Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 19:43 on 13 July 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

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

Errors with "In the news"

Update Beryl death toll - 40 dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.0.35.246 (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 19)

Monday's FL

(July 15)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

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

---

General discussion

Wikipedia size: Implementation of proposed changes

In the previous discussion (now archived) there was significant support for two changes:

1. Remove number of English Wikipedia articles from the top of the page, as it is duplicated in the bottom section.
2. Display top size category of other language Wikipedias as a range (i.e. 500,000 to 1,200,000), given that current display is misleading and counter-productive.

I am in favour of these changes to be implemented. --Elekhh (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully support the proposed changes and hope they can be implemented without further delay. - Ipigott (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call the support for these changes "significant." But I suppose we'll find out.

I disagree with both proposals. We should look at the purpose behind these sections. For the first, the number of articles the English Wikipedia has is advertising. We are showing off a sexy fact about Wikipedia, and indeed one of the most distinctive things Wikipedia is known for is its vast size. It should absolutely go "above the fold." I don't see what's wrong with duplication, either; we duplicate the list of foreign language Wikipedias, too, in both the left sidebar and the bottom navbox. Should we remove one on the basis that people can surely use the other? If people still did find the two separate page counts undesirable, it'd probably be better to remove the count from the bottom section rather than the top notice.

As for the second proposal, this also misses the point of what exactly the bottom section is for. If the count on top is "advertising," the list of foreign language Wikipedias is utilitarian. It is there for those who want to look something up in what is probably their native language who ended up at the English Wikipedia, or at least a language they have an interest in. While casual visitors to the English Wikipedia may well find the number of articles in English Wikipedia a cool fact and a selling point, that doesn't describe at all the intended audience for the Wikipedia languages section. See David Levy's points in the archived discussion, basically; if you want the Hebrew Wikipedia, it really doesn't matter at all how many articles are in it. The reason why the number of articles is listed / used at all is simply to sort the Wikipedias most likely to be relevant to the top of the list. It would be no great harm to have, say, organized the section alphabetically and then bolded the most visited Wikipedias as an alternative method of showing other Wikipedias while highlighting "relevant" ones. What matters is screen layout and real estate, and this proposal would distract viewers with numbers entirely beside the point. (Unnecessary numbers, too, with the exception of the highest tier - it's already clear that "more than 100,000 articles" means 100,000 - 150,000 on the current display.) SnowFire (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed removal of the article count from the top of the page, you're quite correct that this serves as advertising. And in the days before Wikipedia was well known, its presence made sense.

But Wikipedia has become one of the most popular websites, so we no longer need to worry that the public is unaware of its comprehensive nature. By continuing to display our article count so prominently, we proclaim to the world that we value quantity above quality. We else would we boast that the site contains 6,851,276 articles (many of which are poorly written)? —David Levy 03:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the proposals, per SnowFire. The number of articles of Wikipedia is relevant, and that it values quantity over quality is only a paranoid interpretation. It's a wow. It's a hell of a lot. It's impressive. It blows all other encyclopedias away. Leave it up there.

As SnowFire pointed out, the range is already implicit in the scale. I think we should have a new level added at 1,000,000 articles since that is a significant milestone, and waiting for other Wikipedias to reach it before such a level is created is plain silly. "Over 1,000,000" is twice as impressive as over "500,000", in more ways than one.

The Transhumanist    22:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Seeking to "impress" readers with the sheer number of articles — advertised at the top of the main page — literally is placing quantity before quality. Many of those articles are very poorly written, and we're bragging about them.

2. 1,000,000 articles (as we define it) "is a significant milestone" because we happen to use a decimal numeral system. The section is designed with a practical layout (not an assortment of arbitrary "milestones") in mind.

3. I explained in the previous discussion why double the quantity of articles isn't "twice as impressive" at this scale. But again, the section's purpose isn't to impress. —David Levy 02:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into it. An emphasis on quality is admirable. That doesn't take away from the fact that quantity is undeniably a selling point as well. We can, in fact, have our cake and eat it too - I'd argue that "Today's Featured Article" is fulfilling the role of emphasizing well-written Wikipedia content. I'm also not quite in the Wikipedia chest-beaters crowd about how "bad" some of our articles are - as noted, Britannica Micropedia articles are often the equivalent of stubs. They were still useful. The same with short / choppy Wikipedia articles. SnowFire (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, we feature some of our best articles on the main page...below the article count (the first thing that we display after the welcome message). Hence my statement that we literally place quantity before quality.

You've stated that you wouldn't mind removing the article count from the Wikipedia languages section, but it was inserted there as part of a plan to relocate it from the top of the page (which was postponed due to the excitement surrounding the 2,000,000th article). No one has advocated eliminating the article count from the page, but its placement should reflect an emphasis on quality. —David Levy 06:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removing the count from the top (for the reason articulated by David Levy) and disagree with the ranges (because the range is understood). --Khajidha (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

My sentiments echo Khajidha's, for the most part: I oppose the ranges and am neutral about removing the count from the top. Also, it seems to me that the two proposals pursue opposite goals. Removing the count from the top could de-emphasize the size (in terms of quantity) of the English Wikipedia, but adding ranges at the bottom does nothing except to emphasize the size (in terms of quantity) of other Wikipedias. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The goals are not opposite, but distinct. The first goal is to eliminate overemphasis on numbers through repetition and placement. The second goal is to simply correct the present misleading appearance of a huge quantitative gap between the English Wiki with 3,400,000+ articles and the next largest Wikipedias shown as 500,000+... As far size matters, this is under-representing Wikimedia projects as a whole, and is remarkably inaccurate for an encyclopaedia, as many have noted. It is strange to see complicated arguments in favour of no change by stating that the same kind of numbers at the top of the page would be beneficial marketing while at the bottom utilitarian aesthetics. I also note that 1,000,000 is double of 500,000 in any numeral system. Elekhh (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do you deny that there is not a gigantic quantitative gap between English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias? Because there is. Now I agree that bringing this up is irrelevant, which is why I've noted that I'd be fine with removing the "English Wikipedia has X articles" from the bottom section which emphasizes that section as some kind of count. I have no idea what you're getting at with "1M is double 500K" either.

I don't see what's so complicated about what I said, either. As you put it yourself: the top number is advertising, the bottom interwiki section is utilitarian. Number of articles is a fluffy but not terribly useful fact, so it works as advertising but isn't necessary for utility. Do you deny this? Hopefully you at least understand my point. It's really not complicated at all. SnowFire (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You kind of avoid addressing the raised issues: if the quantitative gap is "gigantic" anyway, why creating the impression is double as much as it actually is? If the bottom section is "utilitarian", why is so difficult to present the real numbers? If the number is not so relevant, why displaying it starting at the very top? And what do you mean with "number of articles is a fluffy but not terribly useful fact, so it works as advertising", does this mean that the majority of our readers are unable to make the difference? --Elekhh (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your first point about reducing overemphasis on numbers by removing the count at the top of the page (though I do kind of see SnowFire's point about "fluffy" advertising). On the second point, however, I think that adding ranges increases emphasis on numbers. It is, after all, no more or less accurate to say that de.wikipedia contains "500,000–1,200,000 articles" versus "more than 500,000 articles". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So to the question "What do you think is the size of de.wiki (x) knowing that" (a) 500,000< x , or (b) 500,000<x<1,200,000, the accuracy of responses would be the same... On the other point, I of course have no arguments against "fluffy"-ness, if that's what the community wants. --Elekhh (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, the accuracy of the responses likely would not be the same. "500,000 < x" and "500,000 < x < 1,200,000" are both accurate, but the latter is more informative. The key question is, I suppose, whether we need or want (from an aesthetic or other standpoint) to be more informative regarding the numerical size of other Wikipedias. As for the count at the top ... well, I'm mostly neutral on that, leaning toward removal, but ultimately it is (as you say) partly a matter of personal preference and perspective. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but then 3,466,070 repeated twice could be also seen as overly informative. I can imagine many "milder" solutions to the raised issues: the article count at the top of the page could be replaced with something like "the largest encyclopedia" to solve the duplication issue and slightly reduce emphasis on numbers. Another alternative would be, in the bottom section to simply pace the English wiki in the row with the top category, with a similar effect. --Elekhh (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If anything, "the largest encyclopedia" places more emphasis on quantity (because it stresses the encyclopedia's sheer size without even the pretense of conveying useful data).

Also keep in mind that we already display "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" directly above (rightly so, as that is what we need to promulgate). Wikipedia's size is well known nowadays, so there simply is no need to continue advertising it at the top of the page. Doing so, especially in proximity to the aforementioned encouragement to edit, makes it seem that our top priority is creating as many articles as possible.

By the way, I realize that you support the top article count's removal and merely noted a possible alternative.  :) —David Levy 16:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I've said before I don't really consider the categorisation a big problem. Even if people are really silly enough to think when you have 4 cats that are 50k, 100k, 150k and 500k it's resonable to expect a cat for 1 million (if the cat was 250k then perhaps but with the 150k and then jump to 500k this hardly seems like a series to me so I don't see any reason anyone will expect 1 million), ultimately it's questionable if it matters. Anything with over 500k is surely good enough that from the readers POV, it doesn't really matter if it's 500k or 1.2 million and if they aren't interested in it when it is only 500k, they are likely to be interested in it with 1.2 million (and a primary reason is just so we have some way of seperating the listings anyway). (Between 1000 and 500k there's quite a resonable change the difference in size will matter.) But if people care that much, I'm not going to oppose including a range. I agree that removing the number of articles at the top is fine. BTW while it's true that 0xF4240 is double 0x7A120, I'm not sure why this is relevant. Definitely if we were using hexadecimal I doubt people would be so desperate to have a seperate cat for F4240 Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hexadecimal would be an improvement indeed :) and I wouldn't mind removing numbers altogether. Is just if numbers are displayed they should reflect the facts. Is puzzling why is so hard to achieve simple accuracy here, instead repeated statements implying that 1.2 million is about the same as 500k. Surely there must be an aesthetic-utilitarian solution which is also accurate, or at least not misleading. --Elekhh (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I support removing the article count. As David Levy said, it puts quantity above quality, and at this point Wikipedia has nothing to prove to the world as far as quantity goes. At this point it has become like the old running tally on the McDonald's sign; eventually, you just change it to "billions and billions served" and move on with your life. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(de-indent) Sorry about the slow reply. Sticking my responses down here because they'd likely be lost above.

David Levy: " Indeed, we feature some of our best articles on the main page...below the article count (the first thing that we display after the welcome message). Hence my statement that we literally place quantity before quality."

Literally is not figuratively, though. We literally place the "view source" tab above everything too, which means... nothing. Now wanting to adjust the prominence is fair enough, but I don't feel we're overemphasizing quantity. We advertise quantity, yes (and I think we should), but we give far more space to the Featured Article and In The News. TFA in particular is an emphasis on quality. So I feel that the current page successfully sells both, and further I don't think that mentioning quantity prominently degrades Wikipedia's mission of improving quality as well. SnowFire (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, prominence is the relevant issue. We advertise the sheer quantity of articles in the page's most prominent location (at the top, paired with the "welcome" message). That we assign more space to other elements doesn't change the fact that the article count is one of the first things that a reader sees. By all appearances, it's what we're proudest of and most eager to promulgate (apart from the fact that Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit").

Also keep in mind that many casual readers have no understanding of what a "featured article" is. A common misconception is that "today's featured article" is simply an article that we're "featuring" on the main page today. So the fact that we value quality isn't necessarily conveyed.

As noted above, it's widely known that Wikipedia contains an enormous number of articles. By displaying a running tally at the top of the page, we imply that our main goal is to drive that number higher and higher. Conversely, the Wikipedia languages section provides a suitable context. (There's a valid reason, apart from boasting, to mention the article count.) —David Levy 18:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Elekhh: "You kind of avoid addressing the raised issues: if the quantitative gap is "gigantic" anyway, why creating the impression is double as much as it actually is? If the bottom section is "utilitarian", why is so difficult to present the real numbers? If the number is not so relevant, why displaying it starting at the very top? And what do you mean with "number of articles is a fluffy but not terribly useful fact, so it works as advertising", does this mean that the majority of our readers are unable to make the difference?"

I'm not sure we're on the same page here. As already stated, the reason why the gap appears a mere "double" the size (which is Not A Big Deal) is because we don't want to either create a 2-Wikipedia sized section, or to waste even more space on irrelevant-in-this-context article counts to show the range. That's all that's "difficult" about it. The primary goal of that section are the Wikipedia language links, so we shouldn't waste space or lay it out poorly. The article counts are incidental. As for your last point, I don't understand what you mean by "make the difference." All I'm saying is that number of articles is a cool factoid, and yes, I trust readers to know that this is just a cool factoid. SnowFire (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

We need to keep the article count at the top of the Main Page

We're approaching the 4,000,000 article milestone pretty fast. There's going to be just as much excitement around that as there was for passing the 2,000,000th article mark.

And the excitement will grow as our $upporter$ see that number getting closer to 4 million. We need to remain positioned for this, because it is a promotional opportunity we $hould not mi$$. Promoting Wikipedia is our responsibility. It helps bring in the dollars that keep all the Wikipedias running and made available for free to everyone worldwide. That number posted up there is a major selling feature of Wikipedia, because...

Quantity does matter — it is synonymous with coverage. More articles on more things. More chance of finding something on what you are looking for.

Wikipedia's scope is expanding, from major subjects in general to major subjects for smaller and smaller localities. What's major for someone planning to visit or move to Hershey, Pennsylvania USA is different for someone living in Wagga Wagga in New South Wales, Australia. So for the former we have articles like Hershey Public Library, and for the latter, there's Wagga Wagga Botanic Gardens. Wikipedia's scope is represented in that number at the top of the Main Page.

Also relevant to our fund-raising imperative, our running total allows quantitative comparison with other informational resources, such as other encyclopedias (Britannica springs to mind) and other websites. And maybe someday, the Library of Congress!

We should keep our most notable and promotable feature (coverage) right at the top of the main page where everyone can see it.

The Transhumanist    17:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The 2,000,000th article's creation generated substantially less excitement than that of the 1,000,000th article. The 3,000,000th article's creation generated less excitement still. We've long since reached the point at which Wikipedia's tremendous size and scope became obvious and well known, so we're basically beating a dead horse.

No one is asserting that quantity doesn't matter, but it isn't what we need to promote nowadays. The Internet-using public already is aware that the site contains an enormous quantity of articles on a vast array of subjects (to the extent that this is frequently referenced in popular media, such as print, film and television). The other common belief (also frequently referenced in popular media) is that Wikipedia's quality is highly questionable. Readers know that they probably can find something on what they're looking for, but they're reluctant to trust what they find. By advertising the site's sheer size (of which people already are aware) at the top of the main page, we convey that we value it (and seek to increase it) above all else. This impacts not only the site's perception among readers, but also the participation of some editors (who are led to believe that our prime directive is to create as many articles as possible, rather than improving existing articles). —David Levy 17:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You wish Wikipedia to stop asserting that quantity does matter, and that's just not good marketing. One of the main reasons everybody is aware of Wikipedia's greatest selling feature (coverage, due to its size) is because we have the article count posted at the top of our Main Page. We have it up there for a very good reason. William Wrigley was asked why he continued to advertise so heavily when his chewing gum products were already well known: His answer: "A plane goes about 300 MPH. Why doesn't the pilot just turn off the engines and let the plane fly on its own momentum?" The Transhumanist    17:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish to stop asserting that quantity matters more than quality does, even after we've reached 6,851,276 articles.

The article count's presence at the top of the main page undoubtedly played a significant role in bolstering Wikipedia's popularity, but it's long since outlived its usefulness.

The Wrigley analogy is inapplicable for several reasons:

1. Wrigley didn't receive customers via search engines (undoubtedly our primary source of traffic).

2. Wrigley had competitors offering similar products. No website comes close to matching what Wikipedia offers, and if one ever does, that will be good (because our goal is to spread free knowledge).

3. It's generally agreed that Wrigley's advertising was effective. I assert that the article count's placement in the header sends a counterproductive message that lowers the public's confidence in Wikipedia. —David Levy 19:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering we always promote the milestone number seperately I would say this whole 4 million thing falls flat on its face anyway. If anything, by removing the count, we give more prominence to the number when it's a milestone like 4 million so we get a better promotional/advertising effect out of it rather then continually having the number on the main page so no one is surprised when we reach 4 million. Also we're still quite far from the 4 million mark, we're less then half way there from 3 million. And as DL said, 3 million didn't really get that much attention. There's no reason to expect 4 million to get more, it's likely to get less. If we're lucky 5 million may but that's even longer. Nil Einne (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Approaching 4 million pretty fast?? Really??? its taken over a year and still going to gain 500,000 articles. It will be early 2012 at current rate in which we reach 4 million which, given the potential contributors to wikipedia and sheer amount of very notable content missing is actually very slow. The article count is neither bragging about our size nor it is causing any harm. Its a rough insight to the scope of wikipedia currently which is very useful. The problem is that is doesn't measure quality (which is most important), it paints short stubs or long, poorly written unsourced articles as the same as articles like the Ming Dynasty.. But anybody who is an active reader/contributor to wikipedia is fully aware of how many articles are lacking...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, when someone becomes an "active reader/contributor," he/she realizes that many of our articles are of poor quality. Our layout implies that we don't particularly care (because our top priority is to create as many articles as possible). For readers, this dampens confidence. For editors, it actively encourages such prioritization.

You noted that the problem isn't the article count's presence, but the lack of context. Okay, so let's pursue a compromise in which the missing context is added.

Until 30 May, we displayed links directly below the grey box. I suggest that we transplant the portal links to this newly vacated area, thereby freeing up the right-hand side of the box for the article count and related information (in a style of prose similar to that contained in our previous main page design).

Here's a mock-up.

In this example, I relocated text from Wikipedia languages (some of which appeared in the header to begin with) and added a link to that section. I included the featured article count, thereby conveying that we value quality. I also restored the longstanding "Categories" and "A–Z index" links, which we might have been a bit hasty to remove.

Opinions? —David Levy 04:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the simplification of the layout and removal of some repetition (Not sure however why Portal Arts has been removed). Regarding the right-upper corner, I would include GAs as well, which are quality articles. --Elekhh (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The omission of Portal:Arts was accidental. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I like the idea of including the good articles, and I've done so in my second mock-up (linked below). —David Levy 02:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the placement of the Portal links, but not the mass of text on the right. How about a simpler 'Currently: XXX articles, of which <br/>XXX are featured articles<br/>XXX are good articles' or similar? Modest Genius ^talk 02:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see my second mock-up. —David Levy 02:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the article counts' text is very small in Google Chrome (but not in my other browsers), presumably due to the use of a monospaced font. Obviously, that would need to be fixed. —David Levy 03:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, though it would be best to lose the colours on the numbers, capitalise each line, and use a normal font (ie not monospaced). Presumably some technical fix would be needed to make the FA and GA numbers updated? Modest Genius ^talk 03:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the colors.

Do you mean that "featured articles" should become "Featured articles", "good articles" should become "Good articles" and "articles in total" should become "Articles in total"? That looks odd to me, as the numerals (not the words) begin each line.

I'd much prefer using a non-monospaced font, but I need someone whose coding skills are better than mine to implement an alternative method of aligning the values.

The FA and GA counts would be inserted via templates, which also would be transcluded on (and be updated instead of) Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles. —David Levy 03:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I support David's efforts here and agree that this mock-up represents a step forward, and in the right direction. Good work! I would however also prefer 'Featured articles' and 'Good articles' capitalised, or maybe capitalising 'Articles' too, to make it a little clearer that these are official counts and not overly subjective. Capitalising would make the text match the link, too. As it stands, they do look a little like opinions. Or, the numerals could be moved to the end of each line, as in Featured articles: 3,091. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 10:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I've incorporated your suggestion to move the numerals to the end of each line. Thank you! —David Levy 17:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I just got rid of the monospaced font in the sandbox, instead using a subtable to get the alignments right. Is that better? Modest Genius ^talk 19:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a big improvement. Thank you! —David Levy 20:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice! I wonder if it would be better with the FA/GA/T numbers right aligned and reduced line spacing. --Elekhh (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(rest indent) One MASSIVE caveat w.r.t. David Levy's layout: "good article" on WP means an article that has passed WP:GA. "Good article" in the English language means "so the other 3 million articles are rubbish?" Think of what message we are conveying to our readers. Zunaid 08:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree; we should avoid using Wikipedia jargon. Either a count without disclaimers, or no count at all. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 08:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the likelihood of such confusion was the first thing that went through my mind when I learned of the Wikipedia:Good articles concept years ago. It's a strong argument for changing the name, and I believe that we should.

Apart from that, our choices are to not mention "good articles" on the main page, to mention them in a manner that either explicitly specifies their nature (via a lengthy description) or implies it (e.g. articles designated "good"), or to hope that readers follow the link. —David Levy 08:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Is empty space better than fund-raising efforts?

Something we've overlooked is that if we remove the article count from its spot at the top of the Main Page, it will leave a hole up there.

Is empty space better than that spot's current use for promoting Wikipedia?

Do we have something better than the article count to place up there, that will promote Wikipedia more effectively?

If so, then I'd be all for it.

The Transhumanist    18:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing that count doesn't create any unsightly white space. If anything the header looks better without it (see Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox). Also, I don't see what the article count does to solicit donations - there's no link there or anything to suggest readers should donate if they're impressed with the article count. Modest Genius ^talk 18:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea! The Transhumanist    18:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Err, there was no idea presented in my post. If you are suggesting adding a 'donate' link there, that's actually a stupid idea which I would strongly oppose. Modest Genius ^talk 18:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We already display a "Donate" link on every page. —David Levy 19:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the header looks much better without the article count included. This is because the header box was designed without the article count (which we'd relocated to the bottom). It was tacked on as a temporary measure (due to the aforementioned excitement surrounding the 2,000,000th article), with the intent of removing it shortly thereafter. —David Levy 19:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude, how many discussion forks are you going to make? We get it - you support keeping the count. Why couldn't all this have been added to the original discussion, instead of forcing people to follow three different threads and repeat themselves? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Transhumanist, please stop creating a new sub-thread for every point that occurs to you. —David Levy 19:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That argument is based on the assuption that the article count's presence in the header is a positive marketing tool. As I've explained above, this point is contested. I believe that it sends a counterproductive message that lowers the public's confidence in Wikipedia. —David Levy 19:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

F-bomb on the Main Page

Regarding the DYK entry for Glee: The Music, Volume 4, was it really such a good idea to put "Fuck You" on the Main Page (even below the fold, so to speak) with the annual fundraiser just beginning? Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I find the use of such language very unpleasant when it's used aggressively and personally on Talk pages (usually with no consequences), but that instance is a reference to the name of a real song. While I don't think much of the name of the song (obviously designed to shock and seek attention, irrelevant of other merit or lack thereof), it is a real name and can probably be justified. Whether Wikipedia should set policy with the goal of placating potential donors is another issue entirely. I don't think it should. Such an approach would give donors an inordinate amount of power compared with non-donors. HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED DC T•C 17:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed not censored, oh, and all hail the great and late George Carlin plz. Pioneer of reason.—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying things like that should never be on the Main Page. Just not when we're kicking off our annual fundraiser. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Its not the use of the word that is so offensive it is the time of day and the time of the week you put in on when children may likely be using wikipedia in the UK on a Sunday. No wikipedia is not censored but we should be responsible for what appears on the main page and use more tact. If this article had appeared say tomorrow at 2pm UK afternoon time it would have been completely fine. No we are not censored but how many parents seeing it are likely to encourage their children to read wikipedia and leave them open to reading it. Educationally it is irresponsible and in seeing it on a front page will judge a book by its cover. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Blofeld. Not censored is not a license to be obscene or irresponsibly provocative.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Since when do we only care about people in the UK? Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, the use of a 'bad word' on the main page could cause it to be blocked by filters at schools and workplaces, and by parental control filters in homes. Needless to say, that's not good. Acather96 (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I know. Censored or not, many thousands of our readers, particuarly on the weekends are children and I wonder how many children would be banned from wikipedia entirely by a parent seeing that sort of content on the main page when they could massively benefit from learning about solid encyclopedic topics on science and nature etc. of which there are thousands of beneficial articles inside the encyclopedia they could be learning from. It just gives off a bad message putting it on the front page at a time when the amount of children reading wikipedia is likely to be near its peak during the week. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the support, and while I certainly support NOTCENSORED as much as anyone else it ought to have a corollary page called NOTINYOURFACE or something like that. My larger point was not so much who would see it as the timing. If you are logged out you will see the fundraiser ad with a nice picture of Jimmy in it (yes, it's that time of year again). One has to wonder if this deterred any contributions ... I think there was a similar incident in the last year where the good Volk at the German Wikipedia put their version of Vulva, complete with free image, on their Main Page, not even during the fundraiser. They got more complaints than we have, ever, for anything we ever did, and even Jimmy said it wasn't the smartest idea. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy also deemed artwork and medical illustrations "pornographic," so he isn't necessarily the most reliable authority on such matters. —David Levy 19:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The Main Page is slightly censored. WP:TFA says that there is a "a very small, unofficial list of featured articles that [are not intended to] appear on the main page." The question is whether censorship of the title of this song would have been appropriate or not. My own opinion is "No", and I'm afraid that the "not in front of the children" argument doesn't really cut it with me, considering the amount of child-unfriendly material which is already on Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Raul654 (the featured article director), the only featured article currently blacklisted is Jenna Jameson. (The Wikipedia article was too, but it no longer has "featured" status.) Even Gropecunt Lane made it onto the main page.

Some users disagree with the Jenna Jameson decision (which Raul made not because he regards the content as offensive, but because he doesn't want to deal with complaints), but we have far more featured articles then available dates. —David Levy 19:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec):::I agree completely that the use of expletives on the main page is inappropriate. Sure, we have a policy of WP:UNCENSORED, but we also have a Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Now, I"m not sure what it says about expletives, but I think there should be a rule against them on the main page. We have many policies on language used on the main page that are stricter than the larger body of Wikipedia (e.g. we avoid WP:AmE or WP:BrE; no fair use images). As said above, it's counter to WP's mission to make the page more difficult to use for educational purposes.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it is not used as an expletive, but rather as part of the name of a song. In this context, it would be similar to using "Dick" on the Main Page in the context of an item about Dick Cheney. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Dick has two possible meanings. In regards to Cheney it is his name, short for Richard. A resounding "Fuck you!" whether it is a song or whatever can only be used offensively either "to go to hell and get off or "to literally have sexual intercourse" and stands out considerably more... just because wikipedia is stating it as a song name doesn't make it right. Sorry, I'm one of the last people who could generally give a monkeys about censorhsip and liberla use of language but it is the timing of it which left me the impresison of INYOURFACE at a totally inappropriate time of the day and week. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky situation. On the one hand, there are some valid points regarding problems that can arise (and standing on principle at the expense of readers might not be the most pragmatic approach).

On the other hand, where do we draw the line, and why? Many people would be offended by the sight of unveiled women or LGBT persons on the main page. Many people would be offended by items pertaining to religions other than theirs or scientific claims contradicting their religious beliefs. Why is to okay to offend these people?

The above is not a "slippery slope" argument, as it's highly unlikely that we would censor such subjects. My point is that by not censoring anything (beyond what's required by law), we remain neutral. We don't declare that one group's values matter and another group's values don't. We disseminate encyclopedic information, some of which might offend some people. —David Levy 19:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, but there is something very inappropriate about such a phrase appearing on the main page of wikipedia at a peak time of children's viewing during the week. It would be like airing a pornagraphic film in the afternoon on terrestrial TV on a Sunday afternoon as the TV station "is not censored". It is just the wrong time to do it. Sorry. Yes of course a lot of older children are fully aware of swear words and offensive content but to publish it on the front page on a Sunday afternoon is just off and is very "in your face" we have no rules here. kind of approach which is disasteful...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, people withholding information solely because it contains swearwords sends me into a boiling rage. Do my personal feelings get any respect here, or is it only the pro-censorship brigade who have the right to impose their personal morals on everyone? Algebraist 20:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to the concept of trying to avoid problematic timing, provided that we apply it across the board. (I know that featured articles have been rescheduled to avoid displaying them on certain days.)

I do object to the assignment of a special status to content that certain people regard as offensive. —David Levy 20:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If it had hit the main page 8 hours earlier 18 hours later I wouldn't have battered an eyelid....♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So...you regard the item as perfectly appropriate for a Sunday afternoon in Australia and New Zealand? —David Levy 20:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Monday afternoon yes. If me comments had no justification then there would be no Watershed (television) in TV either. Why do you think it is that every country in the world will only air certain content at certain times?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

When did I claim that "[your] comments had no justification"? As I wrote above, I don't object to the concept of trying to avoid problematic timing, provided that we apply it across the board. —David Levy 21:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Monday afternoon in New Zealand would be Monday morning in Malaysia and India (early morning) and Sunday afternoon in Alaska. Why is that acceptable? DYK items of course last 6 hours. Also I see today (15 November) is Republic Day in Brazil so guess we shouldn't have it today anyway. Eid al-Adha may start tomorrow evening in some countries so we need to be careful about that. Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 18 seems it's Independence Day in Latvia and National Day in Oman so thats out. I think Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 24 is our best bet and hey it's only 1.5 weeks away. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Algebraist did.. Of course at one point in the day whereever in the world it going to be an inappropriate time of the day on the other side of the world, you can't hide that on wikipedia a global 24 hour website. But there are certain days and times of the week, 95% of the rest of the week which is more appropriate. Sure some school kids in Aus might see it in the evening whilst doing homework or whatever but a Sunday afternoon in the UK from my perspective seemed the worst possible time to view it. Those FAs were aired on the front page with some tact for some reason, it should also apply to DYK. Its just bad timing. How often do we see such words which are seen as offensive by the majority of people appear on a wikipedia front page throughout the week or month? Very few times. So why did it have to appear at what is surely one of the peak times during the week for children being on the site at least for the UK and easterm US? Echoing what David said above, no I also oppose censorship of wikipedia and think we should freely be able to publish encyclopedic information. But the time we choose to publish on a main page in front of everybody does needs considering. If not morally then for the fact that wikipedia should be an attractive educational tool for children and their parents to encourage them to read wikipedia. We have a responsibility as an educational institution to show some consideration of the needs of our viewers. How many parents seeing that on the front page are really going to embrace wikipedia and not show concern about its content? Yes they and their children can avoid searching for wikipedia article with likely "adult" content in but to have such phrases appear INYOURFACE on the main page at such a time of the week seems a bad idea to me. Forget moral considerations, I'm just thinking about how much damage it could potentially do to younger viewers who want to learn from wikipedia and read about encyclopedic subjects which could greatly help their knowledge and nurturing but get banned form their parents after seeing that wikipedia is completely irresponsible in choosing what they publish on the main page and that every article may be affected..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I point out that school times are actually about the most popular times of using Wikipedia. It has been noted in the Dutch wikipedia for instance that juvenile vandalism is at its peak during school hours. The weekends are relatively quiet. Wether or not that is because kids find it less amusing to vandalize wikipedia outside of their "school yard" peer bravado is uncertain, but as far as i'm concerned, there is no usable watershed on wikipedia. Either it's there, or it's not. And I don't feel like writing "F... you" like kids aren't gonna guess that. I find that a shortsighted approach. It's a big song, half the world knows it, most kids can fill in the bleep they hear on USA MTV (this song isn't censored in most of europe). I mean, a bleep means one of seven dirty words. Way to censor !!! Conclusion some want to protect kids by not allowing certain content in the first place to be on the frontpage, which is fine but in that case please just write a "censoring" extension that we can deploy, so I don't have to be bothered with the censoring. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The song is censored in the UK; an alternate 'clean radio edit' is played called 'Forget You'. It works surprising well, with "fuck" replaced by forget, "shit" replaced by a sshh sound and the word "nigga" left out entirely or replaced with an 'mm-hmm' sound. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 01:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ironically enough, our article says the version performed in the Glee episode is in fact Forget You! The DYK entry however [1] just said it was a censored version which IMHO makes it a poor entry. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It may also be because most parents are not like Dr Blofield imagines, and do in fact take responsibility for their childrens browsing, therefore children find it a lot harder to vandalise when at home and therefore they would also be capable of dealing with any potential issues that may arise due to content we have on the main page and don't need an international website with no timezone visited by people thoroughout the world and in during all times of day, including at schools to some how try and work out a suitable timing for the whole world. Said parents may also be aware of our censorship policy, so are not going to be surprised to find content they may not consider suitable for their children on the main page, and don't need us to hide it at times they won't see it, but their kids may, so that we can pretend we don't show such content. Mind you, I suspect a lot of parents do other things with their children during the weekends, so it wouldn't surprise me if even for children+parents, visiting wikipedia during the weeks may be more common for some. Of course as I've said several times before, we've had dead people in TFP (as with all TFP items for the whole day) and regularly mention at the top of the page people dying (usually as with most ITN items lasting at least 2 days) and other stuff so I'm not really sure which parents these are who are going to be so worried about one mention of Fuck You! on the main page for 6 hours whatever the time. Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What was the point of the item? Was it about the release of the Glee Soundtrack, Gwyneth Paltrow's singing career, or the censorship of the song? Only the last would seem to require actually using the name of the song, and thus the word in question. If it was about one of the other two, it could easily have been rephrased. It seems that this was done merely to get the word onto the front page, and that seems more like vandalism than anything else. --Khajidha (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think even the most wonderful parents in the world care about whether their children vandalise Wikipedia or not. wackywace 13:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? My wife, who doesn't edit Wikipedia, has often warned my son never to vandalize it. Art LaPella (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion that there should be a 'vanilla version' and a 'all references allowed' (including topics that come under 'medical, war, things that will annoy Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells/filtering services etc applies here.

Having had the 'excessive sports' discussion and the DOTW discussion, is it time for the 'too many US articles' exchange? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW I forgot to mention that other then whatever Raul isn't going to put on the main page, we have a defacto moratorium on File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg appearing as TFP due to a lack of consensus when Howcheng mentioned it was due. Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Daniel Case on this one. While I wouldn't object to seeing this entry on DYK some other time, right now during the fundraising drive seems to be inappropriate. We're asking for money with one hand, and alienating potential donors with the other. howcheng {chat} 00:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Eid el Adha paragraph

The Islamic date should be included as well as the Gregorian date. First, it is an Islamic holiday, and such a holiday can theoretically fall twice within the Gregorian year.

209.212.5.67 (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced about that, other then the fall twice which (which is rare since there are few pure lunar calendars and most lunisolar calendars don't have any important events falling close enough to the end of the year they may fall twice and not once), there are many other events we list which are based on some other calendar. The fall twice thing itself seems moot, if it falls twice, we list it twice. The only thing is whether we should bother to put the year. I would say no, but I suspect it helps to remind people to change it from year to year. Perhaps a hidden comment would suffice although I suspect that's more likely to be missed. Of course without the year it may also cause confusion to people who don't realise which year the it fall on that date. I guess part of the problem is we recycle SA/OTD rather then create one for every year. This has it's advantages but it also can cause these sort of issues. Of course even if we don't do that, we can indicate we mean the events for this year, but not which ones don't have a constant Gregorian date (on the other hand some holidays based on the Gregorian calendar don't fall on the same day if they are based on some day of X week). Nil Einne (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Balance

The current MP balance is way off, mostly due to a very long DYK. We could do with 2-3 items added to ITN + OTD. Modest Genius ^talk 01:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just chop them off DYK? Nobody would notice... Especially as DYK will be circled through in 4½ hours while the rest of the sections will stay up. Did anyone at DYK think about the length of the section? Of course not. Just cut it, don't mess around with the sections which actually try to work for the readers rather than the contributers. Physchim62 (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Or chop a few sentences off the excessively long TFA blurb. Nobody would notice, either. --70.31.11.54 (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Luftwaffe "command" picture

The first DYK states that the pictured bunker is the Luftwaffe command bunker. There is no evidence for this (nor even a claim of it) on the photo itself, nor the article which is referenced. The only claim is that it is simply "a German fortification", "built by slave labour." This is not rigorous enough to make the claim as it is on the mainpage....

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 19:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Fairly obvious that the description was inaccurate. Rather than leaving it up there while taking the time to find another suitable one, I've simply removed the image for now. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks very odd without an image. I suggest using Åland Maritime Museum to the top and using File:Pommern ship image 2005.jpg as an image; and replace have the hook as: "... that Åland Maritime Museum in Mariehamn, Åland, features the museum ship Pommern (pictured), which used to be one of the fastest windjammers in the grain trade in the 1930s?" wackywace 19:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 19:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, wackywace 19:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

18 November OTD: US bias and recentism

Only four events, of which three are to do with the US? None of which is earlier than 1978? Seriously? Where's the balance? Where's the reporting of important events (a cartoon and a fatal bonfire collapse?) Where's the historical spread? Where's the geographical spread? It's hard to swallow Wikipedia's claim to be a serious encyclopaedia with this kind of selection. 86.134.26.42 (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

86.134.26.42, what would you select for this day? --70.31.11.54 (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, but it was actually pretty difficult to find good articles to put for November 18. Some of the ones listed on November 18 did not actually happen today, and others are stubs or of poor quality. The best I could do was get two North American ones (one US/Canada and one Canada), but I believe that temporally speaking there is now a bit more diversity. howcheng {chat} 17:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the WP equivalent of Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells? It is a platitude that most peopel will be occasionally annoyed/dislike certain entries on the main page - or 'repeated appearance of items in certain categories' (and filtering devices rather more so). Given that 'some people in some situations' are more flexible in what they view is there some way of having 'unfiltered access' and 'filtered so as not to annoy by subject/frequency of appearance of "the usual topics" and so on'? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Selected anniversaries should not be featuring poorly sourced and low quality articles on the Main Page. High quality WP:GA and WP:FA articles should not be removed and replaced with poor quality improperly sourced pages. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries#Criteria for listing items on this set of pages says nothing about FA and GA articles taking precedence over others. Only stubs and articles with red and orange-level maintenance tags are prohibited. In fact, going by the criteria there, both Calvin & Hobbes and the Aggie Bonfire should definitely be excluded because neither are "of moderate to great historical significance". As such, I respectfully request that revert your last edit. howcheng {chat} 20:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Price Engagement

How is this front page worthy...? Its an engagement with a prince... who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.151.38 (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was gained at WP:ITN/C to put this on the main page. wackywace 19:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)