Talk:Main Page/Archive 186

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 180 Archive 184 Archive 185 Archive 186 Archive 187 Archive 188 Archive 190

Proposal: rename In the News to Topical articles

On top is the current ITN section, below are the proposed changes

It seems to be a common complaint that people new to the site misunderstand what ITN is for. It's not a news ticker, and it's not designed to provide news to people. Just look at the person above, who expected the ITN posts to change depending on his location. This is true of pretty much any big news website today, but it's not the purpose of ITN. To the average person coming to Wikipedia what's "In the News" would probably be something about Donald Trump or whatever their local and national news is going on about. On the other hand, the In the News section here still features the Mecca crane collapse which happened nearly a week ago and is very much out of the current 24-hour news cycle.

To quote the template

In the news mentions and links to entries of timely interest—that is, encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event—rather than conventional news items.

I feel a lot of the misunderstanding comes from the less than ideal name and format of ITN. Therefore, I would like to propose the following two interlinked changes:

1. Rename In the News to Topical articles

  • Reasoning: Changing the name of this section alters the focus towards the aim of the section and changes the user's expectations. You would expect to find recently updated articles such as elections, disasters or scientific discoveries rather than just news about politicians or celebrities. The name itself is less important to me than the idea behind it, even changing it to Articles in the news would be a step in the right direction. Note just changing the label on the Main Page doesn't necessarily mean renaming the whole ITN project if it would be complicated to do so; the On this day section is governed by Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries and Today's featured picture is called Wikipedia:Picture of the day, so there is precedent.

2. Reformat each blurb to start with the one relevant article

  • Reasoning: As with the name change, the aim is to focus less on the news stories themselves and more on the articles. It would require a change in the way ITN blurbs were proposed and written, but overall it would be a reasonably easy change. Nominating a blurb at WP:ITN/C already requires a target article, and that it is updated and of good quality. This change would make the focus on the updated article more explicit. It would also fit in more with the Ongoing and Recent deaths sections, which only list the name of the relevant article. Ideally the article title should be presented as fully as possible, although exceptions (such as removing dates) could be proposed. This may well require some repetition and make the blurbs on average slightly longer, however it reduces WP:EASTEREGGs and the blurbs can be re-written with this in mind.

I have made a mockup of both suggested changes on the right. Again the exact format is open to suggestions and comment.

These are in themselves rather minor changes, but I feel they would alter the section enough to make its purpose and mission much clearer. I'm aware how hard it is to reach consensus to change anything on the Main Page, but after looking through the proposals I hope you agree that whilst impactful they would require fewer changes to the way ITN works than the introduction of Ongoing and Recent deaths did. Thanks for reading. 23230 talk 09:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]

  • Thank you for your suggestions. I might submit that your suggestion about reformatting blurbs be a separate discussion from the idea of renaming ITN. Regarding the latter, I have thought for a little while that a different name would help better get ITN's purpose across; I support the 'topical articles' suggestion as a good step towards that goal. "Articles in the news" could suggest that the listed articles themselves are in the news and not their subjects; it's also not as catchy and easily abbreviated as 'topical articles'(TA). 331dot (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – all articles on Wikipedia are topical articles (including lists and glossaries). Featured articles are topical, as are all the articles linked to in the other sections on the Main Page. The Transhumanist 10:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Googling 'topical' :"(of a subject) of immediate relevance, interest, or importance owing to its relation to current events." That isn't the case with every article on Wikipedia, the vast majority of which are notable, but not topical(relevant to a current event). 331dot (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Another context that comes up is: "pertaining to the subject of a discourse, composition, or the like", such as the topic of an article. Topical: pertaining to a topic. All articles on Wikipedia are topic-based. The Transhumanist 10:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
In the general context of the Main Page, I think the first definition will stand out over the other, given that the other sections already have appropriate names. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
I doubt most readers know that context. I didn't. Though "In the news" is very clear. The Transhumanist 11:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Fair enough re your knowledge, though I disagree that "in the news" is very clear, as it causes many to see it as a newspaper which we are not. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Support While TheTranshumanist has a bit of a point, we'd be replacing a glaring, humungous, walloping mistitling with a label that was not quite perfect. NB I'd be interested to see other suggestions, but in their absence, and possibly even in their presence, this is a S from me. This may also be a ENGVAR thing. In BrEng, this meaning of "topical" definitely has a strong common understanding. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Comment – I would support Topics in the news. Essentially, the definition of "topical", for the benefit of those who don't know the definition. The Transhumanist 11:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - "Topical articles" is an empty term. As Transhumanist points out; all article are topical. If you want to name the section without the word "news", then Recent events might be a better term; it covers perfectly what the section is about. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Support "Topics in the news", oppose "Recent events". The latter would have the same problem as "In the News", in that people not familiar with Wikipedia's policies (which is 99% of readers) assume its a news ticker and will complain that insert topic isn't included. (Personally, I would get rid of ITN altogether—as I've said previously, by drawing readers' attention to what are by definition Wikipedia's most unstable articles it encourages readers to believe that edit-warring, squabbling and sourcing from Google searches is the standard working practice of Wikipedia—but I recognise that this isn't an option.) ‑ iridescent 12:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Can I just say that I am in 100% agreement with everything User:Iridescent said? "Topics in the news" is preferred to "Topical articles" which is preferred to "Recent events" which is preferred to "In the news" which is a horrible title that really needs to be changed.--Khajidha (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
I agree 100% with Khajidha. --Dweller (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • OpposeSca (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Reader reaction to 'Topical articles' Sca
And what about "Topics in the news"? --Dweller (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • So-so, but still rather a yawn, IMO – and it still has "ITN" in it. In the Wiki context, I sorta understand some users' dislike of the phrase, but I can't imagine a truly workable alternative. Most of the European WPs use some some similar title, such as In den Nachrichten (German). – Sca (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • I would still be keen on my suggestion a year or so ago of "Timely articles".--WaltCip (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Comment I think that's a strange use of the word "timely", the usual meaning of which is "opportune" or "well-timed". While the ITN articles are indeed timely in this sense, it's not the defining feature of them. Any article can be timely: those mentioned in OTD are timely because they are timed to appear on the relevant date, and also a lot of TFAs are too for the same reason. "Topical" is probably closer to the intended meaning, but as has been pointed out that is not the only meaning of the word so it is confusing. I might prefer "Articles about current (or recent) events", which shifts the focus to "articles" to emphasize that this is a collection of articles and not a news ticker, but it may be too long (it's about the same length as the TFA header but ITN has less width to play with). (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Support the idea of renaming, though I'm not sold on "topical articles". Perhaps "Current events" or "Recent events" or the way too long "Articles updated due to recent events"... ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Support renaming ("In the news" sounds like a newspaper term), but not to "Topical articles". I like ONUnicorn's suggestion of "Recent events", which also complements the already existing "Ongoing events". Support OP's second suggestion as well which puts the primary focus on the target article. (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
I'd also support Recent Events. --Dweller (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
"Recent" implies old, stale news.
How 'bout Public Occurrences Both Foreign and Domestic?? Sums it all up, wouldn't you say? Sca (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
With our contingent of Brit Wikipedians, wouldn't last more than a day.--WaltCip (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Probably so. They suppressed Publick Occurrences after only one issue. Talk about prior restraint! Sca (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose once again polishing a turd. This stuff is "in the news". If you want to rename the section, it's not just renaming the main page, it's completely re-evaluating the principles of the WP:ITN process. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose the name change: I'm not convinced that any of the suggestions is any better than what we already have. And although no one has discussed the second proposal--changing the style of the blurbs--much, Oppose there too. I very much dislike the proposed format! Listing the "topic" of the blurb makes the list very left heavy, is a little redundant, and quite awkward. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Inconsequential changes are inconsequential, and effort is better spent on other areas of Wikipedia. --Jayron32 03:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]
On that basis, you could oppose pretty much all editing of Wikipedia, other than content development on a tiny number of articles. In fact, you're opposing making the edit you made to this page. --Dweller (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]
LOL. I feel your frustration. The Transhumanist 07:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Sacrifices must be made to educate the ignorant, sometimes. --Jayron32 14:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose "Topical" is just confusing. If a change is really needed, perhaps "Timely Articles" (mentioned above) would be better. But "In the News" is still better. 2610:130:110:1521:1DB1:677F:1756:F979 (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Yep, topical articles: late-breaking news about... lotion. The Transhumanist 07:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose renaming. Whilst I agree that the 'in the news' isn't the best title, 'topical' just means 'on a topic', which could be anything. That completely loses the purpose of the section and does nothing to improve reader comprehension. The layout change is also ugly, lengthy and again doesn't help readers to understand the event, so I opppose that too. However I do feel that making many small changes is a good thing, and those opposing on he basis that only big changes should be made are highly misguided. Great is the enemy of good and marginal gains add up. Modest Genius talk 10:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]

"Recent news"?

I can see that "topical" isn't going to win a massive consensus. What about "Recent news", which is clear, pithy and no longer gives readers the impression that these are the current news headlines where they are? --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]

  • I would expand that suggestion to "Articles on recent news" to clarify that the box is not a newspaper, which (from what I see) is the primary reason for wanting to change it. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]

New news, newer news, newest news, not so old news, hey look at this!!!, today's events from across the globe

Lug, you forgot Yesterday'snews. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]

Not broke. Don't fix. I believe there is an encyclopedia to build. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]

Indeed, but this is not a newspaper, which the current name suggests to many people, even if the regulars like you and I know what goes on there. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]
I suggest you wait about 3 months, and then write a better proposal. The semantic problem you are trying to solve is that "In the news" implies links to news items, while the links actually lead to articles on the subjects that happen to be in the news. For newcomers, clicking on a link that you expect to take you to a news report, and not getting one, can be momentarily confusing. The Transhumanist 14:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]
'Category of topics regularly discussed and for which there will never be a consensus' (or if there is, it will last only until the next time the subject is raised).
Perhaps 'Context to the news'? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Since by our own admission the title "In the news" doesn't even fit properly, why don't we just remove the title altogether? Have a title-less section. I think the blurbs speak for themselves.--WaltCip (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]
That's an interesting idea, but I don't think it would go well with the other sections that have such titles. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]

Getting rid of "welcome to"

I would like to propose that we remove "welcome to" from the main page. Nowadays it's anachronism which cannot be found in any other top-10 websites (like Google). The new page can be found at Draft:Main Page; I have also made "Wikipedia" a bit larger for emphasis. (It probably makes sense to make other changes but let's try a small thing at a time.) -- Taku (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[]

  • Edokter's design (with styling) does something like this with the wordmark picture. Eman235/talk 00:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
    I'm aware of that proposal. Here I'm just proposing a minor change. In particular, is there any objection? If not, we can proceed to implement the change. -- Taku (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Comment/Neutral: This is not a "minor change." The comparison to a top-10 web site isn't the best comparison. A better comparison would e "Welcome to your [brick and mortar] public library, suggestions and volunteers welcome." You really do change the meaning and the "warmth of the invitation" when you remove the "welcome to." Having said that, and given that only a teeny tiny percentage of Wikipedia viewers will ever edit even with an explicit "welcome" on the main page and I expect that very few if any of those would not edit if the "welcome" were removed, I'm ambivalent and draft without the "welcome to" is just as okay as the present version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Support. A simple, straightforward minor tweak which is a clear improvement. I agree that the existing phrasing is dated, and the proposed replacement looks good and gets straight to the point. There are no compatibility issues as it doesn't change any of the existing code. Modest Genius talk 10:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: In my current skin (Cologne Blue) the large "Wikipedia" overlaps slightly with the next line, "encyclopedia that anyone", particularly the letters l, d, i, t & h. This would be rectified by inserting an incremental space beneath "Wikipedia", or perhaps better still pushing the entire two lines of text into the blank space to the right of 'Wikipedia', vertically justified centrally. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 11:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose this implementation, which looks terrible (no offense intended). I don't object to the general idea of removing the wording "Welcome to", but given the progress made toward a much-needed redesign of the page as a whole (incorporating this change and others that are far more pressing), I see little sense in endeavoring to perform piecemeal modifications to a design that's badly outdated and probably on its way out, particularly for the sake of accomplishing something relatively unimportant. —David Levy 11:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
    Opposing a minor improvement on the grounds that a bigger, better improvement would be preferable is dangerous and risks never achieving anything. Perfect is the enemy of good. Modest Genius talk 12:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
    Agreed. As noted above, I don't regard the proposed implementation as an improvement, minor or otherwise. In my view, it would make the page look worse.
    Separately, I believe that accomplishing the desired change in isolation isn't worth the effort involved (referring to both its development and the pursuit of consensus). However, this doesn't mean that I would oppose a hypothetical implementation that I regard as satisfactory. I'm merely opining that there are better ways to proceed. —David Levy 13:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
    Fair enough. Modest Genius talk 13:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
A quick look round some of the other language MPs - some do say welcome, some don't - what is the proportion for each? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Oppose because I agree with David Levy about tiny changes not acomplishing anything substantial. But also, each minor change means I have to copy that change to all the backup pages (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), as well as surgically insert them into the various dated pages (tomorrow, yesterday and more). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Oppose. Wikipedia is a community as much as it is encyclopedia. It can be an encyclopedia only by being a community. "Welcome" is more than appropriate. Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Oppose Because "Welcome to Wikipedia" feels more appropriate and gives good welcoming feeling. Prymshbmg (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Comment Wikipedia must not be compared with other websites. It is nothing like any search engine of sponsored encyclopedia. But, this is a site of critical thinking repetitive scrutiny and responsible and as accurate collection of knowledge as it can be.Prymshbmg (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. I don't see the necessity or advantage of ceasing to welcome users. As already stated, this is a community in addition to being a website. Welcoming people helps keep such community. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: So, I wasn't expecting there would be this much opposition.
    • A few have suggested that Wikipedia is the community and not just a collection of reading materials. True, but this gets to the heart of the main page; as I see it, it is the place to showcase the contents, the best (featured etc) and the relevant (news, this day). Like a newspaper website, say, it should provide pointers to other stuff like "how to become an editor", but that's the secondary purpose. The comparison is valid since many people use Wikipedia the way they use Google: research or just taking a break from the work. Thus, "welcome to" feels a bit weird and is ultimately a relic of old time. I also highly doubt removing "welcome to" has any noticeable negative effect in the editor recruitment.
    • About the design. I'm, to be honest, quite bad with artistic stuff and if anyone knows a better way of presenting "Wikipedia", please just edit Draft:Main Page. I believe we can use that draft page to experiment this type of a minor refinement to the main page.
    • Edokter's design: we should certainly be working on that page. But I'm pessimistic that the design would go live any time soon (too much opposition), as much as I admire him for the efforts (seriously). -- Taku (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Strongly support. I never liked the "Welcome to Wikipedia" bit. It gives the erroneous impression the name of our website is actually "Welcome to Wikipedia" rather than just "Wikipedia". We should be proud of our stand-alone name without sticking an unwelcome addition to it, even if it does say welcome. Besides, if somebody is already well-accustomed to Wikipedia and its content and has browsed our front page many many times on earlier occasions, a welcome note is totally unnecessary and repetitive. The only time a welcome would make sense is for first-time visitors who know absolutely nothing about Wikipedia. I strongly suggest discarding with the "welcome" note. Instead, if it is recognized that this is a first unique visit from an altogether new address, then a welcome note can be displayed specifically for such visitors.... and in big letters. The same method can be applied for Wikipedia editors. When a new editor signs up immediately after registering a user name, a welcome note would be displayed. For other editors, no need. As a courteous procedure, when some editor returns after a full three months of not editing anything, a "welcome back" rather than a "welcome" note would be displayed instead. Having said that, I don't like the design proposed. I'd rather see Wikipedia centered and in much bigger font and demote the portals section now on the right to a lower level on the page. werldwayd (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[]
How does it give the impression that our name is "Welcome to Wikipedia"? Or do you think that you shop at "Welcome to Walmart"? Does it bother you to see "Welcome" signs on the doors of businesses?--Khajidha (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Yup, that assertion is groundless and frankly absurd. Dozens of high profile websites "welcome" you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Yes, because you know the only thing that's welcome is your money. Sca (talk)
  • Compromise? – How about reducing the size of "Welcome to" (maybe to 14 pts.) and italicizing it? Sca (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[]
PS: The Big Eight European WPs – D, F, I, E (Spanish), NL, PL, RU, S – all use "welcome to." Sca (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[]
And other languages (major and minor) and elsewhere in the Wikiverse? (Even Uncyclopedia has a 'welcome') 'Arguing by numbers/general usage' (using many-only a few large/middling/small scale and high/middling/low footfall; or 'seemingly depending upon what those starting up the particular language MP decided upon') can be a factor to consider
Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiespeel
  • Question Can it be hidden via your CSS file (Wikipedia:FAQ/Main_Page#How_do_you_remove_the_title_of_the_Main_Page.3F)? meshach (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[]
    • The "welcome to" part does not have an id attached to it, and is not selectable through any other means, so no. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[]
      • Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying. meshach (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Strongly MEH this is a reasonable suggestion but seriously, it's polishing a turd. If we want a real main page redesign, let's do it. Let's not just take away "Welcome to", that's going to make absolutely zero difference to our reader's experience. They look at the featured article, the ITN section and then they move on to what they really wanted. And that's if they decide to enter Wikipedia via the main page, which I imagine only about 1% of people ever do now Google searches for information seem to feature Wikipedia articles within the first five results pretty much 95% of the time. Leave it until we get a proper proposal to overhaul the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • I'm with The Rambling Man on this one. Anyone voting here should go and read our article on Parkinson's law of triviality, realise the futility of this discussion, and not rest until we have replaced the Main Page with a CSS-based, table-free framework. Then argue about what colour it should be. Stephen 06:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[]
    • That would be a long wait. Tables (whatever that means) will likely be debated from 2003 until pigs fly. Art LaPella (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • None of the other top-10 websites are Wikis. Perhaps we should eliminate that aspect as well? Resolute 14:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Update Following the suggestions, I moved "Wikipedia" to the center and put the portal list below that. Aesthetics is ultimately subjective, I suppose. At least on my screen it looks good, cleaner than before. The result is at Draft:Main Page and anyone else is welcome to further tweak it.
    • To respond to objections to minor changes of any sort: the theory is that minor changes are easier to stomach than major ones; that is, "Main Page" should be more like a Wiki. The reason Wikipedia was a success when Nupedia (I'm old to remember it) wasn't is we let changes take place without too much deliberation. In theory, it might make sense to have a long vetting process to ensure everything from the quality, authority, etc; and it didn't work in practice. Tweaking the existing content is a wiki way after all.
    • I'm primary interested in seeing changes done to the main page than a meta-discussion Wikipedia should be more like Google or not. Is there still any objection specifically to this change: removing "welcome to"? If the design is not your liking, what needs to change? -- Taku (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Re Draft:Main Page as tweaked by Taku, appreciate the effort, but it strikes me as much too much white space, given the confines of the platform and the trend toward smaller displays on mobile devices. Sca (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[]
That's a fair point. I tried to spread topic links to the left and the right to the title. I really like the idea that "Wikipedia" is now at the center; the nice emphasis that this is the main page of WIkipedia. -- Taku (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose because the "Welcome" is part of a sentence ("Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.") politely and eloquently inviting people to edit; it isn't simply a doormat indication. Removing the "Welcome to" would change that sentence from an implicit request that people help edit the encyclopedia, to a mere statement about the nature of the project - which is a change for the worse, since we want by all means available to encourage people to feel welcome to edit, and to do so. Dionysodorus (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[]
I must confess I'm bemused by the apparent lack of interest in my compromise suggestion (above) to reduce the size of Welcome to and italicize it. Too easy?
This typographical trick has been used countless times in publishing and would be simple to implement. It would keep the welcome mat out but make it plain that Welcome to is not part of the website's name. I don't agree that such a simple change would be unimportant or pointless: It would solve a perceived problem.
I too find the present typography, Welcome to Wikipedia, on one line and all the same size, puzzling and frankly inept. Why not:
Welcome to Wikipedia – or – Welcome to Wikipedia – ??
Sca (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Because the compromise is neither a solution nor improvement. As I see (and have said), there are two reasons for the proposal: (1) design-wise, just having "Wikipedia" in a bigger font looks better, though I admit this is subjective. (2) Having a message/sentence to the readers feels weird; no newspapers or search engines welcome you after all. That doesn't mean, of course, they don't welcome the readers. Conceptually, the focus of the main page should be the presentation of contents (best, contemporary and past). Also, "anyone can edit" is a blue link that takes any one interested in making contributions to the relevant page and I think that's good enough for the editor recruitment. -- Taku (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[]
True, most newspaper websites and search engines don't overtly "welcome" readers. Personally, as a newspaper type, I'm not a fan of welcome to. In journalism it would be dismissed as hokey.
However, Wiki is neither a newspaper nor a search engine. It's in a class by itself. Further, some substantial body of opinion among Wikipedians favors welcome to in order to emphasize WP's famous participatory character.
General agreement on your proposal to dump it doesn't appear to be forthcoming. My suggestion, as I said, was intended as a compromise. By de-emphasizing welcome to and differentiating it typographically, both purposes would be served to some extent. And BTW, Wikipedia would remain in the larger font. Sca (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose While other websites don't say this, we are far more welcoming than other websites. It is part of our presentation of our mission "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.". It speaks to the fact that we are not just a publication but a community. It is friendly and inviting, I see no reason to remove it. Chillum 13:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per 331dot and Chillum. Other top-ten websites, such as Google, only have customers; they just seek to keep people coming back as consumers, which in our situation is readers. We try to express a different ambiance, welcoming people to "join" in addition to reading; the only people whom other top-ten websites try to induce to join are job-seekers. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose This is a volunteer project, not Google. Welcoming the volunteers is appropriate. Townlake (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per Townlake. Wikipedia is not intended to mimic other websites. It's a service on it's own, which is an encyclopedia. There is nothing incorrect about having a welcome message to those who contribute to the encyclopedia. -- ExParte talk | contribs 05:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Support': WELCOME TO MY PAGE. ENJOY YOUR VISIT.[1]. Its not a big deal, but it is quite dated.--Milowenthasspoken 13:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Strongly Oppose: It gives it a welcoming feel - Wikipedia should remain personal. Also, the new redesign looks better than your current suggestion. Aryamanaroratalk, contribs 15:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[]

"Bollywood" is neutral?

Topic is off the main page. Further discussions should go on at a more appropriate venue, which in this case is Talk:Bollywood. This page is only for discussing the main page itself. --Jayron32 00:49, 22 September 2015 (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.

Jee. To me Bollywood is derogative. Didn't know it is still 'neutral' on enwiki. -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia is written for a worldwide audience, not merely for you. We could not have pre-knowledge of what you might find offensive. Do you have reliable sources which indicate that the term is supposed to be offensive? At no point in the Wikipedia article titled Bollywood is there any indication it is meant to be an offensive term. --Jayron32 22:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Duh. The origin of "Bollywood" is downward. You think *I* invented it this way so I must source it? -DePiep (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Wait wait. So you Jayron32 are saying that: I am wrong about enwiki 'Bollywood' usage because enwiki says "Bollywood" is OK? Clear then. Do we have WP:CIRCULAR SELF INJECTING SOURCE?. -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[]
What I am saying is that you have made a claim: The claim is that you find the term Bollywood offensive. That's fine, but Wikipedia is not based on what you feel. Are you saying that Bollywood as a term is objectively offensive, as in people who are not you should be able to read about it somewhere and find out it is supposed to be offensive? Like, we should have known because there are reliable sources which state that the usage is offensive? If it is so easy to find such sources, please provide them so we can learn and educate ourselves. --Jayron32 00:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[]
"Bollywood" is used by the BBC, used by the New York Times and many other reliable sources without any indication that it's a non-neutral or disrepectful term. BencherliteTalk 23:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[]
More to the point, the Times of India and The Hindu both use the term, so it's not some western-imperialist thing. ‑ iridescent 23:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Now completely to the point: BBC and NYT are EnglishS-based sources (another en-source-for-en-approach. Is what I wrote -- as an objection). Next, and (and see: dot-com both) do not look like a home Indian paper. Do you know they have non-alphabetic scripts in India? Once again: "Bollywood" is not neutral. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[]
You're not a new editor, DePiep. You would know as well as anyone that WP:BECAUSEISAYSO is just going to be ignored. Please show sources that demonstrates the term is considered derogatory. Resolute 00:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Not because I say so. But I did point out weird backgrounds just now, didn't I, you ignored. Whatever. Remember that actrice that laughed at David Letterman when he said it? Great laugh. -DePiep (talk)
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.

hi, i'm new here.

Hi, I'm new here.

Is there a good NON-CONFUSING tutorial on things like changing your sig and making little "this article is a stub" boxes and things like that?

Thank you,Cavestory116 (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[]

P.S. if this is not appropriate to be here, where should i put it?

Our general tutorial is at Wikipedia:Tutorial. For your specific questions, Wikipedia:Signature tutorial and WP:STUBSPACING. And the better place to ask such questions is Wikipedia:Help desk. Or maybe Wikipedia:Teahouse. Art LaPella (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[]
Okay. Thank you! Cavestory116 (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[]

In the News


yet another chapter in the fix ITN saga. Tune in next week when we'll have a new episode with the exact same script, but different players. Jayron32 03:43, 3 October 2015 (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.

It seems fairly moribund, with items appearing on a very slow timescale (and lingering for a lot longer) compared to anything else on the page. On the other hand, as it is relatively recent, it's uniquely compelling, so there's certainly some merit to it. Is there anything we could do about it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[]

I invite you to make nominations or participate in discussions at the candidates page if you would like to change what is posted. 331dot (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[]
I doubt adding a single new person is a viable solution to a long-standing issue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[]
So since you're not willing to actually suggest any other stories which should be added, your complaint is actually "not enough news is happening in the world"? ‑ iridescent 08:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[]
I can't even determine if this is a complaint! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[]
(To Adam) We can only consider the nominations that we are given. If you are unwilling to participate then I'm not sure of the purpose of your original statement. It takes users participating to change what is posted, no more, no less. One person can indeed make a difference. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[]
Even if I personally did as much work as every other person currently participating combined, that would only double the rate of update, and would still mean ITN was updating far too slow to be acceptable for a main page. That categorically isn't a solution. So, are there actual suggestions, or should we open a vote about taking it off the main page, or turning it into a once-weekly item? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[]
As I'm sure you know, I'd be all in favour of removing ITN from the main page, but bitching that there's not enough news in the world is just ridiculous. If you want something different to appear in ITN, just nominate it—it takes all of two minutes. ‑ iridescent 22:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[]
You don't have to shout to be heard. Ease up on the bolding. I also disagree that ITN is "far too slow to be acceptable for a main page." It is not a news ticker. It is meant to showcase good articles that are currently in the news. That being said, since you brought this up, do you have any suggestions, or is this just a rant? Isa (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[]
Apart from nominating new stories, you can also support existing nominations and improve nominated articles which get opposition due to article quality. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[]
ITN is not supposed to update quickly, it is not a news ticker or newspaper. We occasionally get slow stretches (like right now) and stretches where there is high turnover. It all depends on what it is in the news and if the relevant articles are updated and if a nomination is made. Again, we can only consider what we are given. If you want to see something listed, nominate it. If you don't like what is posted but yet don't want to participate, I'm even more puzzled by the purpose of this discussion. If you have an agenda opposed to ITN, you don't need us to validate it or give you ideas; you are free to propose whatever you wish. It seems unfair to propose abolition when you are unwilling to participate. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2015 (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.

Landmark 5M articles

Not sure where to raise this, but anybody has a neat idea how to celebrate the future 5M'th article? Nergaal (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 50#Logo question. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Proposal: Remove WP:In the news from the main page.

Clearly no consensus will develop to support this proposal.--Jayron32 03:12, 5 October 2015 (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.

I think it's clear that there's not going to be any progress with In the News improving. Indeed, checking Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates shows that even highly notable news, like the NASA discoveries about flowing water on Mars, or the college shooting in Oregon are being actively rejected, in a column, that, I will point out, updates only every one to two days. The main page doesn't need dead weight, it's slightly too long as it is. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]


  1. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]


  • Strong Oppose. The user proposing this doesn't seem to understand that ITN is not supposed to be updated frequently because it is not a newspaper or news ticker; they also refuse to participate in nomination discussions but yet seem to disagree with the consensuses reached there. One disagreeing with the consensuses reached at ITNC shouldn't mean that the whole thing needs to go away. (What you consider 'highly notable' may not be by others, that's the whole point of discussion and reaching consensus.) Further, ITN has no control over what is in the news , which sometimes results in slow periods. The user proposing this doesn't even really say what 'improvements' they want to see.(post articles on a regular basis without adequate updates?) Calling it "dead weight" is also mildly offensive to those who put in much time there, especially coming from someone who refuses to do so. People who dislike what is posted or who dislike the frequency of postings need to participate. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • With respect Adam, this comment seems to misunderstand what ITN actually is. ITN doesn't update as often as you might like for a reason—because articles need to be of sufficient quality for the main page before they're put in bold face, above the fold, which as you'll know is prime footfall for a Wikipedia article. There is as yet no auditing process for these articles, unlike even the DYK section, so we need to be extra careful. Plus, Wikipedia's reach is worldwide, so we need to be more careful still to pick articles which are relevant to this range. — foxj 13:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose I firmly dislike the coverage of 'current events' articles on Wikipedia but unless and until we establish a broad consensus to stay away from such things I think we need a way to highlight quality articles of this type for our readers. JbhTalk 14:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – ITN is a Main Page fixture that probably attracts more readers than any other. I understand the basic contradiction between the immediacy of news and the hypothetical permanence of encyclopedic content – and the friction this often produces – but I don't think it would enhance Wiki's appeal or Web presence to banish ITN it to some tangential realm. Sca (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose I fail to see how removing this will improve the main page. HighInBC 14:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Discussion was NAC closed at this point, after less than 4 1/2 hours and 4 !votes. Although all the votes were "oppose" that is not sufficient to support a snow close, so I have re-opened it, as a non-admin action. BMK (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose I do not think this is a good idea, and is certainly not necessary. BMK (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • oppose WP is not a newspaper, but the section serves the useful purposes of both connecting WP to current events and helping the curious find more on the topic and related ones. I.e. it shows it are not just an encyclopaedia of obscure and historic information. If the proposer thinks it should be improved then participate in ITN. But no, do not delete it just because you don’t like it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose in these circumstances. I do believe that a decluttering of the main page is long overdue and that serious thought should be given as to whether ITN, DYK, TFA and OTD really need to remain as separate sections, but this proposal appears to be based solely on one editor's misreading of what the purpose of ITN is, and a complaint that it isn't currently doing something it was never intended to do. Noting in passing that re-opening this discussion is one of the more pointless applications of process-for-the-sake-of-process that I've seen recently. ‑ iridescent 04:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose - The argument being invoked here is a petitio principii, asserting that "highly notable" news like the "Oregon shooting" is rejected by WP:ITN not because the news lacks lasting notability, but because the system is broken. A simple investigation of the discussions that take place for these news stories would shoot this premise down in an instant, leaving this proposal baseless.--WaltCip (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose ITN does not operate on a quota system, and I don't see any value of removing it from the front page. Removing it to a different spot maybe, but not altogether. It often gives newly created articles of high importance exposure, that is ultimately a good thing. Slow news days doesn't change this fact.-- (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – I fail to see how ITN constitutes as "dead weight" when it's clearly active. The "notability" bar may be set a bit too high, restricting how frequently articles can be posted, but that's different discussion altogether. High-profile events are often discussed at length to determine if the subject warrants posting, and oftentimes it can go against mass posting in conventional media. It's certainly frustrating to see certain events fall by the wayside as no attention is given to them; however, that's part of working on Wikipedia. The same can be said about the WP:FAC process, where many articles will fail simply because no one reviewed them. Everything is done by volunteers. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – "Slightly too long" seems to be an euphemism for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WaltCip's post hits the nail on the head. MarnetteD|Talk 20:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose oh, two US-centric stories, both of which shuffled quietly off global "news" inside 36 hours, didn't make it to ITN. So sue us. In the meantime, why not try to improve the process rather than seek to close it down. I'm just hoping this is a little joke and maybe as a result of too much celebration, otherwise it's utterly bad faith and not worth any time pursuing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[]


  • This was closed while I was typing this, but since it isn't really a support or oppose !vote I hope people won't have a problem with me adding it. In principle, I support the idea of ITN, which is why I don't want to support this idea. Many of our readers are looking for topical items, and ITN is the one place on the Main Page that consistently provides them. However, I don't believe the process is working as well as it could, and frankly share some of Adam's concerns. The section does seem too static at times; for example, the oldest item currently up is 11 days old, and this is hardly an isolated occurrence. More concerning to me is that the crowd at ITN often confine their supports to certain groups of news items (natural disasters, elections, sports etc.), which leaves the process dependent on those things actually being in the news. If they aren't, it's very hard to get other items through, and there doesn't seem to be any flexibility to adjust the standards for posting depending on recent activity (such as considering something like the Oregon shooting more seriously during an otherwise slow time). This proposal didn't gain a consensus for removal, but I hope that ITN will think about what it wants to be, with the inherent contradiction that Sca mentioned above. Also, don't dismiss the opinions of outsiders out of hand. We can offer insights from a unique perspective, and having to deal with outside opinion is part of the responsibility of appearing on the Main Page; don't ever have your process be so set in its ways that it is unwilling to consider improvements. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]
Let me add that I'm familiar with Adam Cuerden's fine work elsewhere, and I don't think he would propose something "in bad faith," as Isanae suggests above. Sca (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]
He seems to be unfamiliar with the ITN raison d'être and process and have no interest in learning about it. He ignored the answers in the discussion he started just above and started a proposal about a major part of the main page that had no chance to pass. The whole thing sounds like a rhetorical rant with no real expectation of results. That is bad faith to me. Isa (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]
That being said, it was unfair of me to have written this in the archive box. Closes should be neutral. I'm striking this part and apologize, but I still stand by what I wrote. Isa (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]
If yopu cannoot close it neutrally you shouldn't be closing it at all. Closes shopuld ionly be done by a neutral party, not someone wanting to shut down someone who disagrees with them. Seriously. 'I contest the closure. Seriously, you're going to close the thing with a personal attack and a statement saying that any debate on the subject is forbidden, admit you were wrong to throw around personal attacks - but keep them in, just crossed out, then claim I'm the one acting in bad faith here? Really? That's how this debate works?
I asked for comments on why ITN would be justified for the main page. Instead I got personal attacks for stating that I didn't think throwing my efforts into something I felt had severe problems would help - and literally no defense of the process itself, merely attacks for not joining the process. You claim I din't listen to what was said above? There was literally not a single thing in there but personal attacks on people who didn't work on ITN. That's not a defense of the process, that's a reason to shut down the process as a toxic, harmful environment.
And all that on the back of a question that sought to fix the issues I see in it. All it did was convince me that it couldn't be fixed, that any attempts to fix it were misguided, because even raising issues would be met with personal attacks. . Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]
I don't recall seeing a statement from you about specifically what your concerns about the process are- and since you do not wish to participate I'm not sure on what knowledge you base those concerns. As stated already, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what ITN is and how it operates. I do sincerely apologize if you took my comments as a personal attack, that was not my intention, and I do not question your good faith on this matter, but I think you have some things wrong here. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]
@Giants2008: I welcome any and all opinions about possible improvements, but I don't recall seeing any concerns offered by Adam. I welcome outside opinions, but they must be based on what ITN actually is currently. It isn't meant to be updated frequently as Adam seems to think it should be, for example, and based on their comments they seem to want to abolish it simply because they don't agree with what is posted or the frequency- both of which can be improved through participation instead of radical changes or abolition. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Note that this discussion has been brought up at ANI. I will not contribute to it further. Isa (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]

I have re-opened the discussion on the basis of comments at AN/I, including my own. BMK (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • So I can close it now? Drmies (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • At 6 1/2 hours and 6 !votes? Eh... maybe you should wait a bit more? BMK (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Wrong venue for this kind of decision, and wrong approach. If ITN isn't working well, then address that, in multiple places (here, Village Pump, Signpost, etc.). ITN is still functioning, and as long as there is some participation and it is factual, accurate, and neutral, there is no call for an immediate summary execution. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • While I reserve judgement on the substantive question, I do find it strange that some items hang around for an inordinate length of time, and others never make it to ITN, especially when DYK updates so regularly. I appreciate that ITN has a specific raison d'etre, but maybe that should be rethought after so many years. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC).
    • Yes, it seems like some items do hang around like it did back during the days in 2008 when Fernando Lugo was on ITN. Stagnation, like the Fernando Lugo example, does generate occasional discussions, but there never has been consensus to completely eliminate ITN. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Comment – A day later this is looking pretty close to closable. Sca (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Funniest thing I've read on Wikipedia this year. Kudos to Adam Cuerden for starting another April 1 for us all to enjoy! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[]
Um, it's October.... Sca (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[]
Yep, it's April Fools and a half. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2015 (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.
  • Bold, I'd say. Too bold. --PFHLai (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Moving pictures in the ITN section?

What kind of sorcery is being used to have two pictures flip flop without being a GIF? The main page is trying to be fancy all of a sudden. GamerPro64 01:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Yes, I completely oppose this. Perhaps in certain cases, a double image could be preferable. But giving this feature its debut now gives undue weight to the TPP. A neutral description would inform the public that governments with no transparency have committed to an undefined amount of legislation that severely restricts the availability of pharmaceuticals and the privacy that ISPs can offer. Instead we are saying "never mind Nobel prizes, look over here, the deal of a century has been reached" and gluing people's eyes to it with a flashy picture. Connor Behan (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[]
It isn't our first use of an animated GIF for this purpose, which is simply to make a very wide image's subjects somewhat recognizable in a small thumbnail. But thanks for that "neutral description". —David Levy 09:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[]
It's a gif that links to a jpeg. Isa (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[]
Black magic, GamerPro. Black magic and summon materia. GRAPPLE X 09:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Main Page History

Maybe there is a technical reason for this, but why is the history for the Main Page "missing?" When I go to 'View History' the last edit is listed as May 2015 (it is now October), yet this page changes very frequently (at least once a week it seems), so where is the history of this page? Thanks. (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[]

The Main Page is comprised of multiple templates that are edited separately by different facets of the project (Today's featured article, In the news, etc...). The "history" you are looking for is splintered through these templates. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[]
See Wikipedia:Main Page history. I made a suggestion with no replies so far at MediaWiki talk:Histlegend#Link to Wikipedia:Main Page history on the Main Page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[]
See also this FAQ entry. Modest Genius talk 14:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[]

OTD: A Bit Tasteless

  • 2012 – The Taliban failed in their attempt to assassinate Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai (pictured).

A bit tasteless, in my opinion. Can't it be reworded a bit less morosely? ("Malala Yousafzai (pictured) survived an attempted assassination by the Taliban") -- Veggies (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[]

  • While I think you're right that the subject of the bold link should be the active party in the sentence, I don't find it to be in any way tasteless as is. GRAPPLE X 08:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[]
    • They changed it—but now it isn't even active voice. Yoh-boy! -- Veggies (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[]
She wasn't just shot at, she was shot. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • I don't see how it is tasteless, unless we are now concerned about the Taliban browsing Wikipedia and claiming a WP:BLP violation.--WaltCip (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Nobel intentions

The ITN ticker is looking very "Nobel" lately, with 80% of the stories listed being devoted to Nobel Prize winners. It's not as much of a concern at the moment since there are no other news stories going on right now, but should there be a more efficient way of dealing with this to avoid cluttering the news feed and squeezing out other stories of potential importance? --WaltCip (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[]

This happens every year. There's not much we can do to spread them out when the six Nobel prizes are announced on six successive weekdays. I don't think we should be downgrading them from full blurbs, which is the only other option. Modest Genius talk 13:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[]
Lately we have been criticized for slow turnover in stories, so I don't think this is a big issue. It's the nature of what happens at ITN. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[]
The nature of the news cycle causes clustering like this from time to time. Usually it is a run of sports stories. In this case, it is Nobel prizes. But in this case, at least the prizes are for several categories of arts and sciences. The Nobel cluster is probably more encyclopedic than virtually everything we post to ITN. Resolute 14:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[]
It's no big deal. If anything more important comes along then it'll just knock the Nobels down a bit. If we ever run into the issue that we have too many nominations being rushed through, I'll eat my hat, my cat and my mat. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 12, 2015

Just a heads-up that tomorrow's TFA is about a person who was known for a voracious appetite, and these kinds of articles have attracted vandalism in the past on their TFA day. Help would be appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Using VisualEditor

I am trying to make edits to the Wikipedia page about MSCI, Inc., using VisualEditor.

The instructions for Visual Editor tell me to use the Edit Source tab on the page to be edited, but that tab is not present there, as this screen shot shows:

What am I missing?

Frank Beck (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[]

(For future questions of this sort, please use the help desk or teahouse.) Try going to Preferences>Editing. If "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" is checked, uncheck it. Eman235/talk 20:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[]

{{re|Frank Beck]] That isn't the visual editor. It is the plain old editor. So, Just letting you know. OmegaBuddy13find me here 20:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC) P.S If you have any questions, I will be welcome to answer them at the Teahouse. OmegaBuddy13find me here[]

The French WP offers Visual Editor (if you are so linguistically inclined). (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[]

View counter

Can someone please repair the view counter? It is now three days behind. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[]

View counter? — foxj 20:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[]
He means pageview statistics. Here is a better place to discuss it. Art LaPella (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Map Projections as Today's Featured Picture

It seems like there is one a week, what is the obsession? This feature is overly reliant on these Projection images, and there is clearly not enough variation. Can these be limited to one a year or something a little more sensible? (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[]

If you work on getting some more varied pictures featured, the people scheduling TFP will have more variety to choose from. GRAPPLE X 11:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[]
The images are shown roughly in the order they were promoted to Featured Picture (first in first out), with exceptions for relevant dates (such as anniversaries) and to spread out similar topics. See Wikipedia:Picture of the day. In this case User:Strebe worked hard to get several map projections featured, and they're gradually being showcased on the Main Page. After a while they'll be done. If you would like to help select the range of topics for this section, please contribute at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Modest Genius talk 12:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • You can check the POTD archives. We have 43 featured map projections, which have been running at the rate of one or two a month for a year and a half or so. As POTD runs on a more or less "first in, first out" basis, there are occasional spurts of similar subjects. Two years ago it was birds. In a year it will be banknotes and Van Gogh paintings. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[]
As one who lends a hand at WP:FPC, I agree that users are encouraged to participate in the selection process. ("Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits.") But I also agree with the IP user above that the series of map projections has become repetitive. Since we have a large backlog of approved FPs, perhaps the maps could be spread out a bit more? Sca (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • How, exactly, is "one or two a month" not spread out enough? I'll concede that the birds last year could have been spread out a bit better (five a month was perhaps a bit much) but one or two a month is far from problematic. Even this month, we had one projection on October 2 and one on October 16; that's two weeks, not one week. The IP's suggestion that we run "one a year" is clearly untenable considering how many we have, and disrespectful to the images' nominator and creator. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[]
OK, OK, I give. (But I'm gonna oppose any further map-projection noms.) Sca (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • There haven't been any since June 2013, so nobody should have to worry about adding to the number of projections. For now — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Domain Name...?

Hello Everyone..:) I'm New to this site and a computer student as well. Want to start off with some basics regarding the domains Guys any information / blogs / articles from your end will help me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvindyadav44 (talkcontribs) 20 October 2015

[Someone has replied already on the user's talk page. - dcljr (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)][]

List of international totally spies actors

Hi, I have seen that there is a articel about internatioanl winx actors can I make a articel about international ts actors? When the answer is no I will be know the reason.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Knock yourself out. Provided you can keep it sourced to reliable secondary sources and demonstrate that it is noteworthy enough, you can start pretty much anything. GRAPPLE X 14:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[]
I don't really understand the question, but if you want to create a new article please see Wikipedia:Your first article. Modest Genius talk 20:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Scraping the barrel?

The FA today seems strange as I'm more used to seeing articles like this at AFD with complaints that notability is not inherited. As the article is mostly conjecture and the main source – Mao himself - didn't even get her age right, I'm quite surprised this passed as an FA. Still, at least it makes a change from the interminable Banksia – two so far this month. Along with the usual hurricanes, mushrooms, &c. this gives the impression that we're scraping the barrel to find topics for this slot. Is there a place where editors discuss this issue and try to do something about it? I often come across interesting topics but usually stop at putting them forward for DYK (e.g. Theyre Lee-Elliott). Perhaps there should be a nursery where more varied topics are encouraged to advance to the next level? Andrew D. (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[]

The fact that you "usually stop at putting [articles] forward for DYK" is telling here: we can't run something in TFA if it's not listed at WP:FA, having gone through our featured article process. And the editors who put forth articles there often find themselves dealing with an area of expertise, which is why certain topics are represented more heavily than others. Since this is a volunteer project, there's no way to force people to stop working on the topics they care about and redirect them elsewhere, nor would we be wise to try—so the only alternative to wanting to see different subjects covered is to roll up the sleeves and pitch in. GRAPPLE X 13:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[]
The ONLY way to fix the problem is to add new types of articles to the pool of articles available to put on the main page at WP:FA. In other words, make more featured articles from other topics. There is no other way to fix this, so unless you are working to make articles better, and make them featurable on the main page by the WP:FA standards, you aren't doing any good in fixing the problem. --Jayron32 14:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[]
(edit conflict with Jayron) What you are looking for is: (a) WP:FANMP, the pool of eligible articles (featured articles yet to run on the main page) and (b) WP:TFAR, where nominations for Today's Featured Article are discussed - where there are no nominations, the TFA coordinators select something from the pool, doing their best to achieve balance from the options available. You will notice that the pool of eligible articles contains many more options in some areas (e.g. warfare) compared to others (e.g. mathematics, computing, engineering, health, education, philosophy). The best way to see fewer articles that (in your view) scrap the bottom of the barrel is to help review, write and promote alternatives. Bear in mind, of course, that what you find boring others will find interesting and vice versa. The TFA coordinators (I used to be one) have to balance the wheat and the chaff, bearing in mind that (a) different people will disagree on which is which and (b) our purpose is to show the range and detail of the best of our encyclopaedic coverage, not to provide clickbait. BencherliteTalk 14:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[]
This seems to be a standard niggle from this user. In fact the DYK he mentions is actually pretty low quality and really shouldn't be on the main page at all. But there, your mileage may vary. If you don't get involved in the decision-making process, don't bitch about the fact you don't like the outcome. And most of the things you've ever suggested as interesting to you are as dull as dishwater to me. You see how that works? Everyone has a subjective opinion. This is more about article quality, not whether you personally like it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[]

I love seeing this sort of complaint about TFA, as it makes it feel like 2008 all over again, when we had them almost every day (or so it felt). We do have an FAQ on this subject, but the very best thing you can do is help develop a Featured Article on a topic you find interesting. I've got a few on the go myself, currently and I'd welcome help. You'll get to see your name in lights! --Dweller (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[]

WP:SOFIXIT, Andrew. I don't think you really have room to criticize if you're not actively trying to improve the situation otherwise. It just comes off as insulting to those who put considerable time and effort into making featured articles that can be showcased in the first place. Accordingly, I share the same sentiments as TRM expresses above. I can directly address one of the accusations about the "bottom of the barrel" in regards to hurricane articles...WP:WPTC prides itself on producing as much quality content as possible. We help each other out and work to improve our subject to the best of our abilities. There are 138 featured articles and 61 featured lists within the scope of our project, just simple probability that many of them appear on TFA. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[]

  • Andrew: It's one thing to take an article from incomplete to FA, but it's another to help an article go through its last few steps. There are plenty of articles currently sitting at featured article candidates awaiting reviews; everything from medieval history to sport to chemistry to popular culture to geography to law (and more). There are more articles at peer review, and (next level down) good article review. I have no doubt you'll be able to find something there which would fit your idea of a more varied/interesting topic. Some articles I've been looking at recently (yes, in addition to mushrooms- let me have my hobbies!) include Boys Don't Cry (film), Ralph Merrifield, Domnall mac Murchada and Neaira (hetaera). There are a lot of editors working on a variety of interesting, stimulating topics- FAC, PR and GAC are good places to find them. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Should WP:TAFI return to the main page?

Please weigh in here: Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#TAFI on the main page?.--Coin945 (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Not other features on the mobile version?

Is there a reason that the other features—all other than TFA and ITN—are not in the mobile version of Wikipedia? -- Frankie talk 19:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[]

What, no answers? I believe it's because the mobile version is used on tablets, where there is less room for a big Main Page, and it would be harder to load. Art LaPella (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Crashes occur on main home page ( when accessing from Linux Mint (Ubuntu) with Firefox 41.0.2 browser

First noticed on 29 October 2015, when linking to, computer crash occurs. This appears to partially have been solved by deinstalling the software colord (and kde-colord) from my system. This error only occurred at the specified link, and not at other links. The problem only occurred in Firefox (version 41.0.2 for Linux Mint). It also occurred in "safe mode". After desinstalling colord (and kde-colord), crashes occur less frequently, but one crash occurred when following the link in this article.

They speak your "language" at Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical). Art LaPella (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Halloween 2015

I must say. Of all the years here and of all the choices for articles to use for Halloween, this year might have the most scariest article selected for Todays Featured Article. Well done. GamerPro64 03:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[]

If they were rolling toward you... Eman235/talk 04:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[]
Loving today's Featured Picture as well. --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 05:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[]
Finally, a sufficiently scary set of pictures... epic genius (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[]
Yes, this picture is awesome...and so are the vampire squirrels. Eman235/talk 16:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Gender bias on main page content

the discussion has moved past usefulness, and is now getting insulting. Thanks to Richerman for directing users to places discussing genuine concerns in this area. Please avoid belittling the genuine concerns about a documented problem at Wikipedia, and be constructive in your suggestions on how to fix said problem. --Jayron32 16:40, 30 October 2015 (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.

Hi, not sure if this is the best place to comment, happy to be redirected if so. What is the policy on showcasing diversity in the main page content? Reading the main page for 27 October reads like the whole of Wikipedia is written about men! As follows: featured article - biography of a man in the news - 5 items, one about an individual person, which was about a man DYK - 8 items, six about individual people, five of which were about men On this day - 5 items, 4 about people, all of which were about men From today's featured list - biography of a man From today's featured photo - building designed by a man It's important that Wikipedia is inclusive and diverse, and this main page certainly doesn't encourage that impression. Is there a policy on encouraging diversity? If not, how does that get discussed? Cheers, MurielMary (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)MurielMary[]

It's fair enough, to an extent. Each section of the main page is determined by a different process, and as such, it's altogether possible that we could feature 18 items about mushrooms. Having said that, sections with control over their destiny, e.g. DYK, OTD, TFL, TFP, TFA, could work on ensuring diversity, but the latter three only have one choice per day. DYK has eight hooks every 12 or so hours. OTD has five or so hooks every 24 hours. Is there a real need to make sure there's an equal spread of male and female features? Is there a trend? Is there an explanation? (e.g. we have three times as many FAs about men as women [as a hypothetical example]). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[]
As regards TFA, at least, the problem is that there's a very limited pool of articles about women which have yet to run. This is a probably inevitable consequence of the nature of Wikipedia; by definition, people who meet Wikipedia's notability standards are more likely to be male (at least in the case of pre-20th-century biographies), as so many of the fields in which it's possible to become notable (politics, warfare, religion, the arts, science...) were fields from which women were either excluded altogether, or strongly underrepresented. If we were to have a 50-50 gender balance at TFA, we would literally burn through every available female biography in a couple of months at most. ‑ iridescent 22:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • I have to agree with TRM here: it is entirely possible that, by sheer coincidence, we could end up with multiple items on mushrooms, or cricket, or churches, or.... As Jayron says, the best way to combat this is to improve content to the point that it can be featured on the main page. TFA and other processes can only run content which meets their criteria; coordinators cannot simply say "We haven't had a woman as TFA in a while. Let's run Marie Curie", because Curie's article (though well written) has not passed the featured articles process. Since the number of featured articles on women or works by women are limited, that means that, statistically, they have to be spread outstanding. We still do our best, however: this month, for TFA, we've had Mary Margaret O'Reilly, "Lisa the Vegetarian" (centered around a woman character), Luo Yixiu, and Debora Green. For POTD, we've had Ada Lovelace and will soon have a form of Indian dance generally performed by women; there have also works by women, including the photograph you comment on above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[]
Hi Chris, thanks for the point of view. I disagree that the best solution is to write more material. This is only one approach to the gender bias problem. It seems that the policies and criteria are set up to favour articles on men and there needs to be change in the systems involved with judging what is "noteworthy" and "valuable". A criteria could be "the article helps Wikipedia showcase a diversity of people from different gender/ethnic/class origins", which would open up the possibility of nominating a wider range of articles. This is not to say that academic integrity or journalistic quality would be compromised, simply that an additional reason for promoting an article (that it contributes to diversity) would be added to the list of criteria. As I've mentioned below, women's history has a different idea of what is considered "noteworthy" and if Wikipedia is to remain current and relevant it would be worth considering widening the definitions at a high level. MurielMary (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)MurielMary[]
MurielMary; I'm of average intelligence, so you'll have to excuse me for not finding it, but can you point out the which requirements at WP:WIAFA either stop female-based articles of sufficient quality from being promoted, or which encourage male-based articles of insufficient quality from being promoted. I've read it over several times, and gender of the subject is not mentioned once. Can you explain how two equally-qualified articles, one about a male subject, and one about a female subject, would be treated differently according to those policies? --Jayron32 15:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • As you've seen below, there will be considerable resistance to the idea that "women need a lower bar" (to paraphrase), and thus the idea is unlikely to be implemented. Creating content, however, is something you or anyone can do without initially seeking a consensus (which would be done at WT:N or a subpage, BTW). I've personally written several FAs on women's history topics (Roekiah, Streatham portrait, Mereka Bilang, Saya Monyet! to name a few), as well as numerous DYKs (Nyi Ageng Serang, Ratna Asmara, Fifi Young, etc.); once you're used to it, it becomes second nature.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[]
Whether someting is "noteworthy", however that bar is determined, only affects whether it should have an article in the first place (this is the purpose of WP:N, WP:GNG, and the related policies which determine whether something is important or not important). Beyond being a requirement for having an extant article, noteworthiness doesn't stand in the way of any topic being featured (for FTA/L/P), or being highlighted on ITN/OTD/DYK, which don't require featured status but do require a certain level of article quality. Basically, once it exists, it's solely based on quality rather than subject from that point on. So if the issue is the idea that women's history is underrepresented in articles existing, that's a valid concern which might warrant the creation of a subsidiary policy of WP:N. But if it's about being underrepresented in assessed-quality articles (FA/FL/FP/GA etc), then that's solely down to volunteer effort, which anyone can help with. GRAPPLE X 13:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[]
Thankfully, MurielMary, this is problem you have the power to fix! Simply find articles about females, and improve them until they meet featured article status (see WP:WIAFA). The more articles you improve to the highest standards, the more articles we can run on the main page! So, just write and/or improve more articles about women, and we'll have more such articles to run! --Jayron32 22:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[]
First off, I see that you're a new editor. Let me welcome you to Wikipedia, Mary. At a time when the site is receiving criticism for the treatment of many women who edit here, it's great to see some new representation from the female demographic, which is underrepresented on Wikipedia. Given that you are still new here, it's probably unrealistic to expect that you can write featured articles immediately. However, that doesn't mean that you are unable to have a voice in what gets featured on the main page. Most of the various processes have their own request or suggestion pages; for example, the featured list process, which I am director of, has a submissions page here. That process in particular may be helpful in balancing the Main Page, since we have many featured lists on women in music and media, among other topics. If there's a list that catches your eye and hasn't run on the Main Page yet, you can propose that we run it at the submissions page. Over time, as you gain experience and confidence, you can write articles that appear on sections like DYK, and maybe even bring an article to featured article status. For now, I'll take your comments into consideration when planning future TFLs. There's only so much we can do (sports FLs lean heavily male, for instance), but anything we can do is worthwhile. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[]
MurielMary, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. One of the easiest ways to get content onto the main page is the Did you know? section. You can start a new article or expand an existing article and put it right up there most of the time. If you tell people you are inexperienced with the process and ask for help, you will find that editors will be glad to lend a hand. Another easy way onto the home page is the In the news section, including Recent deaths. You could also look at the section Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries, though I have no experience with that one. Jehochman Talk 23:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the replies and thoughts. To clarify, I wasn't putting my hand up to contribute items for the main page, but it's certainly helpful to know the process for doing that, so thanks for those pointers! In response to RamblingMan, yes, I think it is important to have a balance of male and female features - the world is a diverse place and if an organization doesn't reflect that in its presentation it risks ending up irrelevant, biased or viewed as exclusionary or privileged. In response to Iridescent, the argument of women not meeting the Wikipeida criteria for notability is more of a reflection on the exclusionary criteria than on women's achievements. Women's history as a field has different criteria for notability than general history - for example knowledge about a woman born before say 1900 is considered noteworthy in itself as so little is known about women of that era. There is no additional requirement of "notability" or "achievement" to meet. Wikipedia would help get more women into articles if this guideline was adopted, for example. And Jayron, yes there is more work to do in writing however that alone is not enough. There is also change that can happen in the choices and the criteria for women's knowledge/knowledge about women to be showcased. As Giants2008 states, anything which can be done in this area is worthwhile. For example, when reading an article about a famous man, pay attention to whether his wife is named or mentioned, and if not, suggest that the original writer add that information. In many cases of historically notable men, there was a notable woman alongside him e.g. missionaries, politicians, pioneers and settlers, and the contribution of those women isn't highlighted. Again, thanks for the discussion, interesting to hear different perspectives. MurielMary (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)MurielMary[]
I find your suggestion, that the notability standards should be relaxed for women, to be highly insulting. The idea that we need an easier notability standard for women, though undoubtedly well-intended, suggests that women can't meet the same standards as men. Women are just as capable as men in every way; they should be held to equal standards. Yes, women have been marginalized throughout history, and haven't had the same opportunities as men; that's a tragedy, and should be foreved remembered as such. But it's not a good excuse for a double-standard that would only trivialize the truly great historical accomplishments of some women. Far from fixing our systematic bias problem, such a group-specific guideline would only further disadvantage other historically marginalized groups for which there isn't an easy notability standard (such groups include: every ethnicity, all religions, etc: practically every group has been disadvantaged at some place and time). If we relax the standard, it would have to be for everyone, which doesn't help at all. The good news is there's still many women-related articles, yet to be written, that would pass current guidelines. The only productive solution is what everyone always suggests here when someone complains about bias: you need to create the content you wish to see. Sorry if that sounds like too much work and not enough grandstanding for your tastes - we are here to write an encyclopedia, after all. (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[]
Can you point us to these "exclusionary criteria" which deliberately set out to prevent more content about females? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[]
The same arguments against 'lower criteria' would apply to #any# group (including vegetarians 'as the topic has been already mentioned', or 'parts of the world not being the USA') - and to varying extents 'in areas of information gathering and organizing that are not Wikipedia' once they have got past the first stages. (If 'a field of research' is being created, there may be lower criteria in the initial stages.)
My back yard is an underrepresented field of research in its early stage, and so we should demand more articles about it with lower notability requirements (rhetorically speaking of course). Art LaPella (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[]
As far as I understand - the policy of the Main Page is to show the range of Wikipedia's coverage, and to some extent what constitutes 'particularly good articles' and 'topics that people may be unaware that they will find interesting' - rather than to have a checklist of topics and groups that have to be covered (and can anyone find more than Dr Molly for Moresnet?). Jackiespeel (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[]
  • The gender bias that exists is, of course, a bias inherent to history. And not just major world history. To give an example: Much of my writing over the years has revolved around hockey. I have written 59 GA or FA class biographies on players. Only one has been female, Angela James. That isn't so much because I don't care about female players, but because women's hockey at a high level is still in its infancy compared to the men's game and the reliable source coverage is similarly unbalanced. There are easily 50 books related to the history of men's hockey for every one on women's hockey. At the highest levels, men's hockey is a multi billion dollar business that dominates entire sections of newspaper, has television channels dedicated to it and is covered on a mass scale. High level women's hockey is still largely dependent on charity and support and the willingness to play for the love of the game rather than high salaries or mass notoriety. We can lament this disparity at the personal level, but Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. It is not our place to apply discriminatory notability policies based on gender in order to create a false equivalence in notability. Only time and effort will resolve the imbalance you perceive. As others have stated, if you are interested in seeing more women's topics on the main page, you are going to have to roll up your sleeves and put the work in writing articles. Resolute 18:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Right now, I see the picture of a woman in ITN. Another picture of a woman in SA/OTD. The DYK is a photo of a statute of a woman. The POTD is also a photo of a woman. There are dozens of men in the TFL pic, but none of their faces can be seen. No one is complaining about gender bias on MainPage today, eh?! Good. --PFHLai 04:22, Mischief Night, 2015 (UTC)

I am. Too many cisgenders on the main page. Where's our trans representation? (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[]
And the left-handed pharmacists? Art LaPella (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[]

@MurielMary You asked "Is there a policy on encouraging diversity? If not, how does that get discussed?" I'm surprised no-one has answered that as there certainly are policies about tackling the gender gap on Wikipedia - it's one of the big issues being discussed at the moment. The New York Magazine says, "Wikipedia famously bears one of the starkest gender gaps in contemporary culture" and there is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias set up to look at this issue. One of the reasons why there is not enough content on Wikipedia about women is that there are not enough women editors attracted to the project. There is a task force looking at this problem - Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force which is exactly the right place to discuss this. Perhaps if you go there you can ask them to get someone to keep an eye on this page and try to counter dismissive jokes, such as the one about about left-handed pharmacists, made in response to serious concerns raised here. Richerman (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2015 (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.
I haven't seen this discussion timely enough, but I would like to add a belated comment: The argument about trans representation is somewhat fallacious or at least misleading because openly trans people represent a distinct and very small numerical minority, while women are about equally numerous as men all over the world (even slightly more in most places), so there would never be an expectation that among the people featured on the main page there would be a trans person more than occasionally. Openly trans people, in fact, are quite possibly no more numerous than left-handed pharmacists, so the argument is equally blatant and ridiculous concern trolling, instrumentalising trans people as a tool to bludgeon a legitimate issue with female representation.
Moreover, I'd like to point out that while I do not advocate the "dilution" of notability standards either, there is already some kind of inherent "skewedness" in principle in that a female pioneer is inherently more likely to attract journalistic and academic attention regardless of her concrete contributions and thus to achieve notability just for the fact of being a woman where women are rare – although it should be kept in mind that (usually) women pioneers are motivated and even forced to work a lot harder than the average male colleague in order to even get to where they are, so their contributions tend to be disproportionately large compared to their rarity, easing concerns that women get attention and thus notability "too easy" just for being female in male-dominated fields. But in theory, a woman in male-dominated fields could be said to be able to achieve notability more easily already, so there is already some inherent "dilution" of notability standards if one were to focus exclusively on merits and contributions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Don't take anonymous posts on Mischief Night too seriously. --PFHLai (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]


Has anyone noticed we are 160+ articles past the 5000,000 mark? Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 12:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]

more information here: Wikipedia:Five million articles.
I like the red banner now below our globe. What is the actual file (could not find its link)? -DePiep (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]
@DePiep: File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en 5m articles.png, created by Fuzheado ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]
For the details: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/5_millionth_article_logo -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Thanks. Could I have found it myself, that is by analysing the mp code? Or are there some more shieldings? -DePiep (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Add one more vote! Great, Fuzheado. -DePiep (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]
@DePiep: It is not terribly easy to find these days with CSS style sheets and all and it's a DOM background property. Even many utilities used to save the entire web page locally won't download it. I use Chrome to right-click and use "Inspect Element" to find the exact filenames. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Well Done

Well Done, wikipedia for 5,000,000 articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:07, 2015 November 1 (UTC)

+1 --Atcovi (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Congrats on 5 million articles

Congratulations! (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Thanks! --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 02:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Do we know what the 5 millionth article happens to be?

Hi. In years past, on the main page, the specific n-millionth article has been displayed near the top with a wikilink to said article. I noticed at the 4 million article milestone the mentioning/featuring of the 4 millionth article was absent, and here we go again with the 5kk milestone. Do we still know which article was the milestone article? Why do we not commemorate in this fashion anymore? Thanks. -Curious (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Persoonia terminalis. GRAPPLE X 19:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]
In answer to your question: because nobody proposed it. The Transhumanist 09:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source

Wikipedia does not have 5 million articles because redirects are being counted as content pages. See here for the content pages. It is clear redirects are part of the list.

I think the statements "5,000,621 articles in English" and "Started in 2001, it currently contains 5,000,621 articles." is original research. QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia#The data set seems to say that the 5 million figure excludes redirects, so there is conflicting information. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]
5 million is definitely excluding redirects. There are 7 million redirects.[2] Special:AllPages displays redirects in italics and has a "Hide redirects" box. The Wikimedia Foundation has announced there are 5 million articles today in [3], linked at PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]

In case anyone wants to add some stats to their user page, the following wikimakup:

<div>As of {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{CURRENTDAY2}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}, {{CURRENTTIME}} (UTC), The English Wikipedia has {{NUMBEROF|USERS|en|N}} registered users, {{NUMBEROF|ACTIVEUSERS|en|N}} active editors, and {{NUMBEROF|ADMINS|en|N}} administrators. Together we have made {{NUMBEROF|EDITS|en|N}} edits, created {{NUMBEROF|PAGES|en|N}} pages of all kinds and created {{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|en|N}} articles.</div>

creates this on the page:

As of Monday, 18 October 2021, 14:02 (UTC), The English Wikipedia has 42,394,365 registered users, 125,489 active editors, and 1,077 administrators. Together we have made 1,045,817,079 edits, created 54,457,749 pages of all kinds and created 6,396,210 articles.

Note that it updates when there are new stats and you reload the page.

We are approaching a billion edits. Alas, there is no way to include page views in the above list. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]

And I guess we can't filter out unintended page views, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Does Wikipedia count redirects as content pages? If you click here it will take you to the Statistics page. The first link at the top of the says Content pages 5,000,699. When you click on the content pages it will take you to here for content pages. This is confusing because the link links to all pages. There is no page where it only counts article pages. There may be a difference between content pages and article pages. QuackGuru (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Redirects are not included in the "Content pages" count at Special:Statistics. Click the "Hide redirects" box and then "Go" at Special:AllPages to only see articles and not redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
It says Content pages for Special:Statistics. When you click on content pages it takes you to all pages not just article pages. I do not know exactly what they are counting. If I click on the "Hide redirects" box it does not show an edit count before or after. Where does it say excluding disam pages for the content pages. The term "content page" and "article page" may be different. I think clarification from the WMF would help. QuackGuru (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Like I said {{NUMBEROF|PAGES|en|N}} gives you the number of pages of all kinds (currently 54,457,749) and {{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|en|N}} gives you the number of articles (currently 6,396,210). No need to go to Special:Statistics and hide redirects. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Not the WMF, but maybe I can help :) According to the source code, only content pages are counted (which includes the main/article namesapce and all namespaces, which are added to wgContentNamespaces (for enwiki currently no additional namespace)). Explicitly excluded are redirects, so redirect pages aren't counted as "content pages". I submitted a change to change the link of "Content pages" to "Special:AllPages?hideredirects=1", so that redirects are hidden by default. --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Are disambiguation pages counted as content pages? (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Yes, as they are not redirects. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
But they are not articles. Is there an easy way to count them? The Transhumanist 09:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
{{PAGESINCATEGORY:All article disambiguation pages}} should do the trick (currently 330,232) ‑ iridescent 10:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
So does that mean there are only approximately (at time of writing 5,000,621 - 263,443) 4,737,178 articles and we should do this celebration again in a few month's time? Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 11:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Were disambig pages counted in the previous milestones? 331dot (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Yes. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 11:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Then they should be now, or the previous milestones revised(which I don't support at all, just saying those are the options). 331dot (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Wouldn't that only count pages which are correctly inserted in to the category Category:All article disambiguation pages? With over 250k disambiguation pages, it would seem likely there are a few hundred, perhaps even over a thousand which don't have an appropriate template, or otherwise inserted in the category. Is there any bot that looks for possible disambiguation pages that aren't categorised? Of course there are also other sources of error which are probably equally as large. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]

In the news: Rugby Union

My question(s) answered. (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2015 (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.

Since the result of the 2013 Rugby League World Cup final was not featured on the main page "in the news" feature, the result of the rugby union competition final should not be featured either. Unless Wikipedia holds a policy of one code being superior to the other, in which case, why? Neither is more popular worldwide than the other. League is more popular in some places than Union, Union is more popular in some places than League and some places haven't heard of either... Surely Wikipedia should be unbiased on the issue? Also, who actually decides what sporting events are featured and which are not? (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]

If one is mentioned and the other isn't, it's because either one hasn't been nominated at WP:ITN/C, or it has but hasn't yet been seen to be sufficiently updated or well-written. But the good is that whichever has been the case, you have the power to fix it. GRAPPLE X 19:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Thank you. (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2015 (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.
Actually, the 2013 Rugby League World Cup did appear on the main page for a whole week. Smurrayinchester 16:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Talk page blip?

I tried to respond to a reply (which asked a question) in "On This Day". I can see my reply when I edit that section, as well as in the subpage Main Page/Errors (section), but I cannot see it on the main page talk page. Is there a reason for this, did I somehow do something wrong, or is it a bug? - Tenebris (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[]

I suspect all you need to do is purge your cache, because WP:ERRORS is transcluded here, and it will appear to you as well. BencherliteTalk 17:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[]
D'oh! I thought I had already done that -- I do it so often while browsing -- but when I read your reply I did it again. Of course I had missed this one time. Thank you. - Tenebris (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[]
"purge your cache" is a misleading link text because it's actually about rebuilding the page on Wikipedia's servers. It is not the same as to bypass your browser cache by reloading a page, which I guess Tenebris had tried. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I did not actually look at the link. I simply purge cookies and cache about 20 or so times a day (using the browser tool), usually immediately after visiting any site with significant advertisements. I thought I had done that before reloading this page ... but as it turned out, I had not gone to any monetised sites in between WP checks. - Tenebris (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Adding Template:Main Page banner to the Mobile site front page

Proposal: add the appropriate tags to make Template:Main Page banner appear on the mobile site's main page.

  • Support --Pine 20:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Support as well, seems like it should resize well to any width. Eman235/talk 20:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[]
  • SupportSpirit of Eagle (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Support Absolutely. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 01:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[]
  • This seems like something for the technical village pump. Support idea, since the banner is used to broadcast messages to readers, and those on mobile devices constitute a fair share of our readers. But the technical implementation needs to be such that it would not be awkward in appearance. Mz7 (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[]
    I'm not completely familiar with how the Main page on the mobile site is set up, but it seems to be using something completely different to generate the Main page than what is done here on the desktop version. For one thing, the Main page here is currently not using the mf- and nomobile tags listed on mw:Extension:MobileFrontend#Configuring the main page (the Mediawiki extension that generates a mobile-friendly view). The Main page here is not coded to display the "Welcome, [USERNAME]!" message at the top for logged in users like the mobile site's Main page does. The mobile site also does reflect the modifications we made in 2012 where we changed the header from "Today's featured article" to "From today's featured article"[4]. But more importantly, even though have admin access here and have the ability to modify the main page like here, I apparently cannot edit the Main page via the mobile site. Any other admins have that issue, or know why it seems that the mobile site is using a different Main page file? Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I've asked WP:VPT to weigh in, but I would be inclined to agree with you. I definitely think the mobile Main Page uses a completely separate source. Which source exactly, I'm not sure. Mz7 (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[]
  • Above or below the fold ? Below ok, but above, i find it a waste of precious real estate honestly. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Dismiss the banner

Now that the logo has returned to normal, can we get rid of the banner please? Or at least make it dismissable. Thanks. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Seconded. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]
It was up a bit longer than last time (when we reached four million articles), so I've removed it. —David Levy 09:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Did you know... Ugly Formatting

I have brought this up before on the DYK page, but maybe I will have better traction here. Simply put the formatting of the Did you know section looks sloppy, and I can't believe no one else is bothered by this. I would like help from anyone willing to create a Request For Change, so that "... that" will be removed from all future DYK entries. Figure 1: Ccubedd (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Why would you get rid of the "...that"? It ties each entry to the "Did you know..." header to make a complete sentence. For example, the current first item in the list would be "Did you know that Godalming's Roman Catholic, Quaker, and Unitarian (pictured) places of worship, former Congregational chapel, and former Salvation Army hall are all Grade II listed buildings?"--Khajidha (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I was really hoping to have another supporter by now. Khajidha, I do not share your opinion that the "that"s preceded by elipsis "tie each entry together". For example, "Did you know... ...that Wikipedia is important" less succinct than "Did you know... Wikipedia is important" ( Ccubedd (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[]
The lack of "that" would be poor grammar, which is a greater problem than the apparent lack of succinctness caused by four letters. GRAPPLE X 19:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I wouldn't go that far, but most Did You Know contributors prefer the "that". Art LaPella (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[]
The ellipsis is properly used here, to indicate missing text (the text that is missing being "did you know"). GRAPPLE X 11:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]
  • The bullets, ellipses, and thats make perfect grammatical and typographic sense. Sca (talk)
PS: The word is spelled straighten. Sca (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]

If "that" will always appear, why not add it to the title bar and drop it from the individual entries?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Did you know is a common phrase and makes an apt title for the fixture. Did you know that is not such a phrase and sounds unfinished – plus, that spoils the euphony. Sca (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Tribute to Troy

Can someone please tell me how the current DYK hook "... that the University of Southern California sports anthem "Tribute to Troy" has been called "almost as annoying as Nancy Grace"? made it to the Main Page. It seems like a clear violation of WP:BLP, disparaging a woman that has nothing to do with the song. APK whisper in my ear 02:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Agreed and I've pulled it for the moment. If anyone has a new hook for the article that can go up instead, I'll be around for the next 45 minutes or so. Jenks24 (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Just noting I've left talk page messages about this discussion for the three editors involved at Template:Did you know nominations/Tribute to Troy. Jenks24 (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Thanks for making the change, I also felt it didn't meet the DYK requirement of "hooks should be neutral" as it repeated a criticism of a person. In fact, should that quote even be in the target article in the first place? MurielMary (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Thanks, Jenks24. APK whisper in my ear 02:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[]
@Jenks24: - Suggested new hook (although this may be too long?) - "... that although the University of Southern California sports anthem "Tribute to Troy" has no lyrics, some fans of opposing teams sing along the invented lyrics "this is the only song we know, it's boring and it's slow"? APK whisper in my ear 03:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[]
@AgnosticPreachersKid: Looking at the DYK rules, I think that is too long unfortunately. It needs to be under 200 characters including spaces. Jenks24 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[]
How about "... the University of Southern California sports anthem "Tribute to Troy" has been called one of the "top 10 most annoying college football fight songs"? APK whisper in my ear 03:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Sure, any of those are fine. Or just don't sweat it and leave it out, the next DYK update will be along shortly. I wrote the thing and, honestly, I don't care one way or the other. LavaBaron (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Thanks AKP, I've gone with that one. And thanks also for LavaBaron, appreciate the measured response here. Situation resolved I hope. Jenks24 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Umpqua Community College shooting


Item is not currently on the main page, discussions about article content should happen on article talk pages--Jayron32 15:18, 6 November 2015 (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.

On 5 November 2015, a dubious "fact" about the shooting appeared on the Main Page, namely that Christopher Harper-Mercer uploaded a documentary about Sandy Hook to KickassTorrents three days before the shooting. This is media conjecture and not a fact, although he may have done this. If I had known that this had been nominated at DYK, it would have been pointed out. This should really be removed because it is misleading the reader.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]

The fact is cited in the article to two separate sources, one of which is a reputable newspaper not known for tabloid exaggeration. If there's a problem with the use of those sources it's really a content matter for the article itself. GRAPPLE X 12:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]
The media assumed that an email address linked to Harper-Mercer was linked to a username on KickassTorrents. This was joining the dots rather than knowing for sure whether he did this. This type of media speculation is commonplace in the first 24 hours after a mass shooting. I'm disappointed that DYK is stating this as a fact when both the article and the sourcing do not support the claim directly. This was previously discussed on the talk page, and it is important to make the subtle distinction between "the media claimed" and "the media knew".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]
@Ianmacm: I've added "reportedly", which should eliminate this issue. — foxj 14:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]

ianmacm, in the future, it's best to add a comment at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]

OK, will do. I'm not an expert on Main Page etiquette.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Not to worry, just that posting stuff to ERRORS will usually (usually) get a faster response, which is particularly important when stuff is sitting on the main page... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2015 (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.

In the news

Three of the top ITN articles are sports-related, posted above the Sinai Peninsula airplane crash, and amidst all of the news in the Middle East regarding Syria and Iraq. This is highly disconcerting and we should be ashamed. (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]

It is not ITN's fault that these events have occurred at the same time. Also, what you find unimportant is not necessarily what others do. If you are dissatisfied with what is posted, I invite you to participate at the ITN Candidates page where you can give your views on what should be posted, and make nominations. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Not only that, but order is determined solely by date. The sun could explode tomorrow, but it would still place second below a story that happened two days from now, and that's the simplest and cleanest way to avoid favouritism. GRAPPLE X 15:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
(edit conflict) The most recent addition is placed at the top. It doesn't imply importance. Proposals for a seperate sports category have been rejected, partly because the number of relevant entries varies too much. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
This, once again, underscores the difference between the general reader's perception of ITN and the actual nature of the section. It is not meant as a news ticker, but there is basically no way to make people not see it that way. How many people had the same perception of Wikipedia that the original poster did, but did not post about it? How many of them will become more likely to think of Wikipedia as a joke or a disgrace and less likely to think of it as a serious resource? This section is fundamentally flawed and needs to be rethought. --Khajidha (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
To be fair, a lot of people think space ghosts are to blame for all life's woes, and that doesn't means we need to slant things to agree with that view. How ITN works is grand, the problem, if any, is conveying its purpose without presupposition. As it stands, these are articles whose subjects are "in the news", not "breaking news in the form of articles". GRAPPLE X 16:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Pretty much what Khajidha said... The intent may be one thing. The perception is entirely another. And the perception is - horse racing and baseball are more important than a devastating plane crash which killed hundreds and could possibly be linked to terrorism. (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Nice example of a false analogy, That being said, the dominant arguments in favour of leaving ITN as it is are simply pro status quo arguments, most of which could be paraphrased as "it (sort of) works, there is no need to mess with it". (Tacit underlying statement: it was this way when I started at Wikipedia, leave it alone!) Most of the dominant arguments in favour of changing ITN are ad hoc arguments to address specific and persistent issues (ie. apparent dominance of sports articles), rather than true overhauls. (Tacit underlying statement: I personally don't think X is real news.)
So why not try a third method which has some degree of solid objectivity? Divide ITN vertically into two sections. Any news articles which are normally given their full treatment in the main (first) section of a newspaper go in their normal chronological order in the first section. Any news articles which are normally given their full treatment in other sections of a newspaper (sports, entertainment, science ...) go in the second section in chronological order. To make it genuinely objective, the full front section treatment must come from news sources of at least two different countries.
But, to be perfectly honest: it has been my experience that whenever a will to change is not fully, strongly, and persistently united in the direction of change, status quo will win every time. I really do not expect my proposal to go anywhere ... even if I did submit it in the appropriate section of Wikipedia. The forces in favour of the status quo have far more inertia. - Tenebris (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[]
  • If you are ashamed, that should inspire you to work harder at adding good information to Wikipedia articles so we have more main-page-ready articles about non-Sports related events to post. --Jayron32 16:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
@Jayron32: - That's a rather antagonistic answer. Even if the original IP poster was a bit strong with the words, an Ameri-centric horse racing story trumping international human events is a legit concern. Are we simply going to be slaves to an algorithm, or can we do better knowing its deficiencies? -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure you mean this, but your reply seems to be implying that we actively encourage users to STOP improving Wikipedia articles. That seems just silly: All aspects of Wikipedia should be about encouraging users to improve Wikipedia. There is no other reason for Wikipedia to exist. What alternative advice would you give to the OP to fix the situation. Other than improving articles from other subject areas, the only other thing I could think of would be to go around trashing articles from over-represented areas. That seems like a stupid idea. What are you suggesting we should do: Make articles better or something else? --Jayron32 18:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
You could not have a section on the Main Page that gives all the indications of being a news ticker without being one. You could make sure that any section on the Main Page is not run in such a way as to make it seem like it is trivializing mass deaths, disasters, wars, etc by making them subsidiary to silly ball games and such. --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I'm afraid that I don't have the power to make that change. If you'd like to see that change made, you're encouraged to ask the community in the form of a proposal that gains consensus to do so. Telling me what you want to change is useless, I am not the King of Wikipedia. Starting a well-worded proposal and gaining consensus to enact the change would fix the problem. I encourage you to do so.--Jayron32 21:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I'd like to vouch briefly for sports, since I find them being labelled as just silly ball games a little trivializing. Obviously they are not as significant as say a plane crash, but they still deserve some space on ITN. I have seen suggestions before for a specific sports section, which might help. I'll also note that I personally don't find the order the items are listed to have any implication on importance.
The problem with changing the order of these items is that any order that's not chronological could violate NPOV. How can we decide which events deserve more emphasis? It might be obvious in some cases, but not in others. Scarlettail (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
You could make the dates for each item visible to highlight the chronological nature of the listing. --Khajidha (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[]
A simple solution might be to vertically divide ITN into two halves. The top half would be for stories which are normally given their full treatment in the main (first) section of a newspaper. The bottom half would be for stories which are normally given their full treatment in other sections of the newspaper (sports, entertainment, science). Within each section, the usual chronological order would apply. That should cover all the concerns, from noteworthiness and article quality to individual perceptions of relative article importance. - Tenebris (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[]
To be honest, I think dating each addition is the simplest and easiest way about it. I wouldn't even worry about years, just days and months (of course, ENGVAR will rear its head so a standard system would need to be agreed). These could probably be piped to an anchor at Portal:Current events, too. GRAPPLE X 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I'm on board with including dates on the blurbs, sounds like a reasonable addition. As for date format, styling of "On this day" leads me to assume MDY is the likely route to take. Piping to the CE portal would provide some much needed, more direct coverage (even though the portal is linked in the section already, additional links to relevant dates would likely attract more people) on events that fail to pass the bar at ITN as well—namely the ones that don't get posted because of lack of consensus. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[]
The blurbs ARE dated. I'll copy-paste the full text of the T:ITN template below so you all can see it:
  • <!--Nov 4--> At least 36 people are killed when an [[Antonov An-12]] cargo plane '''[[2015 Juba plane crash|crashes]]''' near [[Juba]], South Sudan.
  • <!--Nov 3--> Romanian Prime Minister [[Victor Ponta]] ''(pictured)'' resigns over the fatal '''[[Colectiv nightclub fire]]'''.
He resign after tens of thousands of people gathered for anti-corruption protests, not because of the nightclub fire.
  • <!--Nov 3--> '''[[Cyclone Chapala]]''' becomes the first [[Tropical cyclone scales|hurricane-force]] storm on record to strike mainland Yemen.
  • <!--Nov 3--> In horse racing, [[Michelle Payne]] becomes the first female jockey to win the '''[[2015 Melbourne Cup|Melbourne Cup]]''', riding [[Prince of Penzance]].
  • <!--Nov 2--> In baseball, the [[Kansas City Royals]] defeat the [[New York Mets]] to win the '''[[2015 World Series|World Series]]'''. <!--
Those dates are the dates when the event occurred, not the date when posted. So, we've always done this. Because space is at a premium, we don't have the space to date every single entry on the main page, but the events are posted chronologically, and the dates are included as hidden comments so we can keep them in chronological order. Uncommenting the dates would be a bad idea, probably because it would add unnecessary text to a page already pretty crowded. --Jayron32 21:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[]
If the average reader can't see the dates, they are effectively not there. --Khajidha (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Why does the average reader need to see them? --Jayron32 00:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]
This entire conversation is why. People look at the list and see no obvious organization and become confused or upset about the apparent promotion of one story over another. --Khajidha (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I think you're a bit confused. People =/= you. Your personal experiences are not generalizable to all of humanity. You may want to take some time to learn that. --Jayron32 03:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I'm not the one who started the conversation. I'm not the one who was complaining about the confusion in the first place. I'm not any of the ones who have come here with the same complaint over and over and over and over. I'm just pointing out that telling them it's in chronological order is much less useful than actually having it shown to be in chronological order. --Khajidha (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]
So, create a proposal. Start a new thread, file it as an WP:RFC, invite people to reach a consensus on it. If you want to cause change to happen at Wikipedia, for goodness sake, actually take the steps to make it change. I am not the king of ITN. I have no power to change anything. The community does. Ask the community formally, when everyone agrees with your good idea, it becomes a change to Wikipedia. --Jayron32 03:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]

It's all moved on since the original complaint. As is the nature of ITN. Move on. (Oh, and adding dates would just reduce the limited space already available, so that's plainly absurd). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Moved on - at your convenience, until the next time this issue comes up again, at which point you will again not address the issue and say it's all moved on again. Pathetic, Rambling Man. Pathetic. (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Indeed, the complaints are somewhat pathetic. They come and go and the complainants do nothing but wring their hands and sit, waiting for the next coincidental odd loading of ITN to bring out the hatchets once again. Propose a solution, don't just identify a problem. Ideas such as splitting ITN into two columns plainly can't work, there simply isn't the real estate on the main page. People need to be sensible, make sensible suggestions and get consensus. All we see here from time to time are people whinging and griping and then not doing anything, claiming "well I tried once, and nothing happened, so obviously the system is broken and I'm not going to do anything other than complain about it". Helpful, IP, helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]

We know ITN is not ideal. If no-one has a sensible suggestion to improve things, this conversation is pretty much done. --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]

There is a very sensible suggestion: add the date in front of each item. I will be looking over the instructions on how to make a formal proposal this evening, I just don't have time to do it before then. --Khajidha (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Not at all, in fact it's a terrible suggestion. It will eat up valuable space needed for blurbs. And how do you date an event that takes place over more than one day? Is it the start date, the end date? And how do our readers know? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[]
WP readers should understand that ITN is not, and never will be, a straightforward, timely news summary. It's a compendium of topical articles that have been created or updated on the basis of recent news stories, and which are thought by WP users to be significant. Its contents evolve more slowly than that of mainline news sites. (That's why it's called In the News – not "The Latest News.")
Wikipedia has no news-gathering resources of its own. If it's breaking news you want, go to a news site: BBC, Reuters, AP, etc. Sca (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Chinese and Taiwanese Presidents

According to our news brief, the Chinese and Taiwanese presidents previously met during the Chinese Civil War?? Also, why is "Presidents" capitalized? It looks illiterate. H. Humbert (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Agree with the first point - the thing about "for the first time since..." is very unclear - why not just "for the first time"? The position of "President" in the PRC didn't even exist in 1949. ansh666 21:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Next time, try WP:ERRORS for a more timely response. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Recent deaths

Please add German former chancellor Helmut Schmidt to the main page. --Constructor 14:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[]

You can post support at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Helmut Schmidt. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Thank you, I was not aware of that page as I am almost only in DE-Wikipedia. --Constructor 14:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[]


At the moment, Talk and Contributions appear at the top of the screen as clickable links even when I'm not logged in, but of course don't work because I'm not logged in. An oddity that appeared recently and can presumably be made to disappear too? Awien (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[]

This is a question to ask at village pump (technical). Modest Genius talk 12:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Thanks, Modest Genius (whose name I've always enjoyed). Awien (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[]
It's supposed to be ironic / self-contradictory. Modest Genius talk 13:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Thought so . . . Awien (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[]
"Talk" and "Contributions" links were recently added for users who are not logged in. They do work and go to the IP address of the user. Maybe your current IP address has no talk page and no contributions (if you are logged in when you edit then your contributions don't show on the IP address). See User talk: and Special:Contributions/ for examples of how they can look. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I see. Thanks! Awien (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Ella (Viva Pinata)

Hi, what is Ella's official last name? Some page's and database's say it: Ellaphanilla. And some say it: Elephanilla. Which is official?--Maxie1hoi (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. -- (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[]
@Maxie1hoi: As I asked on your talk page, please stop using this page for random questions. Future questions will be removed. Thanks. — foxj 16:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Request fast closure of merge tag on ITN article

The page Talk:International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks appears to show consensus against merging. I believe an uninvolved admin should declare consensus, close the proposal, and remove the merge tag from the top of the ITN article page November 2015 Paris attacks due to the high prominence of the article on ITN. -- Callinus (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[]

This has been closed. Sorry. -- Callinus (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[]

In the news

Not the correct venue for personal attacks --Jayron32 15:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The wording is accurate and does not use buzzwords like "terrorism" to describe the incidents. This is a neutral stance and objective to conveying information. Allen750 (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[]

You're out of your mind. The lead ITN now says "Shootings and explosions in Paris cause..." Sorry, WTF? Shootings and explosions don't just happen by themselves. This is about as non-neutral and inaccurate as an ITN blurb can get. There's no natural phenomenon known as "shooting and explosions". Whoever wrote this should permanently retire and ask for their account to be blocked, because this is a travesty. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Edits not editors ... Art LaPella (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Viriditas is clearly having a bad day/week/month/life and needs to attempt to humiliate others while curiously just humiliating himself. The pathetic wailing and screeching here, there and everywhere is a triumph of histrionics, the like of which I haven't seen on Wikipedia for a decade. I suggest Viriditas permanently retires and ask for his account to be blocked, because his terrible waste of server storage is a travesty. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Edits not editors ... Art LaPella (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[]

In the news 2

What happened to headline about the lady winning a wrestling tournament/match? It was the latest article earlier but now the Paris Attack is top of the news section again.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 20:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[]

See WP:ITNC for the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[]

No such thing as bad publicity

This isn't going to turn into a productive conversation. BencherliteTalk 11:08, 18 November 2015 (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.

4 of the 6 "In the News" stories are about ISIS. Their PR team must be beaming. (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Giving anyone "PR" is not a consideration of any content on Wikipedia. We deal with what the news gives us, assuming a suitable article is nominated regarding it. That said, if you disagree with what is posted, I invite you to participate in discussions at WP:ITNC to help decide what is posted. 331dot (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Who said anything about disagreeing? I'm just saying I bet there's a lot of high-fiving going on in a desert somewhere. (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Feel free to head to WP:ITN/C and suggest some other stories for us to run. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2015 (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.


How come there hasn't been 'the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth' about "that reference book" appearing on the MP? (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Just in case the question is serious: of course the "wailers" are waiting for another nude picture or the like. Art LaPella (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[]
For anyone confused, yesterday's TFA was Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies. I'm pleased to see it didn't generate any complaints (at least not here). Maybe readers appreciate that it's possible to cover such topics in an encyclopaedic manner. Modest Genius talk 12:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I'm sure there will be an enquiry at the highest level into the failure to produce the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[]
As your newly-elected representative at the Benevolent Association of Wikipedia Teeth Gnashers, Wailers and Whiners (BAWTGWW) I apologize that this slipped through the cracks, and I assure you that we will do everything we can to insure that we remain a reliable source of drama and melodrama. Wikipedia readers are our precious little flowers who must be protected from anything that might upset their delicate sensibilities. BTW, while we are on the topic of precious little flowers. can we talk about all of the disturbing content concerning flowers? Folks, those are sexual organs and we just display high resolution images of them to titillate perverts! Is it too much to ask that all images of flowers be properly clothed or at least blurred? Think of the children! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Sometimes it seems to be 'think of the adults of a nervous disposition!' (and possibly 'think of the keyboard/screen at tea-break-and-crumbly-biscuit time!'). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I often come to the Main Page Talk Page to see what I've missed (I don't get chance to log on often enough!), and I love the gems it throws up. Very interesting article, I'd never have seen it had people not-not complained! -11:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

On this day...Anwar Sadat was the first arab head of state to make an official visit to Israel

I think this should be add to "On this day..." section --Midrashah (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]

It was in 1977 --Midrashah (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Here are the rules for such additions. Art LaPella (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Proposal for Good and Featured Articles

I think I might have an idea. Put Today's Featured Article on the very top of the Main Page with the box as width-stretched or something in resemblance to Today's Featured Picture or Today's Featured List. Then put Good Articles in placement of current version of TFA. Has this been proposed before? --George Ho (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC) []

Or maybe put Good Article box on very top resembling TFP and TFL? --George Ho (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
(By the way, withdrawing proposal. --George Ho (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC))[]

Inclusion of GAs have been proposed several times, including in 2008, 2010, and 2011. All of them have not gained consensus. The common objection I have seen is that the Main Page should not showcase "middle ground", "intermediate", "second best" articles relative to FAs. Another objection I have seen is that an article can be promoted to GA solely by a single reviewer, whereas there is formal discussion and polling on WP:ITN/C, T:TDYK, WP:FAC, WP:FLC, and WP:FPC. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]
How is DYK process polling? It's just at least one reviewer and another promoting or rejecting. --George Ho (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Fixed. I did not mean to put T:TDYK there. What I meant to add was that I vaguely remember to have seen a proposal to add GAs to the DYK section and have it go though a similar T:TDYK process to have it added to the main page (similar to how WP:TFA/R is separate from WP:FAC itself, and how WP:OTD is also selected by only a couple of people), but I don't remember where that discussion is archived. In any case, at least DYK is based on new or recently improved articles, and OTD is based on topics and events that have anniversaries for a particular day, so they have other specific purposes to be featured on the main page. I think the primary objection is that there is no clear point in having an FA juxtaposed with an GA. If there is a desire to advertise GAs on the main page so they can be improved to FAs, I think the perennial proposal to get WP:TAFI on here should be approved instead. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Are you aware that having an article promoted to GA is now one of the ways of getting it featured as a DYK? Richerman (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Terrorist label

In the Paris attacks it says it is a terrorist attack. If I'm not mistaken WP has a policy against using the term (and other loaded terms) without attribution, even if they have been called that in RS. 'coordinated attacks' is better than 'coordinated terrorist attacks' as it avoids the term. Hollth (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Duck test applies.--WaltCip (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]
We are referring to the nature of the attacks, hence it is not judgmental language. TFD (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]

I don't want to sound like your 7th-grade English teach Miss Snodgrass

... but when I logged in just now the following notice appeared

A request for comment has been opened to discuss user groups which could be granted to arbitrators. For example, assigning the administrator user group to non-administrators elected to the Arbitration Committee. All editors are encouraged to provide their input. [dismiss]

Howzabout if we do without the sentence fragments on main-page announcements? EEng (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]

I agree. Even a hyphen between "arbitrators" and "for example" would suffice to eliminate the grammar gaucherie.--WaltCip (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Again not wanting to sound like Miss Snodgrass, but that would be not a hyphen but a dash (either {{mdashb}} or {{snd}}). EEng (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Your arguments seem compelling, if somewhat insular. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]
The real Miss Snodgrass would have written "English teacher Miss Snodgrass" instead of "English teach Miss Snodgrass". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Thus I achieved my goal of not sounding like her. EEng (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Mr M'Choakumchild, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC) []
Stop calling me Shirley EEng (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Space for "In the news"

Just a quick query, sometimes ITN has to become the fall guy and remove items to balance the main page up, usually because DYK has created an imbalance. It's odd to me that ITN (usually) has by far the smallest section of the main page when it's most likely to be the section that attracts passers by. Currently, there are some editors rejecting perfectly newsworthy stories because ITN doesn't have the real estate to cope with the recent surge in successful nominations. Clearly it's not something ITN can handle locally as it impacts the balance of the main page (something which It think I've only ever seen ITN editors being concerned about, by the way). I'm not looking to upset the apple cart, but I'd be interested in hearing if we could get some kind of consensus to allow ITN to expand a bit, even if that means we expand the TFA blurb, OTD and DYK sections. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[]

I've been known to drop an OTD item from time to time if it is exceedingly longer than ITN, in order to balance white space. --Jayron32 03:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[]
OTD definitely has sacrificed an item occasionally for balance in the past. I don't think it's been done recently (maybe once in the last year?), though. howcheng {chat} 00:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[]
It's a little unfair to say that only ITN is interested in the balance of the main page. A certain former TFA coordinator (cough) did his utmost to ensure that the number of characters in the TFA blurb did not vary greatly from day to day, precisely because this was the best way to ensure that the TFA section took up a relatively predictable amount of space. Of course, sometimes we had images and sometimes we did not, which added some variation in size, but otherwise I don't recall systemic problems. My understanding is that the present team of TFA coordinators also aim for consistency of length where possible. Sometimes ITN stories are long, sometimes they are short, and so there is inevitable variation there too. BencherliteTalk 00:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Hey The Rambling Man! I'm totally with you on this. (Nice change :) ) Bencherlite, I don't think Rambling Man is suggesting that ITN is the only group that tries to limit their content for overall balance. If I'm following him right, I think he's saying they wind up giving up space more often, or disproportionately. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
I have never delved into editing or discussing the main page before, but I just want to say that the only thing I usually look at is ITN, and I look it over every time I open WP. On rare occasions I will look at TFA, but it is usually something that does not capture my interest. (That's not a criticism. I just have my own interests. I support the TFA section 100% because it shows the world the quality we are consistently producing.) On even rarer occasions I look over OTD and DYK, but only if I'm kinda bored, which is, well, very rare. When I come to WP, I have a purpose in mind, and it's not to look over nice-to-know stuff. Again, we should have that stuff, but this one user's primary use of main page content (and distraction from why I opened WP) is ITN. I am totally in favor of giving ITN more prominence. However, my primary use of the main page itself is to enter search terms to get somewhere else. Dcs002 (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I make the call on the length of the daily TFA column. Nowadays I work hard to aim for around 1150 characters (with rare exceptions), although if there's a Featured Topic, that adds at least two lines on screens of any width, so that adds some variation. So ... it's not just ITN people who care about this issue, I put a lot of effort into not jerking ITN around on column length, even though that constraint makes my job harder. If you guys need more consistency in TFA column length than you're getting, the way to do that would be for me to stop adding extra blank lines whenever there's a Featured Topic, and combine it with the "(Full article...)" notice. (I suggested that once before, and it was rejected on grounds of aesthetics. I don't care either way ... I'm just saying that if you need more consistency, that's the obvious way to do it.) Image captions also add some variability to TFA column length. I wouldn't be okay with upping the TFA character count to, say, 1500, just to give ITN more space ... 1150 works best. But you can always move the dividing line to the left, to give fewer characters on each TFA line and more characters on each ITN line. (Of course, that creates issues of where the dividing line is between DYK and OTD.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Ok, well ITN seems to suffer the most, perhaps we could discuss the idea of making the main page a little longer so ITN could host, say, six or seven stories – DYK post 8 hooks every 12 hours and OTD blurbs are quite verbose, so it would be nice to allow the timely section of the main page a little more real estate. Is there a problem with extending the main page down a couple of text rows? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[]

TFA section "By email" link

I've been doing this thing for more than ten years and I've just noticed something called "By email" in the TFA section. Does this actually work, do we have statistics that suggest this is a helpful link? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Pinging list administrators Rjd0060 and Matthewrbowker who might be able to tell us how many live email addresses are subscribed? Stephen 23:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[]
The archives suggest the articles (well I think all content that is part of the list) are emailed everyday [5]. I haven't tried to subscribe but I presume the list is working properly as I'm fairly sure some of discussion lists host on the same server are used. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Yes, I am subscribed to this and it is still active. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC).[]
Hi. Yes, the mailing list "works" as evidenced by the archives. It is advertised on the main page of this wiki, as well as the English Wiktionary and other sites. As of this writing there are 35,451 subscribers (!). If you have any other questions feel free to ask. Or better yet - subscribe! Rjd0060 (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Very helpful, thanks. I can't believe it's taken me over a decade to notice it....! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I'm astounded that so many people are signed up. Good to know, and obviously someone finds it useful! Modest Genius talk 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[]
People really do love the list. We get a lot of feedback. It has been growing year after year since I took it over back in October 2008. Rjd0060 (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Excellent. Thanks for your work with it. Modest Genius talk 12:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Really happy to hear that, Rjd, where can I find the feedback? - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Dank, it is non-public, unfortunately. The messages have a reply-to address which leads to an OTRS queue where I and a couple of other users monitor traffic. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Okay, thanks for shouldering that workload, and let me know if there's anything I can do. - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[]

WP:VPT#Section-specific notifications

In today's TFA, I missed that someone added errors two hours before the deadline. (One was deleting "in 1924"; the other wasn't an error, really, it was adding a second Featured Topic that wasn't necessary, since it was contained in the other Featured Topic. Per the discussion two sections above, people like consistency in the length of the TFA column.) So I did some thinking about why I missed it, why I'm checking my watchlist less often than I used to ... and I think it's because, 99 times out of 100, edits to WP:ERRORS don't have anything to do with TFA. So I posted at the link above at Village Pump/Technical, asking if anyone knows of a way to code a bot to ping me when there's a change to just one section ... follow the link to see how far I got with that. I guess all I've got left is ... it would be really helpful if people who check ERRORS regularly would ping me (by adding [[User:Dank|]] or something) whenever there's a comment in the TFA section ... even if it's trivial, especially if it's trivial (because I need to know if I'm missing stuff, trivial or not). This probably won't be burdensome; there are few reports to ERRORS/TFA these days. I understand if no one is willing to do it, but if someone is, I'd be much obliged. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[]

@Dank: - is this something that can be covered by an edit notice? Mjroots (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[]
It would have to be a section-specific edit notice (and I don't think those exist). TFA is a relatively small part of what goes on at ERRORS; I don't think TFA-specific instructions (particularly ones with a username attached) would be welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Okay, I got a ping just last night. (Thanks Jenks!) I've also submitted a bot request at WP:BOTREQ#Pinging when a "task" section is edited. If I don't get a response there, I'll start begging. This is a problem for anyone who frequently checks one small section of a busy page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[]
This looks like a case for Flow, though I'm not sure it will work too well in the case of ERRORS. Eman235/talk 20:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[]

Renaming the page

I think this page should be called the 'Front Page' as there is nothing 'Main' about it. opinions? (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[]

There's isn't anything 'front' about it either. (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[]
Perhaps "Landing Page"?
Perhaps "Glad you made, stay a while page"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[]
It IS the main page. If you click the icon on any page you come here.Correctron (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[]
We could call it The Front Page and provide a link to the eponymous flick. Emblem-cool.svg Sca (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[]
I see no practical benefit. It is like trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I personally don't care what it's called (surprised no one suggested "Home") as long as I get here the same way I always do. There are articles that need our help, and I think that's a more productive way to spend our time. That's my $0.02 Dcs002 (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[]
"Main Page" is a MediaWiki thing. This is a MediaWiki wiki, hence the homepage is called the "Main Page". - dcljr (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[]

No picture in ITN?


there is now. Next time, use WP:ERRORS to report these things for more prompt resolution (as this had been done by someone else) --Jayron32 19:32, 1 December 2015 (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.

Seems like it would be easy enough to take a picture from Andy Murray and attach it to the first hook. Eman235/talk 01:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[]

Suggestions go to WP:ITN/C, please. -- (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Sometimes the best picture of all is one painted by your imagination.--WaltCip (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[] -- I have questioned here. Eman235/talk 06:04, 1 December 2015 (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.

That donation pop-up is really, really, really annoying. - (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[]

If you create an account you can shut it off permanently when you are logged in. --Jayron32 17:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[]
One doesn't always wish to sign in (the usual quick check of something) - and eg the IP of one of the library systems I use is blocked from creating new accounts. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[]
You can often create an account on a different computer and use it all over the world on most IP addresses (even if account creation is blocked). Also, if account creation is blocked, you can still get an account created for you, and log in and start editing right away. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Request an account Also, in the very rare cases where an IP address has been blocked to disallow logged in editing, even with an established account, you can request an IP Block Exemption. Instructions are at WP:IPBE. Ultimately, there is no real barrier, beyond the effort to create an account and remember a password, to editing while logged in. If there are technical issues, every single one of them can be overcome with a onetime request in the correct place. --Jayron32 17:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[]
The discussion about the banner happens a few days in to every such appeal

There are various reasons why one might not be signed in - and the banner is 'a great big thing which keeps on coming back' (and WP seems to assume that only those not signed in will contribute to its running costs). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[]

One issue we should consider is the trade-off between "getting the message out" that we need money and pissing off the people who would be giving us that money. The way the donation banner is currently implemented is presumably trying to do the former at the expense of doing the latter. - (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[]
There seems to be a slight contradiction with 'sign in to avoid seeing this appeal for your money.' (I am not against such appeals - but those of us who do sign in are more likely to support Wikipedia/the Wikiverse in general.) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[]
You got that right. Wikipedia is always asking for money.
Servers do not pay for themselves. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]

Frank Sinatra

A rather Frank Sinatra day for DYK?, isn't it? GamerPro64 04:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]

See apophenia. Come back if you don't understand that article. --Jayron32 04:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]
See rude, incorrect and unhelpful. Come back if you don't understand those articles. Apologies to the OP for the behaviour above. Fgf10 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Yes, apologies, @GamerPro64:. That was rude of me, and you deserved better. I have no defense for my actions, and I apologize for them unequivocally. Fgf10 is correct, I was rude and unhelpful. I am sorry that I did that. --Jayron32 22:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]
  • I guess he's having it his way. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]
    • It's the 100th anniversary of his birth. Obviously a group of editors have got together to find a way to celebrate that. Well done to them, I say. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]
      • All day! Sinatrapedia if you will. ;) I think this might be the first time it's happened although it has always been out there in theory for DYK at least. Miyagawa (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]
        • A wonderful idea. I think that the people at WP:DYK deserve much props for that. I wish we did more things like that on the main page. --Jayron32 22:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Any chance somebody could take a screenshot of the main page and upload it? The folks at WMUK will likely use it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Like this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Yes, thanks Gerda! It would be good if somebody could take an actual screenshot of that from 0:00 -12:00 and the current one 12:00- 24 as there's two sets of DYKS. It would be great to remember the full Sinatra Day.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]*/ makes many snapshots each day, currently 14,526 in total. I'm confident they will get the second Sinatra set. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]

@Nikkimaria:, do you know somebody who could take screenshots of people page versions today?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]

Dr B, is PrimeHunter's suggestion what you're looking for? If not, I'm not sure what you mean. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Perhaps an attempt to prevent MP talk page blanking? Jackiespeel (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[]

Redirects to the Main Page

When you visit a redirect to the Main Page, such as Main page (with a lowercase "p"), "Redirected from" is not shown. A change in August 2014 made the URL change to the target for a redirect, so that would make it harder to find the title of the redirect page. You will have to retype the URL with "redirect=no" appended. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[]

According to MediaWiki talk:Vector.css#display: none for contentSub, "Redirected from" is hidden on purpose. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[]

Protected edit request on 16 December 2015

Please replace [[Category:Protected redirects]] with {{R fully protected}}. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[]

I used {{redr}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[]

licence ...

Hello good health ... with your permission I have some templates I used Wikipedia English to laki Wikipedia ...Best wishes for your health --Hosseinblue (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[]

My guess is that you are using some English Wikipedia templates on a Wikipedia for the Laki dialect, which may or may not be the same as Gilaki Wikipedia. Yes, you may copy English Wikipedia templates, and use them for another language Wikipedia. Art LaPella (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[]

thank you mr.. no lak difrent than gilaki ...--Hosseinblue (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[]

Errors in the summary of the language section

When I enter the main page of English wikipedia, the Kurdish section(kurdî) seems like it isn't found, please can you solve it or tell me the reason?--Dilyaramude (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[]

Because, according to [6], it has c.20,000 articles, and the lists at the foot of the Main Page say that they only list Wikipedias with 50,000 articles+ --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[]


The 'general discussion' section has been blank for 2-3 days - either the MP has not managed to catch people's attention or the archive bot has been too zealous. Which? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[]

The bot is supposed to leave a minimum of two threads on this page, but it doesn't appear to be happening ([7]). The main page error report probably counts as one thread (even if empty), but I would still expect to see one thread remaining. Pinging @Σ:, the bot's owner, to see if he can explain this. Optimist on the run (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Why do we need threads here at all? If there is nothing to discuss, why do we need to keep viewing stale discussions? --Jayron32 16:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[]
One reason is that it shows newbies where to post questions. When faced with a blank page they may feel they are in the wrong place. Optimist on the run (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Could have added 'or some glitch' to my question.

The nature of the main page is that it generates an intermittent discussion on one component or another - so if there is 'persistent blankness' something is off-kilter. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[]

I don't agree that persistent blankness indicates that something is wrong. Often there is nothing about the main page that needs comment. Many new user postings here are spam (quickly removed), or in the wrong place anyway (there's a big box that tells you where you want to go for most things that is often apparently invisible). Nevertheless I've upped the minimum threads from 2 to 3 on the basis that the "main page error reports" and "general discussion" level-1 headings both probably count as threads for the bot's purpose. BencherliteTalk 17:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Jayron likes to remove threads he personally dislikes. Doesn't seem to care about discussion at all. Correctron (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[]
That's an interesting accusation. Could you link to a diff of me removing a thread from this page? --Jayron32 12:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[]
You mean like how you cleared out a thread recently after accusing people of MRAs because it was pointed out that the outrage at only one sex being represented was non-existent?Correctron (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[]
I have no memory of this event. Could you include some diffs of me removing such a thread? --Jayron32 16:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[]
From Correctron's description, the closest thing I can find is this thread [8]. Problem for Correctron is four fold.

One, the thread was closed by Jayron32, but not removed as "cleared out" would seem to imply.

Two, such closures ultimately only strongly discourage further discussion. It wasn't even a hatting, so the thread was still perfectly visible. If editors felt after reading the rationale there was still something relevant to discuss on T:MP, or the closure was otherwise unwarranted or improprer, they were free to reverse it, or just continue the discussion, as happened to a minor extent anyway [9]. Such editors may find themselves sanctioned if they keep continuing discussions long past their prime, just as editors who inappropriately close discussions may find themselves, but that's their responsibility for not understanding community norms not the fault of the closure.

These lead to 3, namely that the discussion wasn't removed/cleared out until over 5 days later by the bot due to inactivity [10]. Note that the discussion was also significantly longer than many T:MP discussions.

Four, and the biggest problem with the complaint here is that while there was some comments there that some people may find offensive, no one accused anyone of being a MRA.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[]

Subjectively one accepts that 'the bots' will occasionally 'get ahead of themselves' with the discussions, and that most entries on the MP will excite no particular comment (but are likely to elicit traffic to the various pages in question) - but if the talk page is empty for longer than a day one wonders if there is a glitch or something. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[]
A solution which was used in some printed technical manuals (and may still be for all I know) was to include the self-contradictory phrase "This page intentionally left blank" on pages which would otherwise have nothing on them. Can "There are no discussions at present" or similar be automatically displayed when this section would otherwise contain nothing, thus preventing the impression that Something is Wrong. Bazza (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Why is this even a problem? The error reports sections often have nothing in them, but people seem to be able to figure them out when they are blank. Do people really have more difficulty figuring it out when the General Discussion section is empty? Isn't the purpose of the "edit source" links to show you where to click to add something? I see no reason to leave old discussions up when they are no longer active. If that leaves the section empty, so what? --Khajidha (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[]
For the record, MediaWiki also has an intentionally blank page: Special:BlankPage. It displays MediaWiki:Intentionallyblankpage so it could really be blanked if wanted. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[]
The point I was making is that it is 'somewhat unusual' for the MP talk page to be totally blank, especially for more than a day; and there #are# occasional glitches with pages - and there should be some entries which promote discussion (but not necessarily complaints). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[]

The Funding banner

... is annoyingly large. (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[]

It is indeed. See this recent discussion. Create an account. Bear with the WMF until the New Year. Hit the little "X". Contact the WMF if it really bothers you. Eman235/talk 17:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[]

non sequitur

On the main page for December 23, 2015, there was a blurb about James Battersby believing Hitler was Jesus "despite" Battersby's father having died on the Lusitania. The article on Battersby doesn't connect these two issues at all, correctly showing that the Lusitania went down in 1915. Unless I missed something actually in the article, none of the sources about Battersby quotes him as making any connection. This sort of attention grabbing misquote is what I expect of tabloids and doesn't help promote Wikipedia as a reliable source. (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[]

While I'd concur with the IP, too late to do anything about it at this point.--WaltCip (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[]

Edit reason for deleted articles...?

Didn't there used to be a edit reason plainly listed after a deleted page was gone? Now there's nothing. Why was this change implemented?

Do you have an example? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[]
For anonymous (not logged in) users, the deletion log is only shown for articles recently deleted if they are visited. (The log can be displayed by following the link where it says "If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log". For logged in editors, the deletion log is always shown. — xaosflux Talk 12:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[]
This page is for discussing the content and layout of the Main Page; general questions should be asked at the Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[]