page - so the "real" number is lower.
Next, if we check User:Bencherlite/TFA notepad (where, to assist me with diversity in scheduling, I have broken down FANMP into more useful groups) we'll see that we have 36 FAs on mushrooms that have yet to run on the main page. But unfortunately this is exactly 36 more FAs than I have available in total from the following WP:FA fields: awards, decorations and vexillology; chemistry; engineering and technology; geology; food; language and linguistics; mathematicss; and philosophy and psychology.
In strict percentage terms, then, we should have about 10 mushroom TFAs per year (36/1320 x 365), and so 3 in 5 months is a little underweight, if anything. Of course, that's not the sole consideration in scheduling as I have attempted to explain, but it is an indication of the areas of interest of our FA writers over the years.
I agree with your wish for interesting topics, although I suspect that you and I and everyone else would have our disagreements on what "interesting" is. I'm all for creating a balanced range of TFAs - frankly, my Wikipedia editing at the moment is virtually exclusively dedicated to stewarding the TFA slot and trying to ensure that the main page has a variety of topics - but there's only so much I can do with the material available. The TFA slot can only work with what it's got, not what we'd like to have.
I would welcome more nominations and comments at the TFA requests page - the system is much more user-friendly than it used to be (no more complicated points calculations, for instance), and I (or one of the other TFAR regulars) will gladly help with any problems or questions. I welcome any suggestions for how I can improve the selection from the existing material, either through TFAR or through my own choices. I would love to be even more spoilt for choice in scheduling than I am already (at present, as TFAR is slumbering, I'm choosing about 70% of TFAs myself and even when TFAR is active the long-term picture is that the community only puts forward suggestions for 45% of the slots). But, to address your broader point, changing the areas of interest of FA writers, or getting new writers with different ranges of interest to go through the FAC process, is unfortunately not only beyond my powers but a long-standing and unanswered question for this volunteer project. I'm also not sure that it's a question best discussed at Talk:MP. Regards, BencherliteTalk 13:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[]
First, thank you very much Bencherlite for you good work. I know you can only post the articles you have to work with and that the frequency of mushroom appearances is dictated by the available supply of featured articles. The first step to improvement is to generate and publicize statistics. Thank you for starting that process. Can we post a note to WP:AN and WP:PUMP with these numbers, and suggest to people that if they work on under-represented categories, we will give them thanks and barnstars? In addition, if we tell people that we need featured articles in certain categories, and that these articles will run on the home page swiftly, that may provoke more interest in writing such articles. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[]
It might be more relevant, if a bit less realistic, to promise them polite reviewers and practical assistance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[]
I think we would be vastly benefited by just having more reviewers at this point. Far too many FACs never get promoted simply because there is a lack of interest in reviewing articles; many FACs are closed with literally one or even zero editors giving feedback. If folks are interested in diversifying TFAs, I strongly encourage you to review FACs. There are 56 57 FACs to choose from at the moment. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Any support for a 'Campaign for Promoting Obscure Topics to Main Page Status'? (Bio-duck and scaly hedgehog might be appropriate in this context) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[]

  • I believe that's how one can define my Wikipedia contributions, though they are starting to get repetitive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[]

'The Society for Promoting Unjustly Obscure Topics' (slightly rearranged acronym Sprout). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[]

  • "The Society for Promoting Obscure and Underrepresented Topics" requires no such rearrangement. --Jayron32 16:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[]
👍 Modest Genius likes this. 02:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[]
"The Society for Promoting Really Obscure and Underrepresented Topics" would be even closer to Jackie's suggestion. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 15:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[]
  • It's not unheard of for acronyms to include more than one letter from a word. Radar, for instance, is "RAdio Detection And Ranging". A bit less common in English than some languages, but it does occur. Especially when we want our acronym to have a second meaning. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[]
Some topics are deservedly obscure (until someone in Real Life decides to do something with them): others are interesting once researched but do not quite meet WP levels of notability. And we all have our pet topics. :)

Any alternative titles? The intent is something along the lines of the 'Rather Obscure but Rather Interesting Topic Development Group' but with a snappier title. Membership - as long as one wishes, whether intermittent or permanent. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[]

In recognition of the dearth of mycological topics on the main page, the Society for the Promotion of Obscurity's REcognition (SPORE for short, of course)? (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[]
Perhaps there could be several 'fruiting bodies' - and the names adopted should not be too convoluted: they could interlink with, or be part of, other 'topic groups.' Jackiespeel (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[]
So, what's the morel of this story? Sca (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[]
It is easier to get an obscure topic with not much written on it featured than a well known one with complex references and opinions. It may be hard to get more content on bio-duck, so that could be a candidate for non-mushroom work up to FA! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[]
  • To be fair, Graeme's correct. My film articles are about as obscure a topic as I can imagine (even more so because they are both lost and from SE Asia). Those are much easier, assuming I've got access to sources, than a major recent film such as Frozen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[]
I chose the two examples as the 'odd names' do not indicate what they actually are.

I have suggested variations on 'Wikipedia Bingo' before - one is given a list of (say ten) articles (stubs, obscure topics etc) possibly on a theme (as some of us have no interest in sport, linguistics, or other areas) and the first person to get their selection variously improved, with some moved up a class in the relevant ranking system/featured on the main page etc, 'wins'. Awards may include barnstars (or just title of 'significant WP improver/destubber' etc).

Get quacking/cracking. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Nobody brought in a toadstool-related joke.

Making reference to today's featured picture, can we have a starburst-galaxy amount of WP article improvement? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Can we not prevent big ugly template notices on TFAs?

The template below (Infobox protected area) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.—the first thing you see when clicking through to today's Featured Article, Sawtooth National Forest. Do we really need this housekeeping in everyone's faces on this of all days? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[]

I should think not; although the notice is not about the article itself, most casual readers probably won't understand and certainly won't care, and it makes the TFA look shabby. I support suppressing such template notices on TFAs, but I'm not sure whether that's possible. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[]
An if statement in the message template code or something maybe? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[]
I confess that I normally would go for suppression, but in this case would like more participants to the discussion, or a close even, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[]
Ironically, having that template on TFA brings the discussion to the attention of more users. And seeing as the discussion is more than 7 days old, maybe you could raise it on WP:AN to get someone to close it? Or was that too simple? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[]
This is going nowhere, and I'd rather not have a fight on a high profile page like this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Couldn't pass up a chance to pointlessly snipe at people, I see. The issue was not message, but having the message appear prominently on a TFAany TFA, so solving the issue of this template discussion would not solve the issue I raised, would it? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[]
Just pointing out the obvious - you're not telling me you didn't realise you could close a discussion after 7 days? Jesus wept. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[]
Could you please read what was written and stop deliberately trying to antagonize people? Your bandaid "solution" fixes nothing and is irrelevant to the issue raised. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[]
Assume good faith, Turkey for once. My solution is perfect to your query, if you can grasp that. Oh, you can't. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[]

I've just removed the deletion notice from the template (I actually made the change before seeing the discussion here- my action was my own, not something I saw as supported by consensus) because of the ugly message which was actually nothing to do with the FA itself. Lugnuts and Gerda: Hopefully, linking the discussion here will bring it more eyes/a closer, if that is what is desired. J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[]

There is apparently a related discussion on WT:TFD#Discussion to add instructions to use "noinclude" tags for highly-visible templates regarding something like this. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Pictured DYK

Not ideal

The choice of illustrated DYK right now was not the most ideal choice, I must say.

Peter Isotalo 18:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Agreed. A pitiful choice. Even other versions of the same image are better than that selected to be featured on the main page of the sixth-most visited website in the known universe. Another "triumph" for the DYK process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[]
I don't even think that was the worst decision in this batch of articles. Red Skelton, a major name in the entertainment field whose article was in the same queue, wasn't the lead article even though his photo was much nicer. DYK doesn't get many chances to prominently feature major topics like this, and I feel that this was a missed opportunity. It's not the first time I've noticed a major article not be placed front and center there; when China appeared in DYK a while back, it didn't get a photo either. If a topic as important as China becomes eligible for DYK, how can it not be the lead article? I'm proud of the work that I've contributed to DYK, but some of the practices there make me cringe when I think about them. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[]
It had never occurred to me that anyone cared what the order of the DYKs are, or thought that the first was somehow more important than the others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[]
Not ideal, but not as bad
  • To be fair to whoever built that prep, the image is not as bad at 100px as it is at 220px. Yes, Skelton or another article with a good image should have been first (this was brought up at WT:DYK, but I didn't act owing to a COI), but what's done is done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[]
It seems to be a scan of a low-quality black-and-white photocopy of an image of a photograph. It doesn't get any worse than that. I'm nominating this for deletion since it doesn't even have a proper source indicating this actually is Pineda.
The lesson to be learnt here is that images of abysmally low technical quality should be kept off the main page at all costs. I'd rather see no DYK illustration at all than this.
Peter Isotalo 09:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Link President of Malawi

Could we please link President of Malawi to the ITN section? Jón - (Talk) 06:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[]

For quicker turnaround, please use WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Today's (2nd of June) featured picture

At first impression a pretty nice picture: A piece of nature, balanced colors and focus. However when trying to estimate sizes you'll fail: Even if you have an idea how big a giant honey bee would be, you can hardly imagine width and height of the pictured hive. Imho somewhat poor for a presentation on WP's page one. -- (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Issues with the featured image should be discussed at the appropriate section of WP:ERRORS. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[]
"Honeycomb's big ... yeah yeah yeah!" That should settle it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Damn it, I wanted that milk! Give it back, keyboard! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[]
  • If an individual worker measures 17–20 millimetres (0.7–0.8 in) in length, then this would probably bee about 30 cm. Of course, getting accurate measurements of a nest several metres above the ground is, to say the least, a little difficult. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[]
No-one asked for accurate measurements Crisco, however the assessment you made is very much appreciated: Its accuracy covers the expectations one may have when it's about a nest several meters above the ground. Thank you. -- (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Featured article (June 3, Jefferson Davis


the blurb in question is no longer on the main page. Discussion of article content should continue at Talk:Jefferson Davis --Jayron32 03:18, 5 June 2014 (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.

In the "From today's featured article" text there is the phrase "he employed slave labor as did many of his peers in the South." Yet this statement is not in the article itself. Who wrote this? What is your source for that? How do you define a "peer" of Jefferson Davis? There is a myth long perpetrated in this country that EVERY land owner in the South prior to 1860 was a slave owner, that every white person in the South prior to 1860 was a slave owner, and that every white person in America today is descended from someone who owned slaves or benefitted from the North American Slave Trade. This of course is all NOT true. While I realize there is some paraphrasing done in the creation of the FA teaser, whoever is creating it should not embellish nor add content that is not sourced in the article itself. Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[]

There was detailed discussion of the blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Jefferson Davis. You've not quoted the line in full " As a plantation owner, he employed slave labor as did many of his peers in the South" -- so peers would be "plantation owners", which I think is clear in this context (and uncontroversial). But the blurb was mulled over by quite a few people (many people contributed to it); if you're interested in helping out with these blurbs in the future keep an eye on WP:TFAR. -- Shudde talk 12:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Not to mention that the phrase "as did many of his peers" can in no way be considered an argument that "EVERY land owner in the south..." Resolute 13:32, 3 June 2014 (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.

Get that repulsive DYK off the front page NOW.


The hook has been pulled from main page. Issues with DYK as a process should be discussed at WT:DYK--Jayron32 03:15, 5 June 2014 (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.

"Did you know...that an American serial killer said that he killed women before having sex with them because "I like peace and quiet"? What kind of imbecile thinks this is even remotely appropriate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Looks like quite a few people did. I'll ping them here, because they may be interested in commenting. OccultZone (talk · contribs) Storye book (talk · contribs) Yoninah (talk · contribs) Maury Markowitz (talk · contribs) Mandarax (talk · contribs). Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I have also raised this at WP:ANI. And may well raise the matter with the WMF. This sort of nonsense has gone on far too long, and can only bring Wikipedia into disrepute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
This seems like stirring up a tempest in a teapot to me. Since when does ANI get involved in content disputes? Let alone the WMF. I can see how it might offend some (though not me personally), but it's already on the main page and will most likely be off the main page before any consensus forms. --Jakob (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
This is not a 'content dispute'. IT IS GROSSLY OFFENSIVE, AND SHOULD BE REMOVED. NOW. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
This sets an excellent precedent for the Tiananmen Square and D-Day hooks, that anyone with fragile sensibilities can erase anything with little or no discussion just by calling people imbeciles and TYPING IN ALL CAPS. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
@AndyTheGrump: Dude, chill. This kind of aggressive language is not appropriate.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Where exactly is the aggressive language, FutureTrillionaire? Big scary caps? Seriously, "chill". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) has removed the hook. Discussion moot. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I somehow doubt that discussion is going to stop now... --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
The more I think about it, the more I do agree with the removal of this hook. Certainly more interesting hooks can be found, and ones that appeal to a broader audience. --Jakob (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Where was this voted on? Where can we read on the supports for it? (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Template:Did you know nominations/Incidents of Necrophilia Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
While it's certainly not the most tastefully-put hook ever, it's also not worth throwing a strop over. Neither ANI nor directly involved the WMF seem remotely appropriate venues for what is wholly a content issue. GRAPPLE X 01:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
The image that Wikipedia presents to the public, and to potential contributors, is not a 'content issue'. The WMF has made it clear on multiple occasions that it wishes to see the contributor base broadened, and offensive material of this kind is exactly what isn't needed.
Incidentally, as our article on Henry Lee Lucas makes clear, it was conclusively proven that he 'confessed' to crimes he didn't commit, and appears on multiple occasions to have said whatever his interrogators wanted to hear - which makes the veracity of the hook more than a little suspect anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Except it is a content issue, as this was simply a matter of taste as regards to content which broke no guidelines—the first port of call should have been here or WT:DYK, possibly followed by an RFC on the wider issue of what is or isn't "appropriate" or if such a distinction should exist. Running to the WMF for something like this is serious Chicken Little behaviour and I hope for everyone's sake you don't react this way to everything that upsets you or little actual work will ever be done. GRAPPLE X 01:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
It is unbelievable that that crap "hook" to a crap article (it is highly disputed whether Herodotus actually went to Egypt, "Herod slept with his dead wife for seven years", I have studied a lot about Herod and never heard that before) got onto the main page, well done Andy for ringing alarms about it, it is utterly disgraceful. Something is very very wrong with this process, I would be inclined to say DYK should be abolished.Smeat75 (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
I agree that this was an utterly horrible hook for many reasons, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Given the propensity this 'baby' has shown for WP:BLP violations, sub-tabloid sensationalism, and the promotion of substandard articles, I'd have to suggest that it is high time it was thrown off the main page. It does nothing to enhance Wikipedia's reputation, and seems to exist solely for the purposes of ego-massaging the regulars. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia should contain controversial material, but DYK hooks are still required to follow WP:NPOV. This attempt fails. Removing it is correcting an error. The quote parroted the view of someone we would consider an unreliable source for a worthwhile opinion on the subject. (I'm sure the citation was accurate about whether he said the words, but not whether they were due a huge, or any, amount of weight). __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I don't think two people opposed to this hook have agreed on why they're opposed to it. That's usually a sure sign of thinly veiled WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I cannot believe that this misogynistic statement made it all the way to the DYK. Disgusting and hateful. Anything making light of the murder and rape of women as that statement did should not be acceptable. What's next, Holocaust jokes? EvergreenFir (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]

That DYK hook is sexist, misogynist garbage. It's just repulsive. What's next? Nigger jokes on DYK? This is supposed to be Wikipedia, not 4chan. Thank you to whoever removed it. Kaldari (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Sorry to be the devil's advocate but how was it misogynistic? What if the text said "that an American serial killer said that she killed men before having sex with them because "I like peace and quiet"? Would the text become misandric? I feel like the DYK was all right as stuff like that happens in the world. Heck, I actually read the article because of it. GamerPro64 03:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Considering that there isn't a cultural stereotype of men preferring to excessively talk instead of having sex, no, that hook wouldn't have much of anything misandric to play off of. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
It is a massive failing this made it to the main page. It has nothing to do with censorship; it has everything to do with having even the most mean and miniscule sense of decorum (it would also be nice to avoid cutting off our noses to spite our faces).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2014 (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.

Don Zimmer under Recent Deaths

Don Zimmer should be featured in the recent deaths section. The man was a legend in the baseball world.

I invite you to express your views at the appropriate entry on the candidates page. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia:Itnc#RD:_Don_Zimmer. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]


Why is the errors page seemingly duplicated on this page? 331dot (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]

It's a feature, not a bug. WP:ERRORS is transcluded here, intentionally. People wanting to report errors on the main page are much more likely to come to this talk page; not everyone knows about WP:ERRORS. When they edit one of the transcluded sections on this page, they're automagically taken to WP:ERRORS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
I guess I just had never seen or noticed it before; thanks for the reply. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Featured Picture 5 June

Nice picture of Welsh cake - made me hungry. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 07:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]

  • Now I can't unsee it. Help! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Feedback from an owner of an Apple device

this page is informative and on my ipad luks great !

Does the ipad autospeller always change "looks" to "luks"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC) []

Another video game (company) article?

It's bad enough that WP allows video games to become articles, but when I see video game 'companies' get articles, and they get published on the front page, that really stinks. Most video games become old hat, or obsolete, and forgotten about in a few years, yet their 'page' will live in infamy, next to articles about Babe Ruth, Lincoln, etc. Just in case you're wondering why Wikipedia is blocked in California public schools (and no doubt elsewhere), laughed at by teachers, scholars and many students, you're looking at one of the reasons on the front page. Thatgamecompany?? How is any serious student or scholar of history, science, etc supposed to take us seriously when they see stuff like this mixed in? Wikipedia needs to stop trying to please everyone all of the time by allowing almost any topic to become an article, and concentrate more on becoming a reputable encyclopedia. Food for thought. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]

That's really more of a general statement which has little to do with the layout and organization of the Main Page, the subject of this talk page. That said, I'm sure there are millions who hold different views. Thanks for your comment. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
It's a successful company in its field; would you complain about an editor taking the time and effort and hard work to raise articles on Mitsubishi, Bic, Harper-Collins, RKO Pictures, etc etc etc, to featured status? GRAPPLE X 21:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Further, I'm sure there are many reasons this might be blocked in any school system(such as having pictures of breasts and penises). 331dot (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Ugh! Something involving video games on the main page? Who is into those anyway? GamerPro64 21:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Even despite quite some time reading books by Stephen King, I find it hard to take the OP's comment totally seriously. "articles about Babe Ruth, Lincoln" as the height of encyclopedic importance? Really? Much like saying "articles about Ian Botham, Winston Churchill" as a measure of importance might sound odd to you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
My very own sanctimonious thread on Talk:Main Page! At last, I'm (unlike thatgamecompany, apparently) someone of note! --PresN 22:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
As TFA coordinator, I'll add a few words:
  1. I can only select from the FAs that we have. The list of possibilities is at WP:FANMP. If someone wants to widen the list of possibilities, then check out WP:FAC, where there are scores of interesting articles requiring further review and comment. Only some of them are video games... If people want to see more "encyclopedic" articles as TFA (and everyone's list of what is, and isn't, an encyclopedic TFA will differ, I suspect), then people need to write them.
  2. I will select from the FAs that we have. In other words, I'm not going to ignore video games just because some people don't like them appearing on the main page. In fact, just over 1 in 20 of the unused FAs are video games; on strict proportions, that should result in about 10 or 11 video game TFAs in 6 months, but January–June 2014 will see only 7, I anticipate (5 games + Thatgamecompany scheduled so far, 1 more game nominated at WP:TFAR at the moment and likely to run). If anything, then, it could be argued that we don't have enough video games on the main page and we are underrepresenting what our editors actually write about.
  3. Please put forward suggestions for TFAs at WP:TFAR, or comment on existing nominations there. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Thatgamecompany is why this article is TFA today; as it happens, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Babe Ruth is in progress! BencherliteTalk 22:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Meanwhile Ian Botham languishes at C-class! What has the world come to? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[]
No one said the article shouldn't have made it to FA, mine was just a passing comment about the sort of subject matter that's found in something that's supposed to be an encyclopedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Sarastro1 might be able to fix that (note how both British articles referred to here are of lower quality than the American ones?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Serious scholar of history? Babe Ruth? Was that a a pig which averted a war or something? Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Let's just say for your sake that he didn't suffer from arrested development and went through life thinking his half-witted attempts at humor actually amounted to something. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[]
But the question is, did he recognise that humour can send an important message, like the US bias and inherent flaw in assuming that a famous baseballer is somehow inherently more scholarly important throughout the world than an article on companies which make video games like Electronic Arts or Square Enix? Or particularly a less famous baseball (since Babe Ruth can only be TFA once). Because apparently some people's development is such that they feel 'if I believe it's important it must be, no matter how many other people don't care and for good reason and no matter that the stuff I say isn't important is far more important and significant and worth of being studied seriously to them than the stuff I believe is important'. And further their development is such that they fail to understand why such inherently flawed complaints don't amount to anything, particularly when people correctly point out the fundamental flaws in their complaints are mocked rather than being taken on board and used to reconsider the complaints. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[]

The OP needs to read WP:NOTPAPER and if not satisifed, Conservapedia or Encyclopædia Britannica could sure use some help. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Whatever next?! Entire articles on Twitter hashtags?! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[]
  • We've had those since at least 2012. Fiksimini (although that has a bit of an off-Twitter following as well). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[]
These new-fangled technology trends will never catch on, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC) []
Perhaps, but still... if the life of Wikipedia was compressed into a day, hashtag articles would have been around for at least four hours. :-) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I say put more video game articles on the main page. Considering that the subjects that Gwillhickers mentioned (Babe Ruth and Lincoln) are specifically U.S.-centric, we could use additional efforts at combating systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[]

By featuring more American made video game-related articles? (Yes, I realize there are just as much Japanese video games too. Also quite a few European games.) –HTD 09:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Malaysian TV series? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[]
    • Yeah Upin & Ipin are better than Phineas & Ferb, but the topic was replacing U.S. centric articles with video games, which are for the most part U.S. centric as well... –HTD 11:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[]
      • Well, not always (yes I'm aware the source game is US-based) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[]
        • Sigh. How did U&I get into the discussion? We're talking about video games. Video games that are mostly created by Americans and Japanese. Video game articles that were supposed to offset the bias suggested by Gwillhickers. –HTD 11:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[]
          • The bias Gwillhickers referred to in the OP was not "we need more video game companies from other countries". It was "we need more FAs on topics with major historical significance in mainstream fields". I have no clue how that ended up being interpreted in an entirely different manner... Walt was the one who wants more game articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[]
            • The point I was making was Gwillhickers wanted articles about Babe Ruth and Lincoln, which are, as correctly described by WaltCip, specifically U.S.-centric, and not about video games. WaltCip wanted more video game articles to counter Gwillhickers's U.S. centric suggestions, but video games are mostly U.S. centric too... then U&I came along playing basketball and marbles. –HTD 12:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[]
              • I think we have to be careful against assuming that everything of a certain character is equal. While it's true American and Japanese companies tend to dominate in the video game field (although there have been and are a number of highly significant video game companies and divisions in other countries), video games are a fairly popular form of entertainment throughout much of developed and more successful developing world. Similarly it is true many primarily American television series and movies are fairly popular in a lot of the world (although there is often the involvement of others particularly from the anglophone world). While we still have to be careful of systemic bias (particularly since there are all those people who are rarely able to see a television or similar and and are lucky of they own a limited mobile phone), this does mean we can't just say it's American bias to talk about Electronic Arts or Warner Bros. Yet as I pointed out the the OP albeit in a manner apparently did not understand (since corrected) baseball has far less dominance. Its participants are likewise not generally so significant. (And to be honest, I'm not even sure in places like Japan, South Korean and those South America where baseball is popular that Babe Ruth gets so much attention.) Of course Babe Ruth is somewhat iconic, enough so that he may be recognised and get some attention as part of US history but we shouldn't overestimate his importance. Lincoln on the other hand although an American is obviously fairly significant for various reasons (although I do agree we have to be careful not to over estimate his significance). It is of course difficult to be certain how significant things will be in the future, and I think companies in particular tend to take on less importance if they no longer exist or are in a different form (compared to their effect on history), e.g. consider Standard Oil. But ultimately there's no fundamental reason to think that Babe Ruth, let alone the plenty of other baseball players (since there are only a few people that can be consider close to Babe Ruth in terms of significance to baseball and let's face it, we're just as likely to have a TFA on a notable but relatively unknown baseball player) is somehow automatically more important throughout the world than the highly significant video game companies (let alone the significant video games) even be they American. It's not clear Thatgamecompany really fall in to this league but the OP just mentioned video game companies point blank and as I already mentioned, ultimately because of the way wikipedia works we will get these perhaps less significant examples of something. It's is of course true that we risk systemic bias of a different form (not so much country based) by having too much on video games (or whatever) but that' a fundamentally different point. Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I'm slightly surprised to see the assumption that there are no serious academics looking at video games. Games and Culture, Simulation & Gaming and Entertainment Computing are three peer-reviewed journals from highly respected academic publishers, all of which publish research related to video games. How about this year's anthology Playing with Religion in Digital Games? Thatgamecompany is mentioned in the book several times, and Thatgamecompany games are analysed. Academia's a big place; there's a lot going on. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[]

.. can already see those Daily Mail headlines: "Top boffins paid to play video games", "University degrees in Call of Duty Black Ops" etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[]
  • And back in the day there would have been "Top boffins paid to watch movies", "University degrees in Sound of Music", and before that there would have been "Top boffins paid to read books", "University degrees in Robinson Crusoe". So? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Pretty sure that's the point. The Daily Mail isn't exactly a newspaper of repute. --Nizolan (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[]
"Top Boffins Paid to Edit Wikipedia"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[]
I'm not liking the way this discussion is going. It started with one user saying that Wikipedia shouldn't have TFAs on video games and video game companies, and now it's all about systemic bias. If the subject is notable enough to warrant an article, I really don't see why not to allow for this, so long as the subject TFA varies in general topic from day to day. Dustin (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[]
  • We do. We get articles on subjects I've never heard of all the time (and articles on subjects 99% of our readership has never heard of as well; who can honestly say they'd heard of Roekiah before her appearance on the MP?) The OP appears to object to the fact that in many cases these articles are about popular culture rather than 'traditional encyclopedic topics' or however one wants to classify Lincoln and Ruth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Design update

Is there an intention to update the design of the main page, as Commons has? The solid colours, and more customised layout obviously create a more contemporary appearance. JamesDouch (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Every time the subject to brought up, the discussion either dies or ends with no consensus. Nobody can agree on what and how to change it. Previous discussions are archived on Wikipedia:Main page redesign proposals. The most recent discussion can be found on Wikipedia:2014 main page redesign proposal, but there has been no activity for the last couple of months. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[]
You mean the page at That colour scheme is hideous. Please no one copy that here. (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Agreed, one man's "contemporary appearance" is another's "blistering eyesore". Which is part of the problem. No one can agree on aesthetic changes, let alone content changes, so nothing gets changed at all. --Khajidha (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[]
There was consensus to change the coding on the Main Page: Talk:Main_Page/Archive_180#Proposal_to_implement_new_framework_for_main_page. Did this happen? Was it implemented? (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Can we add back the "More..." section of the in the news that links to the Current Events portal

So, could we, it was taken off during the update and seems to be a pretty crucial missing link Guyb123321 (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[]

As opposed to the "Ongoing" section of the in the news that still links to the Current Events portal? -- (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[]
In fairness, "More..." is far more intuitive than "Ongoing". — foxj 17:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I'm going to be totally honest, until you said that I didn't realise the "Ongoing" button linked to the same place as the old "More..." button, the reason was that it seemed as if the "Ongoing" button would take me to the article surrounding the "ongoing" ukrainian conflict as opposed to just all recent current events which hadn't been declared notable enough for the front page, if even a wikipedia editor such as myself fails to realise what links to what, how are the general public supposed to, so does anyone oppose a change of the wording? :) Guyb123321 (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Perhaps worth taking into account that you were actively looking for it. Most of our readers won't be actively looking for a "More..." button as they've never stumbled across the ITN section of the main page before. Having said that, there's no reason not to bring this to the ITN community for further discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Fish on MainPage!

Three fishies on the MainPage together today! Yeah! Go! Fish! Go! --PFHLai (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[]

BTW, this is not a complaint. I like fish. --PFHLai (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Good, because this isn't the place to carp about it. (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[]
  • I think anyone complaining should be trouted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[]
That ought to cure their 'erring behaviour. 20:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Fish are quite appropriate for a Meatless Friday. --Allen3 talk 10:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Some people will complain just for the halibut. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Perhaps we ought to re-exsalmon our inclusion criteria. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Frankie would have been proud. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Unlikely to help. My experience is that there are always individuals looking for a perch from which to cast a-sturgeons. --Allen3 talk 19:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[]
  • You cod to be joking! The main page is brill. What a load of pollocks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[]
It's easy to sit there and be all cutthroat about it, but really every policy could use some fine tuna-ing once in a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[]
I agree. Fins are going just swimmingly already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[]

(reset) Has the boat come in on this topic, now that all the fish have been dished up? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Today's Featured List

For info, I've raised a question on the talkpage of today's Featured List questioning how it is indeed of the quality to be a FL. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Nice one. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[]
I've listed it at FL removal here. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Wait. Isn't there a rule against putting articles/lists up for review even while they're on that main page? I know that it's not TFL anymore, but technically, it's still on the main page in the 'Recently featured" section. It's also going to show up again on Friday and next Monday so I feel that there may be an issue. GamerPro64 17:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[]
I don't know about the rules around de-listing, but you're saying "Hey, look, here's a crappy article on the mainpage, but let's keep it on the mainpage". If it's still on the mainpage, hopefully it'll bring a fresh pair of eyes across it to see the issues. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Um, it was "Today's Featured List" about four days ago, so it's not on the main page.... Monsieur Lugstun is fine to do this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[]
It's literally on there right now. Here is the page for Today's Featured List. On the "Recently Featured" section, it's the first in the section. I remember FAR having a rule about the main page. There was a conversation about it happening once: Discussion. GamerPro64 18:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Today's featured list is List of palms native to the Caribbean. The list most recently nominated by Lugnuts is List of municipalities of Finland in which Finnish is not the sole official language. It's no longer on the main page. Am I missing your point? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Aha, I re-read. You said it: the "recently featured" section. Well, so what, it was recently featured. And given the traffic at FLC these days, it'll be two months before it's delisted, so no stress. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[]
All right. I just thought that the FLR process follows the same thing FAR does when it comes to wanting to delist an article that was just on the main page. Guess not. GamerPro64 18:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Well we'd need to check with the FL hierarchy, but unless a massive banner appears in the article itself, I don't see a major issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[]

FAR has a rule that no article can be nominated for featured article review if it is the TFA, or if it is one of the "recently featured" TFAs linked from the main page (i.e. the following three days) - partly I suspect for stability concerns, so that the dust can settle after a TFA appearance. I doubt that the same concern about stability applies to TFLs, so unless WP:FLRC has a rule that no nominations can be made within two weeks of a list appearing at TFL (which is how long it would take to fall off the "recently featured" part) I don't think we need to add such a rule. BencherliteTalk 17:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[]


@Fawcett5: "Nouri al-Maliki rebuffs calls from the Obama administration to step down as Prime Minister of Iraq". Where was that conversation at WP:ITN/C about its inclusion? The discussion for Ahmed Abu Khattala had one oppose and no support as well... Maybe User:Fawcett5, the administrator responsible for the updates, can explain... Seattle (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]

As I mentioned on that admin's page, they seemed to have neglected to include bold links and the Nouri al-Maliki item doesn't even seem to be supported by any updated article, or at least not the 3 that were linked to. (A search for sources suggests the wording itself is a little misleading.) It's good that more admins want to help, but when editing the main page (effectively) I think they should do some more reading before going in all guns blazing. Even a look at the section before editing should show items are expected to have bold links. Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Content not visible on tablets

Since the change in tablet interface, only the tfa and itn appear. This is the comment I wanted to post at the WMF blog but for some reason it's not accepted :

Most of the English Wikipedia main Page content has become invisible on tablets. How could this be approved in such a state ? It is very disappointing, and I should add, anticipating a fix, that there is ample space on a tablet so we can have the two columns side by side, otherwise we have to make a marathon scroll down (a revamp proposal of the main page had that issue once). A similar, annoying issue is that some templates no longer appear alongside text, and occupy their own space above text, which makes for more marathon scrolling down. I appreciate no longer having to zoom in because of the sidebar space though, but the aforementioned bugs are troublesome. Cenarium (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Cenarium, I agree, I don't know why they made the default version for tablet the same as the mobile (phone) version. Personally I just switch to desktop version when accessing from a tablet, primarily because it provides a more functional watchlist. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]

"In the News" or "Today" section

just a reminder that Julian Assange, the founder of wikileaks, has been two years (19th of June) in the Ecuatorian Embassy in London without the possibility to get out against arrest from the UK authorities.

This new could give the possibility to elaborate on many articles, i.e. Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Chelsea Manning, killing of civilians by the US army , etc etc etc

'Julian Assange hides in a cupboard' isn't news. Nothing has changed just because he's been cowering there for two years. We don't post things to ITN in order to draw attention to your pet topic or anyone else's. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]

'Julian Assange hides in a cupboard' may not be news, but that is YOUR comment and no one else's. It is clearly mentioned "In the news" or "Today" section, so if according to an editorial consensus "nothing" has changed, then it could go in the "On this day" section.

"Cowering" is a very biased word from your part by any means.

And finally nothing related to Julian Assange or any of the topics mentioned, and indeed no article in Wikipedia, is my pet project. But certainly every single article in this website is, using your own words, "someone's pet project" to some extent or another since this is a user-built encyclopedia, so everything you say is not only pathetically petulant but in fact absurd and certainly full of childish arrogance. (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]

OK, I admit that my own low opinion of Assange coloured my response. My apologies. However - it's been well established that annivesaries are not generally eligible for 'In The News'. 'On This Day' might be suitable, but it tends not to cover very recent events. Nevertheless - OTD is a much better bet than ITN, and your best course of action is to go and nominate it on the appropriate talk page now, to appear next year. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Cockey rhyming slang

Do you perhaps think that the dialect of Cockney Rhyming Slang is under-represented on the Main Page. How about we start having one of the "In The News" or "Were You Aware?" blocks could contain a bit of cockney slang, even just for one day a month? I was born within reach of the Bow Bells but now the tones are rare. What are your thoughts? Can we make the Front Page truly international? Horatio Snickers (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I think these slags should cast their minces over this. Now, get out my pub! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
SoWP Regional Englishes to go with En:WP and Simple English? (would a Glasgow English article reworked in Brummie and Strine be comprehensible?) (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
You're quite right, the Main Page is international - which means it is intended to communicate with anybody who speaks English, even if it is not their first language. That communication is less effective if dialect is used - whether that dialect is Cockney, Potteries, Creole or Hinglish. Imagine how you'd feel if most of the time the main "welcome" page on "English" Wikipedia was in a dialect like that which you didn't understand - it would discourage you as a casual user, no? We are here to communicate with as many people as possible - and that's why the main page will exclusively be in English that is as "standard" and as widely-comprehensible as possible. We have a Scots version of Wikipedia though, so you could have an entire Cockney one if you wanted.Le Deluge (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Why don't we start a Cockney Wikipedia? (Is there any rhyming slang for Wikipedia, or any Internet term for that matter? Should we create some if the answer to that is in the negative? Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
No. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
You're havin' a giraffe! And get out my pub, you muppet. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Someone should titfer this discussion and maybe apply some sort of lillian to the OP. Formerip (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Felipe VI of Spain

patience and/or hard work would have obviated all complaints, as usual. --Jayron32 02:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Not a mention? I mean, a new king sworn in to succeed his father under slightly unusual circumstances. I guess if it's not sport of war... Richard Avery (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Richard Avery I invite you to comment on the appropriate section of WP:ITNC, where this is being discussed. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Or even better, go to the article and help to improve it - there's fairly clear consensus for running the story, but the article needs to be in a presentable condition. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[]

In the news: Eastern Ukrainian insurgency

Please see: Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine#2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk - This is over whether or not any changes should be made. Please leave any responses here, on the Main Page's talk page. Dustin (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Why here? Discussions of article content should be done on article talk pages. This page is SOLELY for discussing changes to the organization of the Main Page itself, not for article content or organization. —Jayron32 02:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[]
What he meant is that the main page should link to 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk, as that is the article for the "armed conflict" that is currently ongoing in Donetsk and Luhansk. The other article is a summary article including protests, armed insurgency, Crimea annexation, and so forth. RGloucester 02:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[]
@Jayron32: Yes; I am only talking about the link from the Main Page, not the content of those articles, so what I am saying here is only directly relevant to the Main Page. Dustin (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Ah, sorry. I misunderstood. Carry on. --Jayron32 02:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[]


I am a sometime bird-moaner, but I just love today's picture of the orange birds. One of the best FPs ever. (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[]

In the news

Recent Deaths

Isn't Casey Kasem noteworthy enough that he should be listed on the "recent deaths" ticker? Evil-yuusha (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[]

It's currently being discussed at WP:ITN/C. Check it out there. –HTD 17:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[]


I have noticed that events in the section "In the news" do not appear in chronological order, for example, the current main page now (6/7/14) contains a new event that was entered either today or yesterday reading "A bombing at a football field in Mubi, Nigeria, kills at least 40 people." yet, it is almost at the bottom of the section while events that have been up there for days are still at the top.

1. Why is this, and is there already an established protocol for this?
2. Shouldn't we put all note worthy events in as they happen rather than keeping the ones someone thinks are more important at the top because this could introduce bias.
3. It is off-putting to have new events come at the bottom, when one clicks on the Wikipedia home page they look at the "in the news" section for new info, yet if they see a familiar post at the top they will think nothing has changed. This might lead to new events being completely passed over.

I think this should be discussed, I am in favor of events being in chronological time.TheBookishOne (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[]

As someone who participates in ITN, I invite you to discuss any issues you have at the talk page for ITN. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Events are listed in chronological order. That's precisely the order. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[]
To clarify, events are in chronological order of when they happened, not when they were posted. --Khajidha (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[]
"Chronological" can be rather dubious, for example, the mass grave in Tuam Ireland, when did that happen? Well it happened many years ago so should we not put it in the news at all? The children were buried many years ago, but when we "find out" about it, and more precisely when it is posted on Wikipedia is the defining feature of the news--it is not as if a news channel can go back into time put their stories in the order they "technically" occurred, because in that case the Tuam story should be edited into old stories that date to when the children were actually buried. Chronological should mean, chronologically reported, chronological to when we (Wikipedia) arrive at the knowledge of the event, we shouldn't push stories "back" into time because they happened then. The newest post, the most recent chronologically reported event should go at the top. TheBookishOne (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[]
The item in question isn't about the burials, but the "when" in question is when it was reported by news sources. Your contention that "when it is posted on Wikipedia is the defining feature of the news" and that "it is not as if a news channel can go back into time put their stories in the order they "technically" occurred" seem to depend on the characterization of Wikipedia (and its In The News) as a news source. It is not. Wikipedia In The News is a way of calling attention to encyclopedic material about things you may have heard about in the news, not a source of news in the first place. --Khajidha (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[]
So which news source do we use as the "chronological" date? If msnbc reports the news on feb 1st, but fox reports it on feb 3rd, what is the "order" of the events with regard to Wikipedia? It is not as if there is a universal reporting agency that Wikipedia can use as a standard for our events section, therefore we must use our own agency as the defining "Chronological" reporting of the events. If we create a post (X) at feb 1st any post after that (Z) should be listed after (X). It Makes no sense to post them in the order that whichever random source we happen to use reports it in. One final example; let us say there are 2 events (A) and (B), and Fox reports them in the order (A,B) but MSNBC reports them in the order (B,A) what order should we report them in? Especially if the events did not happen per se at a precise time (like the Tuam graves). The most recent post should be at the top of the feed, not arranged by whatever source the author is using because as per my above example: the reporting of an event by a major new source is neither truly chronological nor privileged, ergo we should value the order in which Wikipedia reports the event as the defining feature of our reporting of said event.TheBookishOne (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[]
You misunderstood Khajidha's reply. ITN items' ordering often corresponds to that in which the relevant news was reported, but as explained previously, we actually go by the dates on which the events occurred. In this particular instance, the event mentioned happens to be the long-ago burials coming to light via the news media. —David Levy 23:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[]
You don't see this as a problem? Many events "come to light" rather than have a precise date at which they occurred, posting some events in "chronological order and others in reported order is a pretty bad methodology to adopt, which is why I suggested a uniform procedure for ITN. Khajidha claims it is chronological, but as I have shown, it is not by any standard definition "chronological" and many stories aren't posted as such; I didn't misunderstand his point, he didn't make one. TheBookishOne (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
You still don't understand. Again, the ITN item in question wasn't about the burials themselves. In such instances, information coming to light is the event on which the item is based. —David Levy 23:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]


We should either move the image alongside the item to which it relates, or move the relevant item to the top of the list, alongside the image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[]

This eminently logical idea has been proposed many, many, many times but has yet to be implemented. Apparently it makes too much sense. --Khajidha (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[]
To quote the immortal words of administrator David Levy, "that would entail overcoming the inertia's inertia." Face-grin.svg Sca (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[]
To be fair, according to this section of the FAQ, this isn't due to inertia, but due to technical problems (which to be honest I don't undertand) with how ITN and OTD look when transcluded if the image isn't at the top. I cannot find any actual documentation of this problem, so a link to an explanation or example (and/or the actual explanation) would be appreciated. But if this is not actually a technical problem, then I imagine there would be near unanimity that matching image and hook location is better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[]
I agree that the current situation is silly. It makes no sense to have a bad reader experience for the 99.9% of readers who read the main page in its standard state, to preserve the experience of the 0.1% who read the main page in a customized or transcluded state. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[]
What technical issue? When you decide what gets the picture you simply move that item to the top. Done. --Khajidha (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Not everyone wants to deviate from chronological/reverse-chronological order, let alone to solve a problem that they don't agree exists (or regard as exaggerated). I suggest that you argue your preferred approach's merits instead of dismissively declaring that its implementation is the only sensible course of action, set aside because "apparently it makes too much sense". —David Levy 12:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
The merits of my approach are that images will always be next to the relevant item, ensuring that readers do not get confused. What are the merits of maintaining strict chronology? This isn't a news service. As a recent discussion here shows, the fact that the list is in chronological order is not actually apparent to many readers. Aside from the questions raised in that debate, the order is sometimes unclear due to time zone issues and is sometimes modified for various reasons (clustering of items that are very similar or are so different as to be inappropriate next to each other). --Khajidha (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Firstly, ITN's items are reverse-chronological by date (not necessarily beyond that, and with time zones considered only in certain circumstances). We sometimes rearrange blurbs to avoid clustering similar subjects, but only by swapping those sharing a particular date. I don't recall any instances in which we've determined that items were "so different as to be inappropriate next to each other". (Perhaps that occurred too long ago for me to remember.)
Secondly, please don't assume that I personally oppose the idea of changing our setup to address the image placement issue. I'm aware of its merits (and suggested that you argue them for the benefit of those are aren't). I've participated in discussions of your preferred approach and others, such as connecting the image and blurb via some sort of distinct styling (demarcation, background coloration, etc.).
Thirdly, it's possible that ITN's reverse-chronological order "is not actually apparent to many readers", but I'm unclear on how you've deduced this. Are you referring to the subsection directly above this one, wherein a single user was confused?
Fourthly, the matter also relates to OTD, whose chronological ordering is explicit and readily apparent. —David Levy 13:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Aside from the previous subsection, I know for a fact that it was not readily apparent to me that ITN was reverse chronologically ordered. And I seem to remember some other discussions in the past where people were confused by this. As for OTD, its chronological ordering is explicit. Why not add the date to the items in ITN? --Khajidha (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
As for OTD, its chronological ordering is explicit.
Yes, I just noted this. And the proposed formatting would result in a conspicuous deviation (unless the image happened to relate to the earliest event mentioned).
A while back, I suggested that we give one OTD item (ideally bold-linked to an article of exceptionally high quality) a "spotlight" position at the top of the section, demarcated via a border and containing an image and a slightly longer blurb. This, I believe, would render the aforementioned deviation less jarring/confusing.
Why not add the date to the items in ITN?
To what end? —David Levy 14:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Sorry, meant to tie those statements together. If explicitly stating the year for OTD is good, why isn't explicitly stating the date for ITN good? If having items in chronological order is desired, it is most easily done if the chronology is shown.
As for your "spotlight" idea, I've advocated the same basic idea for ITN in the past, separating the pictured item with a line from the chronological list.--Khajidha (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
If explicitly stating the year for OTD is good, why isn't explicitly stating the date for ITN good?
It wouldn't necessarily be bad, but it would lack the same degree of relevance. In an OTD item, mentioning the year provides essential context (because whether something happened in 1269, 1846, 1961 or 2009 matters a great deal). Conversely, ITN includes only recent/current events, so omitting the dates has no significant impact on readers' understanding.
A potential downside to the dates' addition would be inelegant formatting. An OTD compilation purposely covers events from different years, while ITN often includes events that occurred on the same day. We'd need to decide whether to append the date to each individual item (resulting in repetition) or devise some sort of heading. We'd also need to settle on a date format ("October 18" or "18 October"), thereby creating a perpetual English variety issue.
If having items in chronological order is desired, it is most easily done if the chronology is shown.
The dates are specified within the template's code (for the benefit of administrators maintaining the section).
As for your "spotlight" idea, I've advocated the same basic idea for ITN in the past, separating the pictured item with a line from the chronological list.
I think that something along those lines could work. I also recall a mockup in which the reverse-chronological order was retained, but the image and related blurb were connected via a darkened background (with the highlighted area resembling an "L" rotated counterclockwise by 90°). I've tried and failed to find the archived proposal. —David Levy 16:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
About the ENGVAR issue, isn't there a template or something that allows a date to display either way based on editor preferences? --Khajidha (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Is there? I know that we formerly linked dates to enable MediaWiki's native feature (a practice abandoned long ago, thankfully). Regardless, most readers aren't editors (and don't have preferences configured). —David Levy 17:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Sorry to further beat a moribund horse, but as previously noted, pairing photos with the items or briefs they illustrate has been media practice for eons. I've never understood the technical difficulties preventing this on ITN, but if a way were found to overcome them it would make obvious typographical sense, IMO. Alas, previous discussions indicate such is not possible. (Apologies to David Levy for quoting him outta context.) Sca (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
No apology is necessary, as I do regard inertia as a significant factor in the current format's persistence. There isn't consensus for a change, but there probably isn't consensus to the contrary either. And around here, "no consensus" usually means "status quo retained".
Like you, I don't fully understand the purported technical difficulties. I do know that moving around the images would complicate the sections' maintenance (and probably increase the frequency of administrative errors), but other solutions are available (and I believe that they haven't been explored sufficiently). I don't personally perceive a problem as substantial as others do, but I respect their concerns and see room for improvement. —David Levy 16:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Perhaps I missed it in the TL;dr above, but each blurb with an image is accompanied with a "(pictured)", much as you'd expect to see, where this so-called confusion arises, I know not. If we assume our readers can manage to read basic English and have a basic grasp of reality, they'll know that an image of three ice hockey players doesn't relate to a story about mass murder in Kenya. Surely? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Because you see the picture and read the first blurb before you get to the "(pictured)" tag, a reader will associate that image with the first blurb. Yes, they will often quickly come to the conclusion that the picture actually isn't related to that blurb, but it is often not so obvious. --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
You have any evidence to back that up? I don't see any complaints apart from one or two here, and we have millions of main page views per day. If you can't provide any quantitative evidence that this is really an issue, it appears you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Which is a waste of a lot of time. If you'd like to construct an RFC to modify the way in which ITN is presented, along with its images, I suggest you do that rather than conduct this rather off-side and obscure chat we're having here. It would affect the main page and as such, the community would need to participate in any discussion, so RFC is the way ahead. Good luck, I look forward to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Illuminated capital as entry point
The Rambling Man, this time you sound counter-intuitive. One doesn't need to cite innumerable readership studies conducted by print-media shops over many decades to know that the eye tends to fall first on the photo, illustration, chart or "art," as such things are collectively known in print-media jargon. Next, the mind in a nanosecond decides whether to read about said "art." Then the the eye shifts intuitively to the nearest text for an explanation of the "art." The relationship between "art" and text is called juxtaposition.
To print-media practitioners, graphics — such as "art," headlines, subheads, readouts (pulled quotes) and large capitals — function as "entry points," elements that draw the reader into the text.
When, as is often the case on ITN, the "art" is paired with text which does not explain it, it is false juxtapositioning — because the reader is unable to "enter" the material noticed visually. That leads to confusion (or sometimes amusement) on the part of the reader.
To a journalist, the "(pictured)" labels used on ITN are a sort of tacit admission that WP is too inept to pair "art" with text, as has been done practically since the days of Gutenberg, when illuminated capitals served as "entry points" of a sort. (Right)
To you this discussion may seem an academic "obscure chat," but I assure it points up a glaring departure from logic and general practice noticed by many WP readers daily.
Sca (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]
No, it's not counterintuitive to ask for evidence that a problem actually exists before spending megabytes and megaminutes trying to solve it. If it's such a "glaring departure from logic", where are all the complaints? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[]
I suspect that the millions of readers who casually check the English WP Home Page each day are simply bemused [2] by this obvious glitch. Yet amid the welter of material on the Net, some of it confusing, they're not motivated enough to delve into WP's myriad back pages and lodge complaints or questions. And, true, if they look at ITN long enough, the explanation is there in the form of the "(pictured)" labels.
I predict this issue will keep returning until it's solved by someone ... someday.
But good work on making counterintuitive one word. (I'd forgotten that most of the counters are.) Sca (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[]
There was a very brief period where the pictured blurb included "(Pictured)" instead of "(Pictured)". Whatever damage it did asthetically, I always thought it went a long way towards eliminating any confusion this particular quirk of the mainpage caused. APL (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[]

24 hours of LeMans

As near as I can tell, the order of the drivers's names in the blurb does not match the order of the drivers in the picture. --Khajidha (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]

So please raise a report at WP:ERRORS per convention. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[]

In the news

Please someone add something about the Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics to the main page! More information can be found on Chen10k2 (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Please raise this at the nominations page. Thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the answer. Unfortunately, I have to go now. :( I hope someone will request it there! :) Chen10k2 (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[]

To what extent should there be censorship on the main page?

In recent months, there have been incidents where content has been included on the main page or proposed for inclusion on the main page that some users have found objectionable. This has encompassed photographs that have been described as pornographic ([3]), article titles containing swear words ([4]) and DYK blurbs containing language described as racist ([5]) and offensive ([6]). Whilst WP:CENSOR applies to the Wikipedia generally, it is not clear to what extent this should apply on the main page. Some have suggested it should be apply to the main page as it does on any general article, but others have suggested that the main page needs stricter regulation for the sake of unsuspecting readers. It would be helpful if some kind of general consensus could be reached, rather than the same discussion appearing whenever these situations occur. (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[]


  • This IP appears to have started around 15 RfCs in half an hour. Is there a procedure to speedy close all of them? I noticed two unhelpful RfCs at Talk:Hillsborough disaster: please don't do that; start a normal discussion and wait, like everyone else. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[]
    • I think that's preferable. In reply to the IP: nobody raised a complaint about the song "Run, Nigger, Run" while it was on the main page, and Merkin never reached the main page as discussion reached the consensus that it was inappropriate. That it was discussed, rather than being run and then being pulled, is evidence that people are trying to work together to find a balancing point between NOTCENSORED and different ideals of acceptability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[]
      • I opposed the Merkin photo, not because it was "pornographic" which it clearly wasn't, but because it was a mediocre and possibly offensive photo of a barely notable person. In general, I support restraint about placing highly controversial content on the main page, but am only rarely motivated to comment. In general, I favor walking the fine line between featuring provocative and thought-provoking content, and that which is highly objectionable to many. Mature editorial judgment is required, which is perhaps a rare commodity here. I don't want to have a highly intelligent, open-minded 11 year old look at our main page, and say "ewww, gross". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[]
        • I still don't understand how "barely notable" should be a consideration for the main page. "Mediocre and possibly offensive", arguably within policy. "Barely notable", though? If WP:N is met, any subject should be acceptable for the main page... (but then, that's not exactly what the OP was talking about) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[]

(reset) Until such time as there is a separate WP main page for 'topics that are likely to cause much discussion (on whatever grounds)' this debate will occur on a regular basis. There is a mild case for going towards the end of the spectrum of 'topics that will not cause comment by passers by in libraries and workspaces' (and possibly 'no more than x items within a particular field in a week or y in a month), and a much stronger one for 'having articles/links to things people might not otherwise have looked at' (which may include the occasional 'er, what??' entry). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[]

But this is a serious issue that needs to be talked about, if someone is putting a picture of a bloody murdered goat on the homepage with all its insides coming out, even if the picture of the goat was being used to illustrate a recent goat massacre, this would still be not a suitable image to feature on the main page. Similarly if there was a human alien sex contact it would clearly be news worthy of featuring on the main page but surely we would not have an animated gif of a person having hot sex with ET! Also, a bit of discretion as to which subjects are chosen - clearly, some deviant editors are rubbing themselves against their laptops while they are editing Wikipedia in a spate of barely controlled lust, but it is fortunate that such editors are a very small minority. Can you imagine if the sheer frets of lust were allowed to burst onto the shop window that is the main page. Yes, Wikipedia is NONCENSORED and of course contains articles about subjects that are not to everyone's taste, but if the entire contents of the Encyclopedia is considered then they, again, form a similar small minority as the lustful growlers. Let us be reasonable about this! Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[]

I assume you're joking, because if not then that point isn't going to go very far.BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Were you rubbing yourself against your laptop when you inquired whether ET could crossbreed with humans? (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[]
It is impossible to create a main page that suits everybody (including the frequency patrol) without it being totally vanilla/boring. The issue is how much 'er, what' is considered acceptable (possibly taking 'recent other entries on the MP into account).

Question for those who 'do the statistics' - what is the ratio between 'text plus image' and 'purely text' entries on the MP that generate disapproval? How many of the 'text only' entries that generate comment are in the 'oh, not another mention of (topic x)'? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Wiki is what it is, a user generated encyclopedia. It's silly to think of explicit articles ruining it's reputation because it doesn't have one, anyone who comes here will (and should) take what they see with a grain of salt. Badly sourced articles is the bigger problem and the real threat to any "reputation". As for the old "Think of the children!" argument, any child too young for wikipedia is too young to be on the Internet. That responsibility lies with the guardian, not with us. Frankly, it all comes down to the oldest (and most annoying) culprits: the "Its not my cup of tea" group, and typical Anglo-Saxon prudery. Do you think this is a problem over at the non-english wikis? Food for thought. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[]

List of wikipedias

The list of wikipedias shown at the bottom of the page is not updated. Can any one update it please? For example, tamil wikipedia has 61,000+ articles. But still it is not shown in the list. Please do update. Thanks. :) -தமிழ்க்குரிசில் (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[]

As explained at Template:Wikipedia languages, "this is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 50,000 or more articles; Wikipedias determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted." —David Levy 16:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[]


Hi, I attempted to delete because it contains information that could affect the timeline, but I got a message about "Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive. Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers." Yet, ironically, it is the false information in that very page that will in fact confuse readers. (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Blanking pages =/= deleting pages. See WP:AFD. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[]
"Contains information that could affect the timeline"? Sounds like someone is pulling our legs here. --Khajidha (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Discuss your concerns about the content of an article or its improvement with other editors at the article's Talk page, in this case Talk:Utopia Planitia. This, or an attempt, is generally a prerequisite to any discussion about deletion, especially in the case of an article that is well-sourced and has been around since 2003. Dwpaul Talk 21:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[]
What timeline? Are the multiverse-hopping Martians now immune to the common cold? (The War of the Worlds reference) (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[]
I'll have to guess that by "affecting the timeline" you mean you believe it contains inaccurate information? I suppose the obvious question is, why do you think the solution to such a problem would be to delete the entire article rather than just edit in the correct information? If you're actually suggesting that the article should be pulled because (insert your favorite conspiracy theory here) and we need to protect readers from such things, then I doubt you'll fine much sympathy here. OldManNeptune 21:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[]
There is 'a dreadful pun' involving the 'Nowhere Plain' article having 'Plain nothing' (is there a Candidates for 1 April 2015 list' anywhere yet?) Jackiespeel (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Featured Topics on the Main Page

Oh sweet lord its a miracle. Featured Topics are (sorta) on the main page thanks to Today's Featured Article. Thank you TFA delegates for letting this happen. Now I need to make sure the topics don't get vandalized. GamerPro64 04:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[]

  • So, similar to the Maya Angelou topic, right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[]
    • It appears to be the idea. GamerPro64 21:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[]

A sport taking precedence over humanitarian disaster

Presently, in the news section, Rory McIlroy's sporting win is the top story. On balance, while notable, this is neither amazing nor remarkable. The many humanitarian disasters currently taking place must have more prominence. –– ljhenshall (talk page) 00:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Items are placed chronologically. Calidum Talk To Me 02:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[]
ITN is also not a death, disaster, and destruction ticker; it is there to feature articles of all subjects, as they come chronologially(per Calidum). 331dot (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Greg Wohlwendpedia

Fess up, how much did Greg pay to have his games lovingly showcased on the main page? Not just one, but tons, and we have a little gallery to go with it. What a delight. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[]

This was nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/Greg Wohlwend. — RockMFR 22:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Or, ya know, somebody might enjoy his games and write about them? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[]
    • Well that's just silly. Liking something and doing work on it. Unfathomable. Clearly this random person knows the truth of how Wikipedia works. GamerPro64 02:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[]
      • Indeed. Why, I almost didn't notice the 20 Ben Franklins the gay avant garde experimental film industry sent me. I only take cheques. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Remove the animation and replace it with an image that has one of his games as an example. Now it looks like an irritating advertisement and distracts from reading the text. (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[]

  • I, on the other hand, liked the gif and would say more and more such gifs should be put on main page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Main Page needs a MAJOR revamp!

On March 19, 2006, The Main Page received a small revamp. Here we are, 8 years later, still the same Main Page. Can someone just completely rebuild the Main Page? The current design is old. Not interesting anymore. Newmainpage (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[]

The problem with efforts to revise the design of the Main Page is that while many commentators are supportive of the idea of a new design, there is little to no consensus as to what characteristics a new design should posses. As a result, redesign efforts have traditionally fallen prey to Parkinson's law of triviality with competing factions lobbying against each other for their preferred version and no one gaining enough traction to implement a change. --Allen3 talk 10:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[]
On what basis to you conclude that it needs a major revamp? It's working quite well as it is, and clearly attracts large numbers of readers. Personally I think it could have a few minor improvements e.g. more images (not bigger ones, just more of them), but that there's no need for a major change. Not broken, don't fix. Modest Genius talk 10:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[]
This is already in hand. See preliminary work at (I'm surprised this wasn't announced here.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[]
That is the new (Vector based) Winter skin; it has no relation to the main page. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Monobook is still much better than Vector ;) Modest Genius talk 15:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC) []
I already did. But as Allen3 points out, it has become virtually impossible to agree on a new design; everyone knows how to complain about details, but none of them come up with better ideas. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[]
There are too many people dead set against any sort of change to make progress. It's difficult to collaborate on design in the same way as normal proposals here as it can't be a pick-and-mix process. At least my layout didn't go entirely to waste — it's now being used (in an adapted form) on the Chinese Wikipedia, and the footer on Commons. — Pretzels 11:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Did You Know that the WMF already did this for anyone using the mobile version, which completely eliminates the DYK and On this Day features of the main page? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[]
    • Did you know that the mobile frontpage is quite configurable and that the community can include any section they want to ? —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Well, surely it should then be configured to include the same content as the desktop version? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[]
The desktop Main Page is horribly bloated, that's exactly why the call to redesign it recurs so often. The mobile edition is great! — Pretzels 19:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[]
The main page of mobile version should at least have a direct link to today's DYK and OTD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Israel-Palestina conflict

Should not "Operation Protective Edge" or more generally the major conflict in Israel & Palestina be listed in the ongoing events alongside the conflict in Ukraine? Simen113 (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Simen113[]

It's already in the main ITN section: "Israel launches a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip.". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Just saw it has been added now! Maybe someone took my suggestion:) Simen113 (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
It was discussed here - Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Ongoing:_Operation_Protective_Edge. CaptRik (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]

WP's congressional block

Are we going to say anything about this? Sca (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]

In what capacity or location do you think something should be said? 331dot (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Good question. Suggestions? Sca (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
The best place would probably be ITN but we would need an article to link to(and add this info to) for the nomination. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Doubt it would meet ITN criteria. Sca (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Perhaps we should have some sort of "To our Readers" page? Sca (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
For what? The story you linked to is not likely to be of significant interest to our readers. It may be of interest to some editors, but we already have the newsletter for that and besides, I'm not sure it's that interesting to most editors except for those affected (who will find out if they try to edit). Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
We have a place for this kind of 'about Wikipedia' content. It's called The Signpost. I suggest you bring it up there. Modest Genius talk 15:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
I've seen The Signpost before. Do you think the general public using Wikipedia looks at The Signpost on a regular basis?
No whoever you are. But I very much doubt that the general public will care about this. Modest Genius talk 16:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
How does this differ from any other institutional range-block? Why does this one need a special announcement? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Not being involved in administrators' duties, I don't know how it may differ from others.
I thought it might be significant because it targets a high-profile government institution, and because the BBC thought it noteworthy enough to write a story about it. Sca (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
The BBC also currently has articles on pub brawls and cinema re-runs, but that doesn't mean either of those merit coverage on the Main Page. Modest Genius talk 15:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Modest, I didn't say anything about the Main Page. Sca (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Well it is implied that you are talking about the Main Page when you edit the talk page for the Main Page. This is the page to discuss the Main Page. It is not the page to discuss Wikipedia in general. A better spot is the village pump. GB fan 16:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Exeunt. Sca (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
This is Talk:Main Page. Its whole purpose is to discuss the Main Page - it is not a general discussion board (for that, try the village pump). I made a good faith assumption that you were using the talk page for its correct purpose; apparently I was wrong. Modest Genius talk 16:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
@Sca: I agree with the others that since this is not concerning the main page, perhaps it would be best for you to bring this up at the village pump. I think the most relevant page would be WP:VP/M. Dustin (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]
 Done Sca (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]
You can discuss issues and Wikipolitics at User talk:Jimbo Wales too. Seattle (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[]


Question... If the Eid al-Fitr article states its on July 28 then why is OTD posting a day after. This seems to be the case last year too. Any particular reason for this? -- Ashish-g55 01:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[]

See Eid_al-Fitr#Timing. The day has to be declared every year, July 28 is an approximation. Also, as the Islamic Calendar runs sunset-to-sunset, the day will fall over two Western dates. --Jayron32 01:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Ya not entirely clear from that section then. Infobox only states one date. -- Ashish-g55 01:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[]
I moved it. howcheng {chat} 18:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Also, the date depends on the sighting of the moon, so in most of the Middle east it was celebrated on 28 July (27 sunset to 28 sunset), while in most of South Asia, it will be celebrated on 29 July. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 09:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Null edit

Can we get a quick null edit on the main page to remove it from this WLH? moluɐɯ 12:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[]

MP doesn't appear any more when I look at the WLH, so I don't think this is necessary. Isn't this sort of thing handled by the job queue? Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[]
I'm going to assume someone made the edit, to whoever that was thank you. And this normally is, but I've been keeping my eye on its transclusions since I saw its TFD entry; a couple of pages have been in there a few days, it was a big job after all. Perhaps I'm being a little paranoid, but I'd just like to make 100% sure there are 0 errors for this change. Labs lists it as having 63 transclusions currently, and I'd like to make sure all of these can be properly interpreted as the magic word as soon as I can. moluɐɯ 13:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[]

It's time to put a link to the WP:Signpost on the main page under "Other areas of Wikipedia"

The Signpost is Wikipedia's newspaper, keeping people up-to-date on what's going on, new features of the software, and other such information. As such, I think it's a very, very useful resource for recent information, highly suitable for the main page. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Good idea. Mjroots (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Terrible idea, which I oppose. The Main Page contains information which may be of interest to readers of the encyclopaedia, whilst the Signpost contains news which may be of interest to editors. The latter group is a very small subset of the former. The contents of the Signpost will be of no interest to the vast majority of visitors to the Main Page, and it would break the convention that the MP is aimed at readers, not editors. Modest Genius talk 12:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[]
The existing Community portal, Help desk, Local embassy, Site news and Village pump links under the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section all seem aimed at editors. -- (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Fair point, although the Help Desk is for readers (and is useful). However, I think we could get rid of almost all of those - the Community Portal is already in the side bar, the Local Embassy is defunct, and the others are available through the Community Portal. Modest Genius talk 12:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[]
Help desk is surely aimed at readers. But the others should go (if fact, all links on the main page need a good audit with a view to parsimony—any way of reducing the text bloat on the main page would be welcome, from design and readability points of view). Signpost: I'm neutral on that, but it does contain news and features of wider ramification than just the WM movement; and it might just attract the odd new editor into the fray—many readers would be quite unaware of the movement and the fact that it has a vibrant narrative that they might be a small part of if they choose to make that first click. On the other side, a link on the main page might place editorial decisions under marginally more pressure, which might impact ever so slightly on one of its best features, its independence. Tony (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Just chiming in to note The Signpost is already prominently displayed at WP:News, which is linked on the main page under the 'other areas of Wikipedia' section. So adding a separate link would seem redundant. Calidum Talk To Me 02:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[]
While it is displayed there, the description of WP:News on the main page does not in the slightest imply that one could find a link to a weekly community-written newspaper there, it makes it sound like only external news. There has to be something in the description that gives the reader some idea that clicking on it would lead to that sort of content. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Why is Timeline of the war in Donbass linked instead of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine or War in Donbass?

Does anyone have an answer? Dustin (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]

If you believe it to be an error, please post a suggestion at WP:ERRORS. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]

100th Anniversary of World War I

I am somewhat perplexed that most of the major events involving the lead up to and actual outbreak of the First World War have been getting little, or more often, no attention on the front page. The Great War is arguably the most important geo-political event since the French Revolution. Virtually the entire history of Europe and to some degree much of the rest of the world since then has been shaped or influenced by the war. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[]

I certainly agree (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[]

I concur. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Agree.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[]

You'll need to get involved at WP:OTD if you're dissatisfied with items in the "On this day" section of the main page. Once there, you'll find an invitation to help improve things: "Be bold while improving this queue but please make sure you follow the guidelines." Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Ah right. So at least nine hours left, then, for this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[]
I definitely concur that getting First World War to FA status so that it could be today's featured article should have been a priority for everyone. I am very disappointed in the collective failure to achieve this. It's not like there wasn't sufficient advance notice. The anniversary has been static for nearly a century. All registered editors are responsible, and I expect each to provide their excuses below. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • It was already the daily featured article in 2004, so it would be ineligible to go up again. - (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • That's a loooong time. Some go up more than once. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]
There are some other difficulties with this. All the attention, at least in my country, seems to have been on the declaration of war between Britain and Germany. The precise time of that seems to be confused by daylight saving. But there were other declarations of war, by other countries, at other times around then. The seeming certainty surrounding this "anniversary" is a bit deceptive. Let's not be anywhere-centric. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Fair point. My main focus was less Britain's declaration of war than the invasion of Belgium which precipitated it. The invasion of Belgium in 1914 is arguably the most consequential military act since the Battle of Waterloo. So much flowed from it, and it really shaped the whole war and by extension the last 100 years of history. But sadly Wikipedia really did not cover much of any of the lead up. None of the ultimatums, the famous telegrams between royal cousins, or the various other war declarations. I don't think there is any way to sugar coat this. The simple fact is that we, by which I Wikipedia and all of us who love and contribute to it, dropped the ball. As many of the younger generation would say; this was an epic fail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]
As I just said at OTD, Alhaji Grunshi should really run on August 7. I imagine it would surprise a lot of people to discover that one of the defining events of the war took place in West Africa. (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]
That article has two empty sections and is therefore ineligible. You have about 36 hours to expand it before I get to editing August 7. Happy editing! howcheng {chat} 16:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]
As for the invasion of Belgium, if you look at the August 4 article, the blurb about Germany's attack doesn't link to a specific battle or invasion article, so there was no "hook" on which to hang such a blurb. Investigating now, I suppose Battle of Liège could work, except for the issue where the dates in the lede and the infobox are contradictory. howcheng {chat} 16:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]
The two empty sections were added today, after I suggested this, presumably for the purpose of keeping it off the main page. There's no legitimate reason for them to be there - the idea that people were keeping any kind of records of Gold Coast peasants in the early 20th century which would allow someone to construct an "Early life" or "Later career" section is obvious nonsense - but I know that if I remove them, as an IP I'll just be blocked for "vandalism". (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Even without the empty section tags, the article is too short to be considered for OTD. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 21:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Those commenting here might also be interested in this discussion (at WT:In the news). The best way to get WWI items on the main page over the next five years of the centenary is to create or edit articles on the topic. As Howcheng points out, items for OTD have to meet certain standards. DYK is possible for new and good articles. If there is extensive news coverage of commemorations, an article on those commemorations might be eligible for ITN (I'm considering doing that for the recent commemorations). There is a subproject of WP:MILHIST specifically devoted to WWI: Operation Great War Centennial. Unfortunately, activity there is low, but those interested in helping out could join in there (there is a talk page for that subproject) and find others to work with. As for featured articles, there are a number of WWI topics that are featured or could be brought to featured status over the next five years and run at TFA (today's featured article). Whether the main article itself will ever regain that status is another matter. The sheer volume of coverage on the topic (one estimate was over 1000 books on WWI topics published this year alone) makes it difficult, but aiming to get it re-featured by 2018 is one possibility. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Update: I've created an article on the commemorations for the centenary of the outbreak of World War I, and I've nominated it at WP:ITN/C (In the news candidates), see here. Would it be acceptable to ping those who participated in the above discussion (and who might no longer be following this 4 days later)? Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[]

This is slightly unorthodox, but given that I arrived late to the thread and this sort of discussion is a golden opportunity to attract editors to helping out at Operation Great War Centennial, I am pinging those who commented above and asking them to consider coming over there to help out, one article that it would be great to get some help on would be Centenary of the outbreak of World War I which I created recently and nominated at WP:ITN. But there are many other articles and there are in fact many, many people working on WWI articles, I just suspect they are not aware that there is a place they can co-ordinate and discuss how to improve our coverage. See also this post over at the subproject talk page (I'll drop a note at WT:MILHIST as well). Pinging: Ad Orientem, Martinevans123, Jim in Georgia, The Rambling Man, Taylor Trescott, HiLo48, Smurrayinchester, Howcheng for their thoughts. Carcharoth (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Thanks, I put a watch on the page and will watch the news for events.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Chess Olympics

Right now the 4th largest "sporting" tournament by number of participant nations is raging in Tromsø, shouldn't it be in the current events section like other Olympics?Simen113 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Feel free to nominate it at WP:ITNC. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[]
The results will be probably be posted at the end, that's the usual for sporting events. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 05:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Could you double check, mate? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Facepalm Groan Modest Genius talk 14:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Article is 41st Chess Olympiad. After a check, it is listed at Wikipedia:ITNR as re-occurring item. Not sure what the next move is. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 17:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Once it concludes, make sure the article is updated and nominate it at WP:ITN/C. Modest Genius talk 12:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[]