This is an archive of past discussions about Main Page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The bit on the Academy Awards currently reads; "Argo wins Best Picture and Daniel Day-Lewis a record third Best Actor at the 85th Academy Awards.". Would "Argo wins 'Best Picture' and Daniel Day-Lewis a record third 'Best Actor' Award at the 85th Academy Awards." as i feel the current version is a little confusing, as it could easily be read as him being the 3rd best actor of 2012. --Jonie148 (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe we are teetering on a dispute at this point. If we cannot get this implemented we should probably inform the general community and begin the Dispute Resolution process. If this can be avoided it would be nice, if not I am prepared to begin with a request for formal mediation as I believe this is something that needs a binding resolution. Arbcom is also a possiblity. I see no reason why this is being held up at this point. Thoughts?--Amadscientist (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
In the mainpage section the National Day in Kuwait is marked in 1950. Well, a friend of mine from kuwait says this should be 1961 instead. Can someone take a look at it? Thanks. --Dps04 (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The best possibility for this is to nominate it at WP:DYK, but the article, as yet, does not meet standards for that section. You'll need to do some work on it to get it there. --Jayron3205:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
So you've found a two line article written by someone else, added a few catagories and some co-ordinates then changed your mind and removed two of the categories. What credit would you like exactly? Richerman(talk)14:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Ha, this is delicious. I'm actually surprised someone hasn't turned this into an FA yet. It's new, it's fresh, it's all over the internets, it has a Twitter account--what's not to love? Drmies (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
On the news
Wrong: Nicos Anastasiades is elected president of Cyprus.
This is the English language Wikipedia. There is not a single English-speaking country in the world which recognises "Northern Cyprus" as a genuine country. 78.144.247.57 (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Diplomatic recognition isn't really the issue here, language usage is. A better way of putting it meight be that "Cyprus" is the common English usage for referring to the Republic of Cyprus -- but it can't hurt to use the more exact term, which is politically neutral from every viewpoint. So let's do that. -- The Anome (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems incredible to me that yet again a featured article in an international encyclopaedia about a place in the US can manage to completely ignore stating the country involved. There is a mention that Fort Dobbs is on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places in the infobox and on a template at the bottom of the page, but nowhere in the main body of the text is the US mentioned. This is an endemic problem with Wikipedia - American authors view the US as the default and rarely bother to state the country or nationality when the topic is American. The US is not the default option. It is not and should not be, and I find it incredible that a featured article is yet again following this US-centric attitude in its editing. 'Of course it's in the US, you all should know that' seems to be the attitude. 86.133.208.39 (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) Fort Dobbs was not in the United States. There was no such thing as the United States during the time it existed. The fort was "in" the Province of North Carolina. If you would like to propose a wording to clarify something you were confused about (like "in what is now the United States", or "one of the British colonies in North America", or whatever), please do so. It doesn't really help to assume other peoples' motives. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Why are we only mentioning the winner of third best actor and not the first and second best? (Just kidding of course, but the phrasing is odd and I did read it like this at first). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 14:00, 25 February 2013
Note this has been mentioned briefly above. I find the links help a lot, but if it's still unclear for you do you have any suggestions for improving it? —Noiratsi (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
"..and Daniel Day Lewis wins (the award for) Best actor for a (record-breaking) third time." and then move "at the 85th academy awards" to the front of the sentence. The stuff in parentheses can be left out. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·14:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, is it just me, or does the wording infer that Day-Lewis won the award for "Argo"?
As the main part of the flag is white and the background is white, an edging would be useful - and this would probably apply to other 'images with white towards the edges.' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Adding a border to all images (in whatever colour their section's title is bordered in) would prevent this from happening in the future. Bazza (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I suppose so, but superfluous borders can be aesthetically undesirable too. And I don't know why we'd want to use blue, green, purple and pink borders instead of the standard grey border (which I just added to the Japanese flag image, incidentally). —David Levy13:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the gray border is a huge improvement without being too intrusive. Before, having not really read the OTD entries, I was just left wondering why there was a red circle on the main page...
I suggested a coloured border as I thought this would give the best contrast between the image and its background (in the same way that, I assume, the title border colours were picked. If the grey used works well on all the (current) backgrounds, then it's served its purpose, and thank you for adding it. I don't understand why such a border on all illustrative images within the four/five/six sections of the main page would be a problem? Bazza (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Aesthetically, the inclusion of a superfluous border is only marginally less bad than the omission of a useful one is, so it's preferable to manually add borders to the relatively few images that stand to benefit from them. —David Levy17:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
(reset) This is not only a flag-related issue - but 'something like' [1] would resolve the matter when there is little or no colour differentiation between image and text. Taking one triplet of flags, given the rest of the flag the eye will automatically add the lines for Argentina's flag, no border is necessary for Azerbaijan, but one will be needed for Algeria. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Benedict XVI
... should be 'In the News' under the circumstances.
Bradley Manning pleading guilty to multiple charges in the WikiLeaks case on Feb. 28 certainly should be in "In the News" on English Wiki, IMO. I note, BTW, that he's in German Wiki's In den Nachrichten (In the News) today, March 1. Sca (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Highbury by Ivor Game (entry in wikipedia in section songs about London)
Dear Robert.
Hello and thank you very much for your reply.
That's great news and thank you.
All I ask is can you amend the listing ?
Currently it says
""Highbury" from the Happy Face album."
but it should really say
"Highbury" by Ivor Game ?
or
"Highbury" by Ivor Game from the Happy Face album."
Or something that has got my name on it ? for searching purposes.
I am Ivor Game and album the song is from is called Happy Face.
But thank you again. That's very good news that
it's up there and might help it build a profile now.
All the best,
Ivor
Ivor Game
Hello Ivor,
You've posted this message on the talk page for Wikipedia's Main page. This page is mainly meant for discussions about the things on the main page. It sounds like you were in contact with a user called Robert, who may not necessarily be reading this page. You might want to post your comment at the specific talk page for the article you're talking about, at Talk:List of songs about London#Highbury, or on the talk page of the user that you were in contact with. Best of luck! —Noiratsi (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Positioning of images
It looks strange when images are placed adjacent to unrelated items. For example, today we have "1560 – The Treaty of Berwick was signed..." next to a picture of the Japanese flag. I think images should be placed next to the items they illustrate. It seems common sense. 86.181.174.63 (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand that explanation. Why would putting the image in the correct place "interfere with the formatting on those other pages"? Anyway, which is worse, interfering with formatting on some pages nobody has ever heard of, or having confusing layout on the Main Page that millions of people look at every day? 86.181.174.63 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
"interfere with the formatting on those other pages"?
For example, in a layout with increased width and decreased height, lower image placement might cause the image to extend below the text.
Anyway, which is worse, interfering with formatting on some pages nobody has ever heard of, or having confusing layout on the Main Page that millions of people look at every day?
The matter has been discussed on numerous occasions. (You're welcome to search the archives, as requested at the top of the page.) There is no consensus that the current practice (from which deviation would require significant effort on an ongoing basis) is incorrect or confusing. —David Levy14:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
This has been a perennial proposal, but I haven't remembered encountering a section of a website with format like the sections of the Main Page (bulleted list with a thumbnail) where the thumbnail of a section is not at the top right corner. It just doesn't looks good. However, unlike those, Wikipedia doesn't have free pictures for every conceivable subject... –HTD17:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It looks even less good to have pictures next to completely unrelated items. I also question the claim that it would take "significant effort on an ongoing basis" to put images in the correct place. I think this needs reconsidering. 86.181.174.63 (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I also question the claim that it would take "significant effort on an ongoing basis"
How, other than by manually relocating the heretofore-static image transclusion code (and hopefully not breaking something in the process) do you propose shifting the image's position? Or do you regard that effort (which would fall on us, not you) as insignificant?
to put images in the correct place.
Again, you're begging the question. The matter has been discussed many times, with no consensus that the current layout is incorrect or that a different one would be better.
I think this needs reconsidering.
On what basis? Have you spotted flaws in the previous discussions? Do you have any new arguments or proposals to present? —David Levy19:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, I do really think, on the FAQ, that "Changing the placement of the images may interfere with the formatting on those other pages" reads like the feeblest of reasons for not doing this. There is no reason obvious to the reader why putting the image next to the related item should not merely also cause it to appear next to the related item on those other pages. In any case, the paramount concern should be to get the Main Page looking right. Other pages will have to adapt if necessary. 86.181.174.63 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Without "(pictured)" this should be a crime, but with it, it is more of an annoyance of not expecting what you were expecting.
I've previously suggested highlighting the text w/o either moving the related text to the top or moving the thumb level with the related text, but seeing that no reputable website does that, probably the best solutions are (in order of happening to won't happen):
Status quo
Image captions (too small of a space?)
Putting the related blurb of the thumbnail at the top like this:
Blurb related to the thumb.
Newest blurb
Next newest blurb
Oldest blurb
Fine line between "ZOMG I saw "(PICTURED)"" and "That "(PICTURED)" distracted me" (this won't happen).
"Changing the placement of the images may interfere with the formatting on those other pages" is also a valid reason. These sections are transcluded elsewhere, and more people are viewing Wikipedia from tablets and it'll not look good if the thumb is at the 2nd lowest blurb. –HTD18:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
What were the objections to captions, by the way? I would have though most images would be captionable in a small font without taking up an unreasonable amount of space. 86.148.153.245 (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Space issues, I guess? Thumb take up a lot of space. For example, --> Weeeeee stars –HTD18:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if you're seeing something different from me, but I would hardly say that takes up "a lot of space". If you want to save a few mm then I'm sure the border could be deleted. Also, even smaller font could be used. 86.176.210.235 (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
A line of caption might take away a line or two of text. Remember, the DYK box is a lot narrower than this talk page. This'll be "worse" if a long and narrow image is used (such as a map of Chile, which presumably won't be 100px).
Also, I dunno if captions are used in thumbs in other websites at all, save for the photo agency. –HTD06:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Something should finally be done to solve this annoying, dysfunctional graphics anomaly. (Don't ask untechie me what.) It's been a problem since Day One.Sca (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd support for positioning the images next to the relevant blurb. Every once in a while we do get pretty dissonant juxtapositions of image and text, and I think clarity is more important than the aesthetics of having each image in the same place in each box. I don't understand what the actual problem with transclusion or mobile devices is, but I'm sure someone could come up with a solution. For instance, we could have a different version of the boxes for those purposes, either in the current format or just without images. Lesgles (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
On mobile devices, or probably really old monitors, monitors with crazy resolutions, or just any plain monitor, if the thumb is aligned with the last bullet (Just as March 2's example on Wilt's 100-point game.), there'd be plenty of whitespace at the bottom. See for example, one of March 2's DYKs, with the image at the bottom :
... that the names of 3,500 "fans" will appear in the credits of a film promoting a brand of beer?
... that NGC 2467 (pictured) is also known as the "Skull and Crossbones nebula"?
^^ Massive white space. Note that when you're seeing it here, it's more spacious than the DYK box at the Main Page, and even less spacious in tablets (on mobiles, DYKs aren't shown lol) –HTD18:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Is there some way in that case to align the image with the bottom of the box? Either way, I still tend to think that not aligning the images is worse than having some whitespace. Or my second choice would be for captions; the size increase doesn't seem that big to me. Lesgles (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the fact some pages include this information in wide format sways me more towards captions. Pictures at the right of a wide-format list, where each item may only be one or two lines deep, are not very obviously associated with a specific item anyway, even if they are correctly aligned. 86.176.210.235 (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I posted a request at the Admin Noticeboard to close the proposal to implement, but no one came around. I can only assume that the absence of dissent is approval, so once the bot is approved we can implement immediately. And then, of course, field the thousands of objections from people who completely missed the numerous discussions about the change. --NickPenguin(contribs)01:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way, at Jimbos talkpage an editor was asking about the change to verifiablity and didn't know about that discussion either, but Jimbo made it clear the policy page was changed and he liked the new wording. Just not being aware of the discussion is no excuse to complain.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
And....that is one of the reasons I love Wikipedia so much. There is never any hurry. It can be a bit annoting but, it is still my favorite part!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have been visiting this page again and again. Why is it that articles on warlike events have been playing such a prominent role? Is this page produced by the military industrial complex? Ontologix (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Top DYK "the wildlife of Cameroon, considered one of the wettest parts of Africa, records Africa's second highest concentration of biodiversity" ? --ELEKHHT04:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
And that would be? (I'll agree that what's there now isn't perfect, but if you can't propose better wording, it's a bit mean just criticising.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
It is valid, not simply 'mean', to point out yet another example of the shoddy quality control that characterises DYK. People who pass such substandard blurbs should face censure, not gain the reward of having their own blurbs posted in return.
To retain the climatological observation, ... that Cameroon, one of the wettest parts of Africa, has Africa's second highest concentration of biodiversity? Wildlife is neither a wet part nor able to record biodiversity data, and rainfall is a matter of fact, not of perception. 06:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Kevin McE (talk)
"the wildlife of Cameroon, one of the wettest parts of Africa, has Africa's second highest recorded concentration of biodiversity"? Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
(Reset) Is the statement meant to convey to 'the casual reader' that there is a direct connection between the amount of moisture and the biodiversity? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, as the reviewer of the hook, I accept responsibility. I should have corrected the editor's choice of words. But a) it was late and I was getting sleepy, so I may not have seen this when I was focused on making sure it met the other criteria, and b) you'd be surprised how often a seemingly sensible change to a hook's wording draws a protest, that either there's some usage specific to the field in question that you were missing when you made the change and now it sounds ignorant, or the editor was new and now their feelings are hurt. So, while I have corrected the grammar of quite a few hooks, I don't make a crusade out of it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Sol Invictus and Jesus Christ
This concerns On this day. Whether Constantine the Great Converted to Christianity or not is an open historical question. It seems fairly evident that he wanted to be on good terms with both Christians and Pagans (again for belief or to consolidate power is debatable). The citation "321 – Emperor Constantine I decreed that Sunday, the day honoring the sun god Sol Invictus (disc pictured), would be the Roman day of rest" is inaccurate in this respect. Sunday was a day honoring "Sol Invictus (disc pictured) and Jesus Christ" and it played well into pleasing both religions that he could declare it a day of rest for all. Please revise this. Thanks >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 09:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Another bird?
JJ Harrison's wildlife photos are no doubt of excellent quality and educational interest, but aren't they being just slightly overdone on the main page?
See WP:POTD. Images are selected on a first-in-first-out basis, and we have a long stretch of bird images by the photographer. They're being spread out every three to five days right now... the last one was on 1 March, while the next will be on 11 March. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
If there are enough alternative candidates, I think it would be sensible to introduce another selection criterion that the same photographer or photographer/subject combination cannot be featured more than once every couple of months. 86.160.220.85 (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not have the ability to produce featured-quality pictures. Are you implying that we have to feature so many of these birds because there are not enough other candidate pictures? 86.160.220.85 (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
"If there are enough alternative candidates" - There aren't. Simple as that. You can count the people responsible for over 70% of featured pictures on two hands... maybe even one hand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
If there is such a lack of variety in the featured pictures, then maybe they shouldn't have a permanent place on the Main Page. --Khajidha (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
And you know as well as I do that this is tangential to the discussion at hand. Perhaps you could create some pictures yourself? It would, of course, be welcome... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Current POTDs are FPs from 2011 so there should be more flexibility. I also perceive a bird every 3-5 days as a significant topic bias. One per week would be better, but a predictable regularity I would find undesirable. Is there any chance to spread them out slightly more, let's say at 6 or 8 day intervals? --ELEKHHT00:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
But the ratio reduces on thumbs page 31 to ca. 1 of 7, and than drops to only 1 of 20 in packs 32 and 33, so it can catch-up there. --ELEKHHT19:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't really see "I do not have the ability to produce featured-quality pictures" as a valid excuse. A whole gamut of random 12-year-olds have produced featured-quality pictures, some with expensive cameras and some with cheap cameras. Some no doubt had extensive coaching and training and help, some just pointed the camera at a fortunate juxtaposition of light and image and such. If today's featured picture was further up the page then you might have more traction with the complaint; but it isn't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The positioning of the picture on the main page is irrelevant. As regards your other point, you are making a comment on a subject, namely my ability to take photos, about which you cannot possibly have any knowledge. 86.160.208.98 (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
What's with all the ACW minutiae in On This Day
Seriously, why are there multiple postings a year (no, I haven't counted it) for the American Civil War in OTD? Like today's example, I'm hardly an expert, but it doesn't seem a particularly important one? And even if it was, is was only a a part of a war mainly affecting one country. Surely there would be better things to post? For instance, today that would be the reoccupation of the Rhineland, an important event in the run-up to WW2. 82.0.112.151 (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
From the page: "Please note that the events listed on the Main Page are chosen based more on relative article quality and to maintain a mix of topics, not based solely on how important or significant their subjects are. Only 5–6 events are posted at a time and thus not everything that is "most important and significant" can be listed. In addition, an event is not generally posted this year if it is also the subject of the scheduled March 7, 2013 featured article or the March 7, 2013 featured picture." The reoccupation of the Rhineland has too short of a lead, which preempts it from showing on the main page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, as a general note, which may or may not explain the ACW posts, there is currently an ongoing 150 year anniversary period of the ACW (which will last until approx 2015). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm British and thus don't really care about the American Civil War to any significant extent, but I'm more than happy to learn more about it on a day-by-day basis, and have enjoyed seeing the various topics appear on the main page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I need credit.
I need credit for the y-chromosome adam article I was the first one to place the article on wikipedia. You cannot deny that the article would not be on the main page without me, someone saw my work and decided to put it on the main page. This is an accidental success but I still need an award. Nottruelosa (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Look at my edits I am dead serious , I think thule would have not nominated the article had I not mentioned it on several pages Nottruelosa (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
If you like, you can proudly display this italicised question mark [ ? ] (please return the square brackets upon receipt, as these are not part of the award). I think its value is commensurate with the number of edits you made to the Y-chromosomal Adam article. Congratulations! – NULL‹talk› ‹edits›02:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
You can have my latest ITN credit, as I didn't edit the article at all but still got the credit. –HTD03:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
There are no awards - Wikipedia is not a competition. But you can put {{ITN notice}} on your user page if you wish (see the template documentation for usage instructions). Modest Geniustalk18:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
hi, i am Amin Sanaei, gilaki wikipedia adminstorator. in gilaki wikipedia, font of articles are very small and people can not read it!. if anybody can, please help me to change it. the font size of farsi wikipedia is good for our gilaki wikipedia.--AminSanaei (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
A bloody Dog Show makes the News, when several major, internationally-relevant political developments do not? Really?!? I wish the News section could be a little more relevant to the Rest of The World besides those whose pooch just participated in, well, a Dog Show. I mean, what will it be next? Best Chicken of the West? Most Beautiful Turkey Contest? America's Next Top Pet Rabbit? *sigh* Stizzleswick (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
A very valid point, in the sense that the main page doesn't have a "Current featured article", "do you know" or "this day in history" section either. Wikipedia should really consider adding some of those, they'd be very interesting.
Anyway, I tend to agree with Stizzleswick: although we all know the news section doesn't feature items in order of importance (of course not, because there isn't a news section), I still instinctively feel that the award of "Most Inbred Purposeless Mutant Pseudo-Dog" should not be given the kind of respect that recognition by Wikipedia implies. Without the oxygen of publicity, there would be far fewer of these people and far fewer eyeless puppies and two-headed kittens born and chucked into a ditch in the pursuit of their perverted ideal shape. So it's good that it hasn't been because there is no news section. Well done Wikipedia! --86.152.12.186 (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
there is no news section? the header clearly says 'In the News' and i have the habit of following major developments through wikipedia - i suppose i'm not alone. i was upset when Kurt Vonnegut died, the news didn't make it in the front page (back then we didn't have highlights regarding recent deaths) but i got frustrated when Norman Mailer died it was listed. this, for me at least, is the bias wikipedia tends to get a bad rep for.
i agree with the major concern here - we *do* have a news section, and it's about time to treat it as such. i hope i could express my frustration without stepping on any toes. Candymoan (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The section is generally considered poorly named. We've had many discussions about renaming it before but never came to a consensus partially because no one could come up with a better name and also some people are so used to the name they feel it's best just to let it be, warts and all. Either way, it isn't intended to be a 'news section', this is mentioned in the template for section itself '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'. If you want to change the purpose of ITN, check out WT:ITN but it'll likely help if you familiarise yourself with the many, many discussions that have already taken place, as well as the current purpose of the section. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
(reset) Among other things 'Wikipedia is not' is a newspaper/news programme: it does not have to list topics in order of importance. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. But to me, at least, the section "In the News" implies headline-worthy stuff, not dog shows. If we do have news, let it at least not be yellow press. That was what my initial complaint was about, really. Stizzleswick (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Strangely, no one objected when ITN posted a footballer getting a ribbon, but yet we object when a dog gets one? Frankly I don't see any difference. --IP98 (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
For the win on that one. I can set my watch by these petty complaints. One man's news is another man's trivia. It'll be replaced with another item soon enough and the world will keep turning. freshacconci talktalk13:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
If there is, it's totally subjective, which is why I'm picking on Messi's Hors d'oeuvre de fromage award. You may stamp your feet and tell me that he is the "best footballer in the world", but to me, it's quite irrelevant. --IP98 (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The infamous WP:NOTNEWS is always misused. There is no policy against covering breaking news, and many editors do it successfully; it just shouldn't be treated as being any more important than other material. Except on the Main Page, that is. Which is kind of odd. Wikipedia does indeed need to get down to brass tacks and seriously embrace the reality that breaking news is a legitimate topic for rapid updates that engages many editors' interest. What we have now is sort of like street luge at the Olympics, a tip without an iceberg. Wnt (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
As I have said 'somewhere in the archives' - one of the functions of the WP main page is to make people aware of things they would not have otherwise been aware of - and the entries on Wikinews are equally varied. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is Talk:Pope Francis protected and where are people supposed to make suggestions to improve the article? I used that talk page a few hours ago and there was no problem then? As well as this there is a move discussion taking place there so how can that be going on while it is protected?
It has been unprotected. Talk pages are protected only in rare situations, and the hour and forty minutes it was protected should have been more than enough to stave off the disruption. With an article with such high volume, though, note that the talk page may need to be protected again very briefly. -- tariqabjotu22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
When I go to that page I get red-headed triplet Christian and country music singers called Nika, Natalie and Nicole. Which is the last thing I expect and the last thing I want. The triplets are also protected. Is anyone else experiencing this or am I losing my mind? I think April Fools' Day is next month.
At least it was more creative than the usual vandalism. Perhaps such persons could be directed to sites where their talents would be more appreciated. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it some kind of dueling contest today? The left side of the main page uses two pictures; of Chinese emperor and a Chinese guard's sculpture. And right uses two Christian religious fellows. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It is possible to reorganize the main www.wikipedia.org page to include languages representing all the continents around the main picture. As of now 8/10 are European languages and the other two are Far East Asian languages. I would propose including Quechua from the Americas and Malagasy or Yoruba from Africa (since these have the highest number of articles). I think this will include a less Eurocentric view.
This might not belong in this talk page but I wasn't sure where else to place it.
Besides which, English, Spanish/Portugese, and an asian language will be applicable to at least one nation from each continent anyway. Including a relatively minor language just because the dominant languages of a region are imported from Europe would be going too far (and what would you use for North America?). When a typical American, Australian, Brazilian, etc. sees English or Portugese, they aren't going to be thinking of the European language, they're going to recognise it as the language they speak (with some differences since it will be a mix of the different national dialects) MChesterMC (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Last DYK item now "that Julian Assange did not participate in the filming of Alex Gibney's 2013 film We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks, and tweeted a denouncement of the film without seeing it?" Sorry, "denouncement" is not a word. "Denunciation" is. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Dictionary.com [2] and the OED [3] both consider "denouncement" to be fine. OED defines it as: "The action of denouncing; denunciation; declaration; announcement (of evil); public accusation or expression of condemnation." Dragons flight (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
It might be considered a word in your country, but I personally do not consider the simplified, dull, mangled, insulting and embarrassing monstrosity of a tongue you lot speak in the US to be "English", or to have any connection to the English Language, and thus there is no such word as "Denouncement" in the English Language. 92.20.55.235 (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Is this something about American English or another dialect? I don't think so. Not a single reliable dictionary states that this is a word only used in American English. --Ushau97talkcontribs11:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "American English". There is the English Language and the language spoken in the United States. 92.20.55.235 (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
@92.20.55.235, As an English language speaker, translate the following: You went to Maccas for brekky to play the pokies and meet Acca Dacca but you needed the dunny because you and you bluey mates were looking so daggy in your thong and you did not want to meet a sweet ranga having some kanga bangas. There is some English for you. --LauraHale (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Male-centric front-page content
Any interest in addressing this massive issue? I have raised this concern before and have been completely dismissed. Has no one else noticed this? Sports, sports, sports, male biographies, male accomplishments, male emperors, bugs, cars, sports, more sports, violent video games. Holy god let's get some interesting and unique content on the FP. As of now the FP is a male space for male interests.
Don't believe me? Take a look at the upcoming FP's, where all but one non-historical FPA (Irish Thoroughbred) is male-centric. 18:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.248.55 (talk • contribs)
I wasn't aware that some of those subject areas were considered "male-centric", but an imbalance certainly exists. It stems from a gender imbalance among Wikipedia's editors, most of whom are male.
I'm unaware of your gender, but you can help to mitigate the problem by contributing/improving content related to topics that you don't regard as "male-centric". Complaining here won't create any high-quality articles or images, and we can't give main page exposure to material that doesn't exist. —David Levy19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Ya!!! We need more Africans too! this is a very massive issue75.73.114.111 (talk)
Today's 3/16 front page currently makes NO mention of ANY woman. Beyond cars and bugs being, yes, pre-dominantly male-centric hobbies/interests (in a REAL, statistical sense), the front page would have you believe that woman are not even taking part in the world's matters. It's fine to quibble semantics, but this is a real problem that the pre-dominantly male wikipedia userbase would like to dismiss as coincidental, when in fact it's systematic. 17:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow! only men are interested in sport, bugs or cars - that's one of the most sexist pieces of stereotyping I've read for some time. Actually, I'm male and I'm not interested in articles about sports, cars or video games (violent or otherwise) in the slightest - oh God! Does that mean I'm gay? My wife will be shocked. I know of a number of women who are football fanatics and many who are much more interested in cars than I am. I see there is an upcoming TFA about Anne Hutchinson and others about birds, animals and opera - are they male oriented too? There was one yesterday about a fungus - did you know that Beatrix Potter was an excellent mycologist? During february there were TFAs about English National Opera, Green children of Woolpit, Lady Saigō, Confirmed Dead, Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), and White-bellied Sea Eagle - are they all male-centric? And, I suppose Robin Hunicke only has her picture on today's featured picture because she designs video games, so is a token male. Oh, and I see Leona Lewis has somehow sneaked into DYK. Richerman(talk)20:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a great summary of recent FP articles, but it doesn't change the fact that the overt trend month-to-month is male-centric. Today's FP makes no mention of any woman. You're also drawing up straw man articles by citing nature articles which are not gendered. I don't think anyone in the world would argue that sports statistics are a predominantly male interest, and an interest that finds its way onto the frontpage often multiple times per month (months in which literally no female is featured). But yeah, giddy up the straw man and make goofs, that'll help disprove there's an issue. 17:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Been busy or would be writing more articles about women, though my articles about women tend to be about women in sport. I have also done a fair amount of DYK work about Africa and Asia. (Took about a third of the African women's national football teams to DYK.) I also think the people doing things for women's history month are concentrating on improving articles without going through the processes like ITN, DYK, FP, FA because they see it as to bureaucratic and not worth the effort. --LauraHale (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
"Front Page"? Is this a newspaper? Wasn't it called the main page before? Why, like most others, doesn't Wikipedia call it the home page? - Ac44ck (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2013 (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.
Whoever wrote this arrogantly assumes everyone knows the author is American. I didn't when I started reading. I read: "Irish Thoroughbred, the debut novel by Nora Roberts (pictured), was first published in January 1981 as a category romance. Like other category romances, it was less than 200 pages and was intended to be on sale for only one month. It proved so popular that it was repackaged as a stand-alone romance and reprinted multiple times. Roberts drew on her Irish heritage" so I thought, naturally enough, oh she's Irish. But no - of course, this is Wikipedia with its US bias, of course, she's AMERICAN with Irish heritage, rather than Irish, but we don't need to say she's American because that's the default setting here and everyone will understand that, so we don't need to state it.
Seriously guys, sort your shit out. You have to stop writing as if US is the 'norm' and everything else is a deviation from that. You have to state people's nationalities, EVEN WHEN THEY'RE AMERICAN, even though you don't clearly think that needs stating.
Calm down, 86. English language novels have a wide dispersal, so it's not as if the book is entirely unknown outside the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The article is about the book, not about her, so it is not essential to mention her nationality in the Main Page blurb. And given it says Roberts drew on her Irish heritage, it should be inferred that she's not actually an Irish citizen. Your assumption of her nationality was obviously not correct, and has nothing to do with U.S. bias. If you had discovered that she was actually a UK national, I doubt we have gotten a complaint with such fervor. In fact, we probably would not have gotten a complaint at all. -- tariqabjotu00:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
No, you miss my point. The American nationality of the author is not given in the blurb, yet her Irish heritage is. This is so often the case with US-related articles. It's because whoever writes them has a narrow world view and assumes the reader will somehow magically know that the subject is American. The blurb refers to 'Irish heritage', no other nationality. Why isn't the fact she's American mentioned? It's because , as usual, it's deemed not necessary because that's the default setting in so many American editors' minds. This is an international encyclopaedia. You have to give context. I find it astonishing that her nationality isn't given (I've just put it in to the article). But I notice this time and time again - US related articles more often than not don't mention the nationality; articles about other countries invariably do. It's that arrogant assumption that 'Of course it's American - what else would it be, so why do I need to state it?' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.54.195 (talk • contribs)
What does one's nationality (country of citizenship) have to do with the creative process? It's absolutely irrelevant. If I become an American citizen right now, it's not going to change my creative process as a Canadian who's spent so many years in Southeast Asia. Heritage, okay. Citizenship, not completely relevant. Country where one was raised... okay, yes that would be useful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is not true. The nationality of the subject of biographical articles is always mentioned. In the case of featured or other rated articles, this is guaranteed without exception. As I said, if the subject of today's featured article were Nora Roberts, her nationality would be mentioned. As it's not, it does not have to be, especially as it is heavily implied by the other information given in the blurb. The blurb states the book draws on the author's Irish heritage and then proceeds to explain that the protagonist is an Irishwoman who emigrates to the United States. From that, the [also female] author is most likely Irish-American. If you want to confirm, you can check by looking at the author's article. There's nothing unusual here. -- tariqabjotu00:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Conveniently overlooking, for February, Feb 7, "Confirmed Dead" an American tv series where American isn't mentioned in the blurb; Feb 8, La Stazione in New York but what country?; Feb 11 "Interstate 80 Business (BL-80) is a business loop of Interstate 80 that serves as the main street for the towns of West Wendover, Nevada, and Wendover, Utah," but what country?, Feb 21 Look Mickey by Roy Lichtenstein but no nationality given for the artist; Feb 27 "Fort Dobbs was an 18th-century fort in the Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin region of the Province of North Carolina, near what is now Statesville in Iredell County." in what country? The country or nationality should be given in every article. It's a basic fact. I can't believe that Wiki thinks its not necessary, when there is a worldwide readership who won't necessarily know this as a matter of course. You wouldn't get a print encyclopaedia missing such basic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.54.195 (talk • contribs)
I don't think it needs to be stated that these well-known states are in the USA. I congratulate you if you can find another place named West Wendover, Nevada, or Wendover, Utah.TCN7JM01:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, it's explicitly stated that BL-80 is part of U.S. Route 40 and partially concurrent with U.S. Route 93 Alternate. —David Levy01:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Conveniently overlooking, for February, Feb 7, "Confirmed Dead" an American tv series where American isn't mentioned in the blurb;
"It was watched by seventeen million Americans..."
Feb 8, La Stazione in New York but what country?;
Seriously? It's New York, which shares its name with the world city contained therein. Would you complain if we were to mention London, Paris or Berlin without specifying the country (which we do)? Of course not.
Feb 11 "Interstate 80 Business (BL-80) is a business loop of Interstate 80 that serves as the main street for the towns of West Wendover, Nevada, and Wendover, Utah," but what country?
You've conveniently overlooked the two "U.S." mentions. As Tariqabjotu noted, You've also conveniently overlooked TFA blurbs in which other countries/nationalities aren't mentioned (as well as those in which the United States or American nationality is mentioned). —David Levy01:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
"If you had discovered that she was actually a UK national, I doubt we have gotten a complaint with such fervor. In fact, we probably would not have gotten a complaint at all" Don't presume to know what I would or wouldn't do. Your reply shows your bias, easily enough.
And as for "The article is about the book, not about her, so it is not essential to mention her nationality in the Main Page blurb. And given it says Roberts drew on her Irish heritage, it should be inferred that she's not actually an Irish citizen. " Yes - but why should it be inferred that she is an American? Why isn't it stated as a BASIC FACT?
And of course her nationality matters: an author's nationality affects the way they see things. I would look at this book very differently if it was written by an Irish author than if it was written by an American author, because their experiences are going to be very different. Isn't that a basic question one would ask on reading it - she's of Irish heritage, so where is she from? How does that heritage shape what she things? If the Irish heritage is worth mentioning, why isn't her nationality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.54.195 (talk • contribs)
Yes - but why should it be inferred that she is an American? Why isn't it stated as a BASIC FACT?
I don't believe it's very relevant to the blurb, and her nationality can be inferred from the other information available anyway. That's likely what the blurb writer thought. You disagree. Fine. But that's not malintent or assuming that everyone should know the author is American; it is a simple choice about what might be essential to the blurb.
This is not a discussion worth having -- some people will continue to see U.S. bias where there is none -- and I'm not going to continue it. -- tariqabjotu00:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. This is NOT an international encyclopedia. This is the English Wikipedia. Why do you even care that the author is American. I find the whole issue insulting on a number of levels. Geesh. As was stated, calm down.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
You are so wrong. This is an international encyclopaedia for people who read English. That's INTERNATIONAL.
You clearly don't understand. This is the English Wikipedia, for people all over the world who read English. It's international. It's read in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Caribbean, any number of international locations where the mother tongue is English. It's also read by English-speakers across the world. Quite how you make that out to be not international is beyond me.
It's possible that the annoying approach the OP is taking here is distracting us from that fact that simply changing "drew on her Irish heritage" to "drew on her Irish-American heritage" would provide a little more information and insight for the reader of the blurb, at very little cost. Anyone mind if I do that? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
That hardly makes sense though, as I don't think people think of their lifelong nationality as being part of their "heritage". If her nationality is to be mentioned, it should be where it first introduces her. But, I don't think we should be precedent for caving to obnoxious requests, especially when they're largely baseless. And as I said to the OP, it is quite obvious from context that she is American anyway. We could omit the word "Irish" from "Irish heritage", and it would still be obvious that she's Irish-American. -- tariqabjotu01:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
That's my point! "it is quite obvious from context that she is American anyway" - no it's not! I shouldn't have to click on the author's article to find out she's American - it most certainly is not obvious form the blurb. Just because the author sets the action in America doesn't tell me the author is American. The fact that you can't see the problem - is the problem. You think it's acceptable, because she's American and 'Hey, we all know that'. Well, we don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.54.195 (talk • contribs)
I have to wonder why the author's nationality is that notable with respect to the blurb. The blurb is about the book and not the author. In my opinion, that would be like if the blurb said something like "Joe Mauer is a catcher for the Minnesota Twins which, by the way, are an American baseball team."TCN7JM01:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It isn't. This is an unreasonable over reaction based on the assumption that by identifying the author's nationality it makes this more international. Something I have to state is a non argument in my opinion because not all Wikipedia's have the same front page. This just seems unreasonable to me.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Uh, not that I necessarily agree with 86.133, but Amadscientist, you do realize that they speak English in Ireland, right? This wikipedia is as much "for" them as it is for Americans.
So if the blurb as written, were shown to confuse the Irish, or any other group of English speakers, then obviously it should be fixed. APL (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Is that even a serious question? Please, give a little credit. Didn't take much to look up the IP if your asking if I am aware where the IP is posting from.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm more confident now that we're arguing this point because the OP is acting like a jerk. I just looked through the history of TFA's about novels, and noticed two things: (1) There are a lot more video game TFA's than novel TFA's (to get four novels I had to go back to last July); and (2) the last four TFA's about novels all began "Lorem Ipsum is a novel by English writer John Doe". There's no reason not to follow that practice here, except to somehow teach the OP a lesson. That shouldn't be our motivation. I'm going to change the blurb to match the way we handled nationality in the last 4 novel TFA's. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Is that standard practice only at TFA or for articles in general? We don't introduce A Farewell to Arms as being written by "American author Ernest Hemingway" (as we describe him in his bio) and we don't introduce Pride and Prejudice as being written by "English novelist Jane Austen" (as she is described in her bio). Harry Potter was written by "British author J. K. Rowling" but the individual articles are a mix. WP:MOS probably weighs in somewhere, but I don't care to go digging. --auburnpilottalk02:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting question, and I just don't know; I didn't look at articles in general, just at past TFA blurbs, only because that's what we're trying to decide how to word. If all four previous novel TFA's violated a MOS requirement somewhere, then I suppose we should take it back out. But if that isn't the case, I think we should follow previous precedent, rather than base a decision on how civilized the OP is being. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Is WP:MOS#Identity of any help? I'm not sure whether or not this applies to TFA blurbs, but this says what terminology to use and...I'm not sure it says when to use it. TCN7JM02:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning nationality in blurbs and I agree with the OP, especially given the misleading mention of being Irish. However, I find the OP's aggressive tone objectionable. See WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT. --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, as the person who writes most of the TFA blurbs at present (unless the article has been nominated at WP:TFAR), allow me to make a couple of points. Firstly, I get things wrong sometimes. Secondly, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2013 will show all the month's blurbs - I try and schedule several days in advance, so that anyone can pick up issues and make improvements or corrections to the article and the blurb before mainpage date. Thirdly, I tend to work from the text of the article, so the better the articles are, the better the blurb will be. Fourthly, I am not American. Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk13:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Proposal: We're short of quality reviewers everywhere, including WP:TFA, but process does help. I could propose at WT:TFA blurbs specify the national/national base of the key individual/organisation (etc) perhaps unless doing so is too complex for the necessary brevity of a blurb? Do people here think that's a good idea? --Dweller (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
There is all kinds of irony in the OP's loud complaints about America-centric bias because we featured a novel called Irish Thoroughbred, featuring an Irish heroine. Go figure. The blurb was about the book, not the author. As such, there was no real need to note the author's nationality in the limited space that exists for a TFA blurb. The Irish heritage of the author, however, was relevant. This is much ado about nothing. Resolute23:11, 18 March 2013 (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.
Should we include WP:TAFI somewhere on the main page? I think it might help us get some more people to join Wikipedia as editors. I mean, consider the math. Over 8 million people view the main page every day. If even 1% care about the articles and 1% of those care enough to contribute, that's still over 800 new editors per day. Hope you'll consider,
That calculation assumes that none of the people visiting the front page are already Wikipedia editors. Still, a significant percentage of the front page visitors probably are not previous Wikipedia editors, so the spirit of your comment still holds true. - Tenebris 21:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
On March 25, "Today's Featured Article" will actually be a triple-header about three related articles. Can some clever person work out how to change the display automatically from saying "From today's featured article" to "From today's featured articles" for just 24 hours, or will someone have to make the changes manually? Thanks. BencherliteTalk12:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
<div id="mp-other" style="padding-top:4px; padding-bottom:2px;">
== Other areas of Wikipedia ==
{{Other areas of Wikipedia}}
</div><div id="mp-sister">
== Wikipedia's sister projects ==
{{Wikipedia's sister projects}}
</div><div id="mp-lang">
== Wikipedia languages ==
{{Wikipedia languages}}
</div>
Ah, thanks. Putting aside the design itself for now, there seems to be an error on the right-hand ends of the coloured boxes, which don't extend to the full width of each section. And we could still do with some reasons for the change. Modest Geniustalk13:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The disparity is intentional. The sections appearing in colored boxes contain dynamic encyclopedia content, while the others contain largely static project information. The idea of placing the latter in one or more gray/chromatic boxes was discussed and rejected. —David Levy18:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Please note that there is already a process in place that hopes to redesign the Main Page according to community consensus. The Wikipedia:2013 main page redesign proposal is planning on holding a large scale Requests for comment to determine the community's views on the main page, whether there are problems which a redesign would fix, and how much of a redesign (if any) the community wants. However, we are waiting until after WP:Today's articles for improvement has been implemented on the main page. - Evad37 (talk)
Indeed. For the TFA, for example, I originally prepared it without an image but someone added one later. For those who like seeing patterns where no patterns are intended, the TFAs on April 4, April 5 and April 6 are rather more female-orientated. BencherliteTalk10:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Why can't we accept that, when five different segments of the Wikipedia main page are working independently, coincidences will happen?--WaltCip (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's never happened before, nor that it won't or shouldn't ever happen again; it's just that this was the first instance of 5/5 men that I've ever seen and I thought it merited a mention. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe!07:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
April the first
Dear Lord/Allah. Please protect us from the coming torrent of feeble April Fool jokes....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeefart (talk • contribs)
Some of us have tried to come up with good ones. Can't you at least beseech whatever deity you choose to beseech to aid our sense of humor and creativity so that you will be genuinely entertained? Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I just wonder how long it'll be until the boring folks come out of the woodwork to lambast a bit of innocent (and entirely truthful) fun today. --LeighHamilton00:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I like the trippy featured article section. The rest of the page (particularly the did you know section) ... eh. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Colleagues, if these are April Fool's jokes, I have to say that the time has past for them.
The featured article looks like a technical glitch—a huge question-mark? This would irritate me as a visitor.
The featured pic is far too small for such a detail-rich image: why force those with slow connectivity to click on the original page? It would take ages to download. And "the then-prevailing globe theory of the Earth" in the caption presupposes that this is no longer the prevailing theory.
This DYK is offensive to women: "... that Polish girls (pictured) are getting wet and spanked today, but will have their revenge tomorrow?" Getting wet has a double meaning here. It should be reworded or removed as soon as possible.
I won't go on. It's a failure. Let's not damage the WMF trademark, remembering that many native English-speakers could give a dump about April Fool's Day, and most non-natives don't know about it. This makes fools of us. Tony(talk) 04:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, you're no fun are you?! Having said that I have to agree that the Polish DYK isn't in great taste, but at least it's better than that April Fools' TFA a few years ago about wife spanking or something like that... — This, that and the other (talk)04:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree fully with HiLo48. I find the schoolboy jokes and pranks offensive and unfunny. And the point that people of other cultures know nothing of this absurd tradition is well taken. Jusdafax05:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Instead, we could make this the Main Page banner for the day:
Wikipedia is no place for humour. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.
The point is that we are not at all important. That's why everything here is sourced to someone or something else. Everything, that is, except the April Fools garbage created by self-appointed fiction writers (otherwise known as editors). By creating April Fools jokes you are declaring yourself to be important, and you're not. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
HiLo knows full well that there is not literally any "fiction" in WP's traditional gags.
I suppose HiLo would respond that the the misleadingly worded summaries are "As good as" fiction, or some such, but I don't think this argument actually works that way.
It's always the case that you should click-through to avoid being misled, April 1 merely exaggerates this effect. (This is especially true with DYK.)
In fact, I would say argue that April 1 provides a safe context for this object lesson in being careful with jumping to conclusions from summaries. APL (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You are aware that virtually every major website engages in April Fools' jokes, right? That's for-profit sites with global presences as large if not greater than ours. If people don't get it by now, they're probably too busy panicking about whatever crazy joke Google's come up with this year. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)05:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm a teacher. When I have to point out to a student that something about his behaviour is unacceptable, one of the most pathetic (but sadly quite frequent) responses is to point at another annoying kid and say "But he's doing it too!" HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I just punish them all equally. We can't punish Google though. Besides, I think we'd all look a little better with our hair down and that frown upside down. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
That's a personal attack. And not funny either. Do try to discuss the merits of others' arguments, not their personal attributes. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
If saying one needs to "lighten up" is a personal attack, than I regret ever telling anyone to copyedit their work on Wikipedia... that must be a double threat personal attack. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
That reminds me. I need to report you after you offered to interview me for The Signpost that one time. How dare you ask me such a thing!? GamerPro6405:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, the horror! We need to close FAC and the other processes... all those personal attacks about "grammar" and being "unprepared". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I say we instant ban anyone who gives someone a Barnstar from now on. The nerve of them giving people positive feedback with kittens and brownies. GamerPro6405:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The immaturity and shallowness of this discussion reinforces my view of the immaturity of the April Fools jokes. And yes, telling someone they need to lighten up is definitely a personal attack. It cannot be anything else. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:WIAPA, then. Telling someone to lighten up is a suggestion, nothing more. You seem to have missed the whole point of the banner above: we should not overestimate our importance in the great scheme of things, so there's no need to be a killjoy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I have to ask yet again: HiLo, you trollin', bro? If you're not...you really do need to lighten up. This is Wikipedia, the opposite of Serious Business. Students who mention WP policy as a justification for anything deserve to be summarily sent to a corner. Or watch Jay Leno. That should show them. Lockesdonkey (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
My apologies to HiLo. When I said "Lighten up", I was suggesting you relax and try to take the April Fools features less seriously, I was in no way suggesting that you set yourself on fire. I understand the confusion though. It might have sounded like a personal attack, but I promise you it was not one. Please consult urbandictionary if there is any more confusion. Feedback☎07:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
About the Śmigus-Dyngus blurb... while it certainly sounds inappropriate, at least from looking at the article, it seems like a remarkably accurate description of the tradition associated with the holiday. It's quite difficult to describe it without making the blurb sound dirty or like a reference to domestic violence. -- tariqabjotu07:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Certainly could be worse. We could include the bit about beds getting wet with the girls. I can't think of any way to describe the event that doesn't sound bad to somebody. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure there are some. But with the "but they will get their revenge tomorrow" bit, it deflates any suggestion that they're actually getting wet and spanked in a sexual way. It's a remarkably accurate description with an easily forseeable double entendre. Not sure why that's a big deal, and not sure why it's sexist. The men get wet and spanked tomorrow too; would it be better if we focused on them instead? -- tariqabjotu07:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
If "You really do NEED to lighten up" is not a direct criticism of someone's personality, someone here needs to explain it, without any jokes. Oh, and when you do start to realise the truth in what I'm saying, do consider the fact that deceiving a gullible person, and then rudely defending that action, in numbers, is an obvious form of bullying. Using the date as an excuse doesn't work. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I still fail to see a personal attack in the use of "need", especially as defined at WP:WIAPA. As for defending deception, what deception is there? Everything is factually correct on the main page, just written fantastically. Would you rather we post spaghetti trees? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't known about that Spaghetti Trees hoax. That was awfully interesting. I think it actually should have been posted on the main page. I have a newfound respect for BBC now. Feedback☎08:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The only thing more predictable than Main Page shenanigans is people complaining about how Wikipedia is too serious for Main Page shenanigans. EVula// talk // ☯ //14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree. EVERYBODY knows that April 1 is April Fools. They also know that Wikipedia has a long history of participating in April Fools. Thus, they make an effort to visit Wikipedia to see the shenanigans on April 1! It's the one day of the week where I'll come back multiple times to see what creativity has been used in coming up with DYKs. It's the one day of the year that people KNOW to take it easy. It's pretty sad that some people simply refuse to relax.50.201.228.200 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Proposal: Abandon any special April Fool's Day content for 2014
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.
Those who like the fun and games, never a clear majority, have had their run for several years. Today, as every previous year, talk response has been very mixed. I suggest that the time has come to see what the response would be if we were to run a "normal" main page on the day between 31 March and 2 April. Discussion after 1 April 2014 could decide whether future practice would be to alternate, to resume the practice of recent years, or to remain "fool free". Kevin McE (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Everyone needs time to vent. BBC does it, Google does it, and even politicians do it. Are we more "serious" than the Beeb? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
To use my Mum's reasoning - "If Johnny jumped off the roof, would YOU do it?" - We don't have to follow the status quo. If other places want to make pillocks of themselves, that's their problem. Humblesnore (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
And yet by the same logic, "If Johnny got straight As, would YOU do it?" could also apply. I don't see April Fools jokes as detrimental. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment, suggest a complete unexplained blanking of all wikipedia content, followed by an obligatory request for donations. Um, maybe not. I think you may be right. It sometimes seems to come across as an in-joke which doesn't quite work with the public. p.s. we're not "Auntie's bitch", of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - it's just once a year anyway. While we are a serious encyclopedia, every once in a while, we need to have some fun. It motivates us to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Also, the featured articles every April 1 can put the spotlight on some of our unusual articles, that would otherwise be rather obscure. Plus, it's a tradition. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew10:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. We should also speedy delete the April Fools' Day article. Caused way too much confusion with Articles for Deletion. Frankly, I don't understand how we don't have a disambiguation page up for both of these AFDs. Feedback☎10:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
oppose I really like that we not only do it but the way it's done, with teasing joke links leading to real articles in the DYK? section. We don't try fool anyone, which often falls flat as either too obvious or not obvious enough. Would we could do it more often as today's DYK? items sound far more interesting than the sometimes strained attempts to say something interesting about an obscure species or a local landmark.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds10:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The April Fools Day Main Page is a long and fine tradition on Wikipedia. As is the April Fools spergfest on Talk:Main Page featuring a long and repetitive discussion going over exactly the same points as last year and never coming up with any better reason other than "not all cultures celebrate April Fools Day", which in Wikipedia's long history has never, ever been complained about by someone from one of these cultures, always by an American middle-class whitey in his self-appointed role as Guardian of Multiculturalism. --86.153.42.2 (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose it doesn't do any harm, many major media organisations engage in similar behaviour, and we put a unique twist on it by putting up stories that are technically true. Hut 8.510:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose It's fun to go to your favorite website on April 1st and find that its normal appearance has been subverted a bit. dogman15 (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment I have yet to see a convincing argument for why we shouldn't have an April Fool's joke. Every year, it's essentially summed up by people crying, "I don't like it". We spend 0.002% of the year having a bit of fun on the main page, and there's nothing wrong with that. m.o.p10:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
By the same token, have you ever seen a convincing encyclopaedic argument for including it. It is inclusion, not exclusion, that needs a reason. Kevin McE (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment, The toilet humor in the did you know section is disgusting. The front page can be made amusing without stooping to that kind of garbage. It is depressing to see content like that on the front page of a major website in this century. 92.233.64.26 (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I actually agree with this somewhat. I wouldn't call it "garbage" or "depressing", but the "Siemens"/"Pussi" joke is just flat out in bad taste. I prefer we come up with more interesting ones like the James Bond one. The raunchy humor is rather unnecessary. Feedback☎10:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose This proposal is based upon the false assumption that if we do not have any type of organized effort supporting April Fools then all the pranksters will pack up and leave Wikipedia alone for the "respectful" folks. Anyone with a basic knowledge of human behavior or who was around before the organized efforts began knows that this is complete hogwash. If we don't have a relatively benign outlet for the pranksters then they tend to find less acceptable means. The current system, while providing less than perfect material, at least keeps blatant falsehoods off the Main page, provides some protection to our encyclopedic content, and saves long-term Wikipedians from having to spend large amounts of time cleaning up the mess. --Allen3talk10:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
My apologies. I had assumed that a long-term Wikipedian such as yourself would have done your homework, checked past discussion to see why this type of proposal has been repeatedly rejected, and generally thought through the implications of a proposal before bringing it here for approval. I stand corrected. --Allen3talk12:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Not having the "organized effort" here supporting April Fools would however, make it a dang site easier to block anyone found messing around with content on April 1st. At the moment the consensus seems to be "it's a bit of fun, leave it alone, it'll go away." I may have joined the wrong site - you're an encyclopedia, aren't you? Would you allow people to create actual joke articles during April 1st? I think not. I've already seen a fair few get deleted. It's time for WP to leave its sippy cup and diaper behind and move up to a proper cup and big boy pants. Humblesnore (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
So is your sarcasm and "humour" (if that's what you can call it). There's a place for it, it's on stage, not in an encyclopedia. Humblesnore (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Harmless bit of fun once a year, even if many hooks are at best lame and at worst offensive. Humour's a game of opinions, isn't it, Clive? Ericoides (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose (edit conflict) It's great to see an application of the "truth is stranger than fiction" phrase. And it's only one day a year. Certainly better than some of the shenanigans I've seen going on here.--Aurictalk11:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Opppose. Given that the 'joke' articles are always factual and accurate, of course. We will always disagree over what is actually funny, but other than avoiding material likely to be offensive to others (where we could do better), there's little to be done about that. I'd be wary of sampling bias in interpreting the numbers of comments for and against the practice on this page, by the way: it's much more likely that someone will log in and write a complaint about something than they will go to the same effort to praise it. If we want some evidence about how editors feel about the practice, I suggest somebody knocks up a properly sampled, statistically relevant survey. (I'm not joking - it would be easy enough to pick a random, representative sample and survey them). 4u1e (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Strongly support - It's not harmless. The media have enough ammunition with which they occasionally take the piss out of Wikipedia - we already get portrayed as a joke, we don't need to make ourselves look like one. The best April Fools prank would be to do nothing at all to the site, and let people drive themselves mad looking for something which isn't there. That way, we can ignore April Fools while people go bananas. I'm barnstaring ANYONE who does anything to help nuke April fools day off of Wikipedia. Well done to them for putting their nads in the fire. Humblesnore (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is no place for humour. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.
Utmost Support Don't perpetuate this 'Boy Who Cried Wolf' nonsense. I wonder how many people have died on this day in history because they thought warnings of incoming danger were false. How many more dead kids would there be if the Sandy Hook massacre happened on April 1st, because the Police would take just a minute or two longer than the average day to investigate the reports of gunshots? At some point they would have to guess that after multiple reports that it probably isn't a crazy prank, unlike all the other pranks calls they doubtlessly get on April 1st. Bet whoever started this garbage and set this day in stone didn't think "it could be very bad if people thought everything they were told on April 1st were just jokes and lies," because it seems hardly anybody ever thinks about the possible consequences of their actions. BetrayerOfNihil (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Did you really just compare a violent atrocity perpetrated upon the most innocent members of our society... to an April Fools joke on Wikipedia? --LeighHamilton14:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The only thing better than the April Fool's Day gags is the ridiculous collective whining and harrumphing that ensues on the talk page.--WaltCip (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - provided we actually do something funny. A giant question mark just looks like an error and isn't an obvious April Fools. Oddbodz (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose & Recommend Supporters Step Away From Wiki For a Few Weeks - Honestly, you're taking this whole site way too seriously (especially today) and you could do with a break. The vast majority of things in life are more important than whether a wiki has some light-hearted (and, let's not forget, still entirely true) jokes on its front page. --LeighHamilton14:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose Those who think april fools jokes are hurting are reputation are sorely mistaken. Here Wikipedia has been listed in the top 5 April Fools' pranks of the year. RyanVesey14:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong support: I don't know where to begin....this is not a philosophical issue, it's not a free-speech issue, it's not about the quality of the jokes. Perhaps one day all of you who say "lighten' up" will understand that you are the one's who are being despotic. Cosprings (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2013 (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.
Proposal: Abandon all hope ye who guffs or who faws
Particularly today, I do think... especially since comedy stems from the unexpected... doubt many people were expecting this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
It's supposedly "an April fools joke". Probably the lamest ever even by Wikipedia standards.
Hell no. There are worse. Like a six layer MfD of a page that can't even be deleted, or attempting to AfD a User's page without their knowledge... The list is endless. Let's hope April fool's day's existence on Wikipedia, isn't. Humblesnore (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and it might be nice if those who seem to like this tradition of making people look like idiots, don't treat those of us who don't share their sense of humour, like trolls. As you say, humour is subjective. It's also, per a lot of what's gone on here, divisive - and divisive doesn't fall well with Wikipedia. Humblesnore (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad AFD only lasts for one day every year; any more and the incessant whining from the noisy minority (as shown by the above proposal's responses) would be unbearable. --LeighHamilton16:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
As would the noise from the obviously overwhelming majority who seem to think it's ok to fuck around with the site. Everyone has a right to be heard - we don't "whine", we simply voice our opposition to fact that the majority seem to think it's ok to shove us out one day of the year, and lose the rules on interfering with content on the site. If the people who like AFD can shout about it on here, we can do the same. Humblesnore (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
You are indeed welcome to your opinion and to voice it, but given the community response to previous AFD main pages I suspect you shouldn't hold your breath. --LeighHamilton17:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised that there's not something more creative like a fictious article or topic, instead of some movie ad spamming... Oh well, we should try to do better next year. Even the dumbest April 1st RFCs are better, and we could have linked to an article related to one if we lacked any ready content or inspiration... 70.31.247.72 (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it kinda falls flat. A featured article about a famous April Fool's Day prank, or an article about a famous hoax like the Piltdown Man might be a better idea as FA for April Fool's Day. Combined with the bad syntax on some of the "this day in history" items (ie "the Northwest Territories carved all of their inhabitants into two pieces"), it just comes across as unprofessional and not up to the expected standards. I get that most websites do something amusing for April Fool's Day, I just think that Wikipedia's efforts should be more in line with Wikipedia's general ethos rather than looking like a bunch of schoolkids had the day off. Be bold but don't be immature would be my preferred guidance. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Be my guest, regarding the FA. For the others, don't forget this is a volunteer organisation: we need morale building, like any other group. Editors are our capital, and if they leave, Wikipedia suffers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this was a poor choice of featured article. It was featured in the DYK section on April Fools' Day back in 2011, and I'm disappointed that we've resorted to recycling old jokes. I'm not opposed to Wikipedia celebrating April Fools' Day, but if we insist on doing it, we might as well make an effort to be, you know, funny. 132.162.84.149 (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
We all know that at close of play 1 April 1Billion +2013 AD Wikipedians will still be complaining about the 'ghastly puns' on the main page (unless they are still complaining about the inappropriateness of a main page entry from the previous week). :)
'Rerversing the argument': the entries on the main page are there partly to draw people's attention to topics they might not be aware of (including at least some of the 'In the News' entries). Perhaps if there were more 'quirky/offbeat hooks' (if appropriate to the article) on an occasional basis there would be less discussion on April 1. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Today's "Did you know" section
Was there less attention paid to these DYK items than usual, because the ones I have clicked on have had several glaring errors. Sealo displayed multiple verb tense mistakes, while The Three Musketeers (Studebaker engineers) was so highly repetitive, overly verbose and excessively florid that I simply gave up halfway through my copy edit. --Khajidha (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
And this concludes the 2013 edition of April Fools on Wikipedia. If you'll please proceed to the exit on your right, ushers will be there to take your 3D glasses and are handing out free Take 5 bars. GamerPro6400:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
If April Fools is over with, why are the joke "In the News" articles still up? (It's 9:17pm where I live, still April 1)--Aurictalk00:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
But I still see the item about getting to the International Space Station "faster". Six hours. Ha! You weren't fooling anyone with that... -- tariqabjotu00:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
"Six hours. Ha!" ? It does pay to check the refs, which indicate that it's legit. And parsecs are a unit of length, not time. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, indeed - my excuse is that I was preoccupied with investigating another void in those years when all that was all the rage - so, please pardon my ignorance. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Why are both the featured article and the first article in DYN about USAmericans? And why is the only name on this page from recent deaths also an USAmerican?72.28.82.250 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I notice that he isn't complaining today that the Featured article and the first two DYK articles are about British people and places. I'm not either because it's just a coincidence just like yesterday was. Anyone else tired of hearing about this same non-issue every few days? 63.192.83.15 (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
When I initially saw this in my watchlist, I was already preparing my rant about how it is *good* to have female-centric FAs...quite a pleasant surprise to see a rational, positive post with a section title of this nature. :) —Theopolisme(talk)20:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
'Every discussion on the main page talk page eventually reverts to an exchange about the excessive presence of certain topics.' The primary topic is American-related, followed by sports/gender/creatures or types thereof/April Fool/a few others; alternatively there is a long discussion centred about 'not in front of the children/un-work-safe topics.'
What is the 'every conversation on Usenet will degenerate into a discussion on Hitler' law? (Does its derivative 'whoever unnecessarily mentions Hitler/other bogeyperson of choice automatically loses the argument' have a specific name?) 80.254.147.68 (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've added the code that will launch TAFI on April 15 to the Main Page. At some point, perhaps on Sunday, the millions of other Main Page-related pages need to be updated. (And I have no problem contributing to that...). -- tariqabjotu13:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Error in image description
The albatross is described as a "medium-sized bird". Of course, this should say "large bird" or "medium-sized albatross". Snowman (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's replace the image of Maggie with floating corpses in a flood, or massacred Serbs! Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, ... OFF OFF OFF!75.73.114.111 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Main page on watch list
Is it just me but main page is being continually added to my watch list with no input from me. This occurs on both iPad and smartphone and laptop. Is it a common fault. Edmund Patrick – confer20:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like to raise a point to note for image cropping, particularly ones on the Main Page. I notice that the current cropped photo of Margaret Thatcher on main page (File:Margaret Thatcher cropped.png) was shrunk so much that the original photo has the same size of the displayed photo (75×100px). This does not render well in high-pixel density displays.
The current render will try to give a 2x sized image for newer high-PPI displays, if the original image size is at least 2x of the displayed size. Therefore, to show a thumbnail of 75×100px on screen, the original photo should be instead at least 150×200px if possible. User of those newer high-PPI displays (e.g. Retina Display) would be able to see the difference. — Peterwhy04:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I was entirely unaware of this MediaWiki feature. Is it new? As far as I know, you're the first person to mention it here.
Because MediaWiki's scaling of large images to ~100px often is relatively poor, I've been sizing cropped images (which already are gaining a generation in most instances) accordingly. My usual procedure has been to create the crop, resize it in Photoshop via a combination of two methods (with one typically providing better results for the subject in the foreground and the other typically providing better results for the subject's outside edges and the background), and sharpen the subject if needed.
It appears that MediaWiki's scaling from 200px to 100px is even worse, so I'll discontinue the practice. (Note that the Margaret Thatcher image shouldn't be reverted, as MediaWiki's scaling of photographic PNGs to that size is terrible. But we usually use JPEGs for that purpose.)
I've switched to a full-resolution JPEG crop of the Margaret Thatcher image. It's unfortunate that the quality has been reduced for users without high-PPI displays (comparison on right), but I see no viable alternative. —David Levy11:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The alternative is presumably to make a choice that favours those without high-ppi displays. How we decide which constituency of our readership we disadvantage is a decision for another part of wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't regard that option as viable, as it breaks standard functionality in exchange for a nonstandard enhancement. —David Levy20:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi David, I see your point about MediaWiki's scaling problem. Probably it is using some different algorithm for sampling? Or is that due to JPEG compression by MediaWiki? I guess this problem should be raised in BugZilla as image scaling is so frequent in Wikis. — Peterwhy03:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Both the sampling and the JPEG compression appear to be problematic, primarily when scaling images to very small sizes (such as those of the thumbnails appearing on the main page). If no BugZilla report has been created, that might be a good idea. —David Levy10:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Margaret Tatcher
Hello Administrators, please remove the news about Thatcher's Death and the Thane Building Collapse it has been a week there. -GeLoDC (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
There's a valid point lurking in the discussion above. Wikipedia is not and should not be censored, but a user who wants to use the product to check on a fact should not encounter an image that could get him/her fired simply by going to the main page of Wikipedia. Has this ever happened? Don't know.--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk21:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Why would anyone go to the main page to search for anything?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.32.35 (talk • contribs)
That wasn't the question. When you type in "www.wikipedia.org" and hit the English link, it sends you to the Main Page. TCN7JM22:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't imagine someone being fired simply for visiting Wikipedia's main page, or for opening a dictionary on a page with offensive words. Of course, the exact situation and their motives would be a factor. Danrok (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you think reality for everyone is defined by your imagination today? Do you ever hope to create something that you haven't yet imagined? Do you think your perspective might change on anything ten years from now? Can you imagine every aspect of that future reality today? -Ac44ck (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
What if I do? How is that relevant to questions of a self-centered perspective that assumes reality does not contain what one can't imagine? -Ac44ck (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The words in a dictionary are normally only visible to the person reading the book: the Wikipedia main page can be visible across a room.
What about 'that lane' which featured on the main page a while back?
'Quite a few' newspapers had 'a rather battered' Gadaffi on the front page following his death.
We have all websearched for innocent topics and found 'unexpected other meanings' being involved.
I usually call up www.en.wikipedia.org : would it be possible to have two URLs - one that will be worksafe and one that can feature anything? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
My feeling is that if such victims actually exist, then we can regard our activities as a commendable act of economic terrorism against such stupid, censorious companies. If they seriously will turn on their own good workers over simply looking at Wikipedia, then may their decline be hastened -- it was inevitable anyway, if they put so much emphasis on their moralistic standards of what people can look at rather than on how they treat their workers. Wnt (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oooh ... a "commendable terrorist" has a feeling! Get back to us when you are running a 3000-person company that has never been slapped with a sexual discrimination suit. Then tell us about what you do and don't permit employees to view on their computer monitors at work. Much talk of what someone else's company should do is pontificating from the comfort of a stable job, or a mother's basement. -Ac44ck (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Politicians may feel the need to pander to the more conservative elements of society. Wikipedia must not. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
So you would be happy for the person next to you to be looking at a 'very medical' picture? Or, when you look at WP while having your mid-morning hot drink to be shown something with a high squick/yuck factor?
Companies are not stupid - or they won't survive: and part of company internet policy is likely to revolve around 'persons there displaying a degree of courtesy (as a general term) towards others present in the workspace and avoiding what is likely to cause unnecessary offence' (which may depend upon the particular context - we can all think of cases).
In response to a couple of the comments above - would you be happy to have a poster in your office that causes #you# serious offence/annoyance on whatever grounds, or would you file a complaint? (What said persons have where you are not likely to see it is a different matter). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
If someone gets something on their computer screen that they or their employer wouldn't want, it's incredibly simple to quickly get rid of it off the screen. No rational employer will object to an unacceptable image appearing "accidentally" very briefly, and then disappearing. It happens to all of us from time to time. Don't like what you see? Close the window. Not a big issue. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
First: All employers are rational, correct? Second, this sounds like the perspective of a teenager: We demand rationality of others; but if they expect civility from us, they can f*** themselves. -Ac44ck (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
HiLo48 is correct. Intent is relevant, and a fundamental part of law. The perspective of a teenager is worth the same as anyone's perspective. Age is no guarantee of wisdom. Danrok (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
an interesting opinion if anything, but I see no logic in saying teenagers should be given the same worth of opinion with those who have completed education.75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Five points... 1. I am waaaaaayyy beyond my teenage years. (But thank you for making me feel some decades younger this morning.) 2. The words written are what matter here, not the guessed at age of the writer. 3. I didn't say all employers are rational. (Am I seeing a lot more misrepresentation of others' views these days? Never helps discussion!) 4. We will not design Wikipedia around the irrational bigotry and prejudices of anybody, employers or otherwise. 5. Having what someone might define as an "unacceptable" image appear accidentally and incredibly briefly on your computer screen is not uncivil in any way by any definition. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreeing with Danrok, "age is no guarantee of wisdom." You appealed to the rationality of employers, then admitted that all employers are not rational. One may conclude that an irrational employer could fire someone for visiting Wikipedia's main page on one of its avant-garde days. -Ac44ck (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Precisely. Irrational people do irrational things. But I also said "We will not design Wikipedia around the irrational bigotry and prejudices of anybody, employers or otherwise." HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
At least me and HiLo48. I suspect, based on many years of experience at Wikipedia, that we two are not alone. If you want to design your own encyclopedia where you get to design it around the irrational bigotry and prejudices of people, you're quite free to do so. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking and you too can start your own encyclopedia anyone can edit (unless they use a picture of something you don't like). --Jayron3200:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Does this mean we count on you to step forward with cash to assist someone if they:
Lose their job as a result of the Wikipedia Main Page creating an incident at their workplace that has a zero-tolerance policy, and
Have an extended period of unemployment or their next job does not pay as well?
Would you claim you did them a favor by making them look for a new job, "freeing" them from the oppression of an irrational employer? It is easy to be pompous at someone else's expense, isn't it? -Ac44ck (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Nope, as noted by HiLo48, neither I, nor any other Wikipedia editor, nor any aspect of the Wikipedia community or the overseeing Wikimedia Foundation bears any responsibility because someone is fired by their boss for a stupid reason. Seriously, none of us has anyway to predict what silly reason someone may be fired for, not you or I or really anyone, and we can't base our attempts to produce a complete, authoritative encyclopedia based on whether or not someone may get fired for something written here. Such a notion is beyond ludicrous, and no one here bears any responsibility for what your hypothetical boss would do. We are simply not responsible for people who would behave in that manner, and I find it quite perplexing that you think that we would. You're train of thought here is completely and totally irrational and absurd, and I consider this my last word on the matter. Frankly, I've given your thinking here more respect than it deserves, but insofar that I still have faith that you may see the silly places you are taking this, I have made this last attempt to explain this to you. I will do so no more, as the complete and utter silliness of your little exercise in reductio ad absurdum stands as a testament to its own lack of merit. --Jayron3204:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
We are not talking here about "a complete, authoritative encyclopedia." We are talking about the Main Page. The front door. You and your ilk claim a right to put land mines under the 'welcome' mat!
Again, quoting Danrok, "age is no guarantee of wisdom." Regardless of the calendar age of the possessor, this perspective still sounds to me like a stereotypical, petulant teenager: We demand rationality of others; but if they expect civility from us, they can f*** themselves. -Ac44ck (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Before this disappears into the archives:
Most people are at the workplace are expected to be working most of the time.
Occasionally WP has an entry somewhere on the main page which causes a negative reaction by a significantproportion of the population and which can be deduced in advance. So do newspapers and their front pages. In some cases the topics will be considered 'fair game for the main page' (a vegetarian and an article on meat, pacifists and military topics etc).
Some articles 'because of the nature of the topic' are kept from the main page/random page.
Most workplaces, library and other 'public access computer terminals' have some blocking program in place (which sometimes blocks perfectly reasonable pages). People are likely to be more flexible on entries appearing when using private computers.
How is the balance between 'the main page is there to show the reader links to topics they wouldn't otherwise have known about' (the 'unknown unknowns' to borrow a phrase) and 'things one does not wish to have to have a long discussion about with the boss/one's children/the equipment replacement person (as one spilt coffee on the keyboard as a follow on from 'Er What?' going to be achieved?
Would it be possible to remind people on the main page that the 'un-language-coded wikipedia URL' will allow them to circumvent 'topics likely to cause problems' for the day? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC) (slightly correcting earlier addition)
This behavior appears to be intentional. Digging through the Main page code finds that the current list of TAFIs is located at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/15 (this is the 15th week of 2013). The TAFI page in turn has a list of 10 pages and selects three at (semi-)random to display when the page is transcluded on to another page. --Allen3talk11:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. And Joe's Null Bot is purging the main page's cache every fifteen minutes. (A cache purge may occur at any time, so fifteen minutes is the maximum duration between resets.) When a reset occurs, at least one of the three article links will change about 97% of the time.
The complete list of ten articles is accessible via the "More selections..." link.
Allen, please feel free to participate in the featured picture process if you consider these poor illustrations. Both were passed at individual Featured Picture reviews, with a minimum of five supports and 66% in favour. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I did not like the first picture but I figured the next day a new picture would be on the front page. Behold, the next day — another similar politician picture. I looked at the list of possible candidates for the next picture and they all look fine to me. This is honestly a one time issue. Allen750 (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Why quickly? Three people died here, which is absolutely terrible, but ten times that number were blown to pieces in Kirkuk, Baqubah, Tikrit, Fallujah, Nassiriyah, Mussayab and Baghdad on the same day, which is simply extraordinary even for that part of the world. Some perspective needed. Do they even know if this is a "latest terrorist bombing" yet or are they just guessing? I notice they don't even have a suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.203 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, you can follow the link I gave Damotclese and give support for posting the bombings in Iraq. RyanVesey14:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I think maybe the point is that these other places are bombed often. Boston has not had a bombing since time out of mind.--Aurictalk14:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Motives for most terrorist attacks are usually the same, basically. Incidently, these cowardly bombings occurred on Israel's Independence Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.143.74 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You're missing the point: it had been 201 years since William Wordsworth saw some daffodils, so it's obviously an attack on Mr Wordsworth and daffodils. As far as I remember, no one even ran dressed as a daffodil. 86.143.72.241 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No, no, you're looking in the wrong place. Wordsworth was English and Israel is, well, Israel. This was obviously an attack on the memory of both Abraham Lincoln (148th anniversary of his death) and the foundation of McDonald's (58th anniversary). Cowards! (Did anyone run dressed as a burger?) --86.40.206.201 (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion - have the blurb read something like "Adam Scott becomes the first Australian golfer to win the Masters tournament". Adds historic weight to the news. Jonathanfu (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I know this issue has been talked to death, but it remains a glaring error: The juxtaposition of a photo from the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto in 1943 with a blurb about the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 is patently absurd, blatantly misleading and journalistically embarrassing.
I find it difficult to understand how so many bright people involved on the techie side of Wikipedia are unable to solve such a basic problem.
PS: I note that today German Wiki features the same event in its equivalent of OTD, but illustrates it with a pic of the Pragmatic Sanction itself (right). How logical.
Sca (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I know this issue has been talked to death,
And yet, you initiated this discussion, purely to reiterate your opinion that the current setup is bad and should be changed.
but it remains a glaring error
You know perfectly well that it's intentional. You just don't like it.
I find it difficult to understand how so many bright people involved on the techie side of Wikipedia are unable to solve such a basic problem.
I note that today German Wiki features the same event in its equivalent of OTD, but illustrates it with a pic of the Pragmatic Sanction itself (right). How logical.
We sometimes illustrate the earliest event, in which case our layout is the same. Are you proposing that we always do so (every day of every year)? If not, I fail to see the relevance. —David Levy15:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
And yet, you initiated this discussion, purely to reiterate your opinion that the current setup is bad and should be changed.
Because it hasn't been solved.
You know perfectly well that it's intentional. You just don't like it.
If it's intentional, then we are being intentionally illogical.
We sometimes illustrate the earliest event, in which case our layout is the same. Are you proposing that we always do so (every day of every year)? If not, I fail to see the relevance.
Always illustrating the top item wouldn't be the ideal solution, but it would be better — that is, more logical and less confusing — than current practice.
The ideal solution, obviously, would be moving the pic along with the item it illustrates. David, having once paginated a newspaper using Quark Express, I can assure you that modalities for such a solution exist somewhere in the techie world. However, I'm not qualified to point the direction.
Please don't interweave your reply with my message, thereby orphaning most segments from my signature. If you wish to respond in a point-by-point manner (a practice of which I'm fond), please use one of our talk page quotation templates. (I've refactored accordingly.)
Because it hasn't been solved.
There's no consensus that a problem exists. Continual complaints predicated on the assumption that one does are nonconstructive.
If it's intentional, then we are being intentionally illogical.
You know that the layout is intentional. You're entitled to your opinion that it's illogical, but that isn't others' intent (and you know this too). —David Levy16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
But it's illogical on its face. Are you saying that this issue is not a problem? If that's the case, Wiki is contradicting the intuitive, entirely logical (and graphically helpful) practice of print media for centuries — unless British media have done otherwise, which I don't believe is the case.
In graphics, proximity automatically connotes relatedness. That's why media have long made widespread use of separating devices, such as boxes and rules, when presenting two unrelated items next to each other for reasons of space.
That's the attitude to which I'm referring. You assert that those with whom you disagree are factually and unequivocally wrong.
Are you saying that this issue is not a problem?
I believe that there's room for improvement (and I've suggested possible modifications), but I don't define the current setup as a "problem". I respect your opinion to the contrary, but it lacks consensus.
If that's the case, Wiki is contradicting the intuitive, entirely logical (and graphically helpful) practice of print media for centuries — unless British media have done otherwise, which I don't believe is the case.
You assert that those with whom you disagree are factually and unequivocally wrong.
David, kindly give me a little more credit than that. The illogic to which I'm referring is not a matter of disagreement with me. Rather, it's contradicting the graphic dynamic of proximity = relatedness, as conveyed by the eye to the mind.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion about what works in graphics — and certainly everyone is free to disagree with yours truly. (The notion that if you don't agree with me/we you are flat wrong is a fundamentalist and/or fascist idea.) However, those who don't see the logic of proximity = relatedness in my view are being counter-intuitive, defined on Wiktionary as "contrary to intuition or common sense." Otherwise, why would print media have utilized this principle for so long? And why should Wiki contradict it?
It's only my opinion, but it's one that's been shared by generations of writers and editors. I don't even consider it my opinion — it's a fact of life in publishing generally.
No one disputes that such a design principle exists. We disagree that Wikipedia's non-adherence inherently constitutes a "problem" (something that you've treated as a given). Continually raising the issue for no reason other than to complain that it hasn't been fixed is unhelpful, given the lack of consensus that it's broken. —David Levy22:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
To what end? It's been discussed numerous times, with general agreement that all else being equal, aligning the image with the related item is desirable. The main obstacle is our failure to come up with a specific implementation that the community likes (and that doesn't break something else). If you can devise one, I'm sure that it will receive due consideration. —David Levy22:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
... aligning the image with the related item is desirable.
Sadly, I'm not technically capable of suggesting how such is to be done. (When I started out, it was on a manual typewriter.) But it's good to know that you at least accept the principle. I have to think that in our day some modality exists — there has to be a way. Sca (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Methods definitely exist. (As I mentioned, I've suggested some.) We just haven't managed to come up with one that the community prefers to the current setup. —David Levy23:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why we can't simply put whatever item has an image at the top of each section, place some slight dividing line beneath it, and then list all the other items in whatever order is most appropriate for each section? --Khajidha (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
For OTD, I suggested that we utilize such a layout to highlight a particular article (ideally a featured article or good article if one is available for the date), with a longer blurb serving to balance the new addition of TAFI to the left-hand column.
For ITN, concerns regarding staleness and undue prominence have been expressed.
I'm not sure if TAFI, at the moment, is really achieving anything by being on the main page. As far as I can tell, there really haven't beenanysignificant improvements made to any of these articles; improvement, yes, I get that, but there still doesn't seem to be any significant changes made to any of these articles. The only significant improvements I've found are those to Writer, and they only seem to have one or two significant contributors. Again...I'm not arguing for its removal, but it doesn't seem to be resulting in significant improvements on the noted articles. 68.84.47.109 (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Because of similar considerations, there is currently an ongoing discussion at The TAFI talk page on whether TAFI should take the pink box of Featured List from Tuesday to Sunday. Any addition to the discussion is welcome. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
This just confirms the reasons why I opposed adding TAFI to the Main Page in the first place. It hasn't lead to improvements in the articles, because readers are not interested in becoming editors. At least 99% of hits on the Main Page are by people who have never edited the encyclopaedia, for whom this section is a pointless waste of space. There are more appropriate places for TAFI, such as the Village Pump or Signpost. Modest Geniustalk11:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The aim is at least partly to turn more readers into editors. You don't do that by targetting areas readers almost never go. Rd232talk12:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The Main Page is our front door, welcome mat, whatever you want to call it. The first thing that visitors see when they visit the website. Ever since Wikipedia was founded it has been designed to showcase the good things about the site - from the best content (TFA and TFP), timeliness (ITN), breadth of coverage (DYK and OTD), its free nature (the header), multiple languages (footer) etc. It also acts to help readers find the material they want - portal links, sister projects etc. Articles which aren't much good and need someone to work on them don't fit into either of those aims. TAFI is out of place on the MP and this has been reflected in its lack of success, even on its own terms. I still consider it to be a waste of precious Main Page space. Modest Geniustalk20:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
TAFI has been on the Main Page for ten days. Can you describe what would be necessary to consider TAFI a success, and how ten days is a reasonable length of time to achieve this success? Up until this point, perhaps our welcome mat has only been showing one side of the wiki; our best content. It is the contention of some editors that by showcasing another side, incompleteness, we can turn more readers into editors. Indeed every one of us made that change at some point, I assume because we saw something that needed doing, and did it. --NickPenguin(contribs)21:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that 10 days is nowhere near enough; 6 weeks would be a more appropriate trial period. I didn't start this discussion! But incompleteness is not something we should be proud of. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media community. Its success should be judged by the quality of the product, not the number of contributors. Modest Geniustalk21:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not convinced that this is a simple matter of readers vs. editors. Meaningful improvements usually requires more than just a simple editor. It instead needs an editor willing and able to perform research and locate usable references. The supply of editors interested in expending non-trivial levels of effort improving articles on subjects they themselves are indifferent towards has always been very limited. Wikipedia has however never run short of people willing to tell others what to do. I pointed this dichotomy out when the proposal to revive article improvement efforts was made last year, but the individuals behind the revival effort felt it was still worth the effort. The fact that past article improvement efforts suffered from the same problem attracting editors willing to make improvements as the current project was not considered an issue. To quote George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." --Allen3talk13:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
True, it's not simply readers vs editors. As I've said in the past, the key issue is getting more deeply engaged and knowledgeable (in both content and wiki-editing) editors. But you don't get those deeply engaged editors out of thin air; you get them from having more editors, some small proportion of whom become deeply engaged. Rd232talk13:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The current design of TAFI is poor. When I pushed for a "get involved with editing" section, the idea was always to provide a little of "here's what you can do - go on, get stuck in" encouragement. Mere listing of "today's articles for improvement" is nonsense - readers, if they even see it, won't see it as a Call to Action (to get stuck in with editing), but rather as a "here's what's happening today" announcement. Nearly useless, IMO. Rd232talk12:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I ever did an actual mockup, but see eg Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_54#Main_page_Article_Editing_-_reboot (yes, from 2009...) on a Main Page section to get readers editing. Bottom line: it probably needs to go across the page to have enough space, to have a little blurb about "yes, you too can edit", and probably each TAFI needs a couple of suggestions on what needs improving about the article - something that might induce readers to go "I might be able to do that", so it's not just a uselessly vague "this can be improved". And help links of course for users to get started with editing. Also a clear suggestion that signing up for an account is helpful but optional, and that if getting involved with editing is too scary to begin with, then providing comments on the talk page can also be very helpful. Basically, a section that clearly aims at reader-to-editor conversion. Rd232talk13:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia_talk:TAFI#TAFI_layout_on_Main_Page - something like Format 1, but with help links and (ideally, though it's more work to do for each TAFI) "what needs improving" instructions instead of the first line from the article. {{TAFI}} as the header for the TAFI article is OK, but some of that "get stuck in, here's how" attitude and instruction needs to be on the Main Page. Rd232talk13:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Rd232, it sounds like a good suggestion. I think you should post this on the TAFI talk page too. We could certainly benefit from your opinion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I was following the 'related changes' link to the week 16 page for the dates between the 15th and the 21st, and there were a larger number of edits to the pages, even if you remove the highly edited writer article. I also looked at the stats.grok.se info for each of the pages, and there was a roughly 20-30% increase in article traffic for those days. Although I didn't crunch the numbers, I would estimate a roughly similar increase in the number of edits, compared to the period from the 8th to the 14th. We didn't miraculously get ten new featured articles, so maybe our expectations were a bit ambitious. There is no doubt that some improvement occurred, and at a faster rate than the previous week.
In general, I do not think we should evaluate TAFI's effectiveness purely on the results of one week because for two main reasons: It's still a new feature and people are only still 'dsicovering' it exists. Also, the articles selected might not have been the best choices for article to encourage collaboration. When it comes to improving results, I think we need to get some past results to improve. A single week of a new feature does not make an adequate sample group. --NickPenguin(contribs)17:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. It does of course need time to get some worthwhile data samples, and for possible changes to be developed in response. Rd232talk19:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Template:TAFI has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
This user likes these edits to the Main Page. 90.197.33.102 (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Like Great summary. Agree entirely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Not done. Content is removed from "In the news" when there is something to replace it from T:ITN/C, not simply when it is "old". LFaraone 13:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
