:I fail to see the problem. The US accounts for roughly 2/3rds of the native English speaking world population. It is true that Wikipedia's philosophy is a world approach, but it's also acknowledged that in practice, editors write what they know. The "bias" towards articles with some vague, tangential relation to the US is a reflection of editor population bias more than it is systematic political bias. - [[User:OldManNeptune|OldManNeptune]] [[User_talk:OldManNeptune|⚓]] 06:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
:I fail to see the problem. The US accounts for roughly 2/3rds of the native English speaking world population. It is true that Wikipedia's philosophy is a world approach, but it's also acknowledged that in practice, editors write what they know. The "bias" towards articles with some vague, tangential relation to the US is a reflection of editor population bias more than it is systematic political bias. - [[User:OldManNeptune|OldManNeptune]] [[User_talk:OldManNeptune|⚓]] 06:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
::The US only makes up about 45% of the readership ;). -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 07:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
::The US only makes up about 45% of the readership ;). -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 07:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
:::...thereby proving the less than well informed US bias that exists among some American editors. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 07:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Welcome! This page is for discussing the contents of the English Wikipedia's Main Page. For general questions unrelated to the Main Page, please visit the Teahouse or check the links below. To add content to an article, edit that article's page. Irrelevant posts on this page may be removed. Click here to report errors on the Main Page.
If you have a question related to the Main Page, please search the talk page archives first to check if it has previously been addressed:
For questions about using and contributing to the English Wikipedia:
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 18:05 on 11 November 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.
The word "collapses" seems too strong as the linked article, 2024 German government crisis, does not use it. What it actually says is "...FDP effectively moved into the opposition, rendering the current coalition a two-party minority government." So, there's still a coalition but it has lost one of its members and so will continue as a minority government for now. Scholz is negotiating what happens next and it seems to be too soon to say exactly what that will be. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'm not even sure why this is in ITN given that the government is still very much in place. There will presumably be elections soon and we should post then.
Also, when I first read this I thought it was Scholz himself who had collapsed. It's a poorly worded hook, given the presence of the photo caption in the middle, making it look like the Chancellor has had a mishap. — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'm not even sure why this is in ITN ...: Met WP:ITNSIGNIF:
It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits
Those are news headlines which, per WP:HEADLINE, tend to use "exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers". And note that those examples are contradictory – one says the "government collapses" while the other says "government teetering". These are metaphors but these can be confusing when we are blurbing actual physical collapses too such as the recent canopy collapse. We should have a more precise description using the encyclopedic language of the article rather than the journalistic hyperbole of the news headlines. In this case, the finance minister was dismissed and his party left the governing coalition. A vote of confidence is now expected but hasn't been scheduled. So, the blurb might be:
FWIW, Ger. Wiki's ITN blurb translates as: "After the failure of the ... coalition, the FDP leaves the German federal government and as a result the cabinet of Chancellor Olaf Scholz is reshuffled." -- Sca (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1932 – "... officially resumed fighting the Emu War after their prior withdrawal". - Emu war appeared as the bold link on November 2 (and nearly again on November 8). JennyOz (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The caption says the Hohenzollern Bridge survived numerous Allied bombings in World War II, only to be destroyed by German engineers as the war drew to a close in 1945.
There seems to be some confusion about syntax here. Destroyed, according to Webster's, means "demolished," "spoiled completely," "ruined." This, as opposed to heavily damaged. (One could draw an analogy with killed as opposed to seriously wounded.) If a structure is destroyed, it can’t be repaired, though it, or something like it, can be reconstructed. Only a damaged structure can be repaired.
Compare the German Wiki entry, which says: ... am 6. März 1945 wurden die Brückenpfeiler durch Pioniere der sich zurückziehenden Deutschen Wehrmacht gesprengt. Dabei wurden die uferseitigen Bögen teilweise nur gering beschädigt. Translation: On March 6, 1945, the bridge piers were dynamited by engineers of the retreating German Army. In this action, parts of the arches near the riverbanks were only slightly [gering] damaged.
Thus, the bridge was not destroyed, but only damaged. It seems it was repaired after the war, and later expanded with a third set of arches.
Today's main page (August 18, 2011) was really enjoyable. The content in every section held my interest and I found myself constantly going back to it to follow all the various links. Just wanted to express my appreciation, as I'm just a reader rather than a contributor to the main page areas. -- Ϫ07:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... oh yeah, and something about a Canadian science-fiction series and a Spanish mouse...
Seriously, four out of six items that "center" on the United States do not suggest that Wikipedia has an international scope. A parochial scope, yes. An insular scope, definitely. An Americocentric scope, without a doubt. But America is not the world. 87.114.100.56 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made up that list of 6 items, so I do apologize deeply to any to whom "the Kneeland Prairie penny-cress is a mustard flower with spoon-shaped petals and spatula-shaped leaves" causes offense. Because so many US-centered articles are submitted, typically roughly 50% are US-related. I did not realize the penny-cress was offensively US-patriotic; otherwise I could have stuck it into a different prep, thus rendering this set of DYK only 3 of 6 US-related. Please, please, please submit articles focused on a country you favor to DYK, we would love to have more of them. Sharktopustalk20:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) DYK articles on the Main Page reflect articles submitted at T:TDYK. Although it fluctuates, in general about half of the articles submitted there have to do with the US, and so about half of any DYK update will deal with the US. We realize that coverage is not balanced; perhaps you'd like to help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias? Or you could watch Special:NewPages and submit suitable non-US articles to DYK. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I invite anyone curious to take a look at many other recent sets of DYK nominations to see how rare it is to find a set with "Seriously, four out of six items that "center" on the United States." Which makes us all the more grateful for the intense vigilance of logged-out anonymous editors flagging unintended but nevertheless hideously offensive bias. Thank god for those brave whistleblowers! Sharktopustalk20:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without comment on the rest, the fourth item is rather strange or poorly phrased. How is it possible anyone other then an American could be the first Asian American (student at an American college/quarterback in the NFL). Are there Asian Americans that are not Americans? I know people sometime claim that certain things are obvious but this is rather different since it seems to be something that by definition has to be. If the item is trying to illustrate that same person was all these things, surely it could still be better phrased? IMHO just calling him by name would have been better then what we have. And he isn't living so there aren't BLP concerns either. Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, apologies, I thought they sounded odd but rarely pay much attention to DYK so decided that must be how they're usually written nowadays Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it funny that "some Spanish mouse" had nearly twice the hits as the rest of the set combined. The power of Spanish mice should not be dismissed out of hand, I guess. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might make more sense if you look up the traditional uses of Spanish fly and then consider that recollection for search purposes often tends to be imperfect. - Tenebris 15:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see the problem. The US accounts for roughly 2/3rds of the native English speaking world population. It is true that Wikipedia's philosophy is a world approach, but it's also acknowledged that in practice, editors write what they know. The "bias" towards articles with some vague, tangential relation to the US is a reflection of editor population bias more than it is systematic political bias. - OldManNeptune⚓06:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This true-color satellite view of the Hawaiian Islands shows that most of the vegetation on the islands grows on the northeast sides—not at that resolution, it doesn't. If we're expecting readers to pick out detail like that, we need to make the image bigger. What's the reluctance to render the TFP at a resolution at which it has a chance of being useful? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it might cause a minor issue for the ~1-2% of users who still browse Wikipedia at less than 1024x768 resolution. Whereas of course when it comes to diagrams putting them in SVG format, which is completely unsupported by the browsers used by ~50% of web users (IE 6, 7 and 8) is completely acceptable.
Looking in my web developer tools the image in question is currently 9.53kB out of 200kB to load the main page (uncached). If we doubled the width and height that would quadruple the area and therefore increase the image size by a factor of 4 to 38.12kB increasing the amount downloaded by ~ 14%. Far more critical to loading times is the fact that I need to download 46 different files to load the main page and the latency of doing that.
Not everyone maximises their browser window, so even on nominally high resolution monitors there isn't always a huge amount of space. But it could certainly be, say, 500px wide. Modest Geniustalk00:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Width isn't a a matter, but height is. The preview on the file page barely fits between my address bar and the search bar (Firefox 6.0, Windows XP). Rather distracting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The preview is at a much higher resolution than double the main page resolution as it is in my screenshot. My screenshot only made the image 500px wide. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments about SVG's
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SVGs are rendered by the servers as PNG for most display purposes so it isn't an issue. (Our rendering engine is somewhat outdated and does have issues but then again this is useful since it serves as a baseline for people to test compatibility.) The benefits of using SVG still remain and in fact a lot of them also apply to those using rendered SVGs. We don't reject high resolution images uploaded to our servers even if we require consideration of using high resolution images in articles etc. Incidentally, no one has ever produced statistics for our actual users, and last time someone produced statistics for users of other websites it was IIRC 3 or 4% so making the claim only 1-2% of our users have less then 1024x768 is quite misleading. In fact since IIRC we were only really considering horizontal resolution it may even be higher if you specify x768 (and it can be an issue as illustrated by Crisco in this case). Looking at the specific case, the image size could have been increased, but that doesn't excuse using misleading statistics. One issue is the template isn't able to fall back gracefully to putting text below the image if needed. (I believe this is done manually for landscape images.) I don't know if this is possible, but if it is possible to design the template so it can fallback gracefully to placing the text below when necessary, then this would reduce concerns about having the image too wide. Nil Einne (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW other then other issues, I can't help thinking two of the reasons the image was kept small is because it would be distracting if so large at many resolutions; and aesthically it looks odd given the small amount of text, more so the greater the browser resolution particularly the horizontal resolution (i.e. it's worse for people with widescreens and large resolutions). Look at User:Nil Einne/Sandbox with such a monitor (it doesn't look as bad in the example above precisely because of the small horizontal resolution). Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments about SVG's
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(edit conflict) The benefits of SVG are that if you wanted to blow a PNG image up to the size of a billboard that you'd be unable to do so and in theory (but not practice) that its technically superior. The other advantage - that its easier to create multiple versions at different resolutions is basically solved by getting users to upload a high resolution PNG and then resizing that. The disadvantages are that they don't render natively at all in the browser used by half the audience, support in other browsers is also incomplete, that they are also far harder to edit and that the PNG conversion code is poor and doesn't work properly - that that helps "compatibility" is a lame excuse. If I create a PNG it displays perfectly in every browser after IE 7 and as long as it doesn't have transparency it displays perfectly in IE 6 too. Additionally if I created the image in Inkscape or Omnigraffle rather than writing the code by hand there isn't anything I can do about that incompatibility even if I wanted to. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental point of the matter is that we are prepared to penalise large numbers of users and editors so that billboard users can use Wikipedia diagrams and so we can use a theoretically technically superior format. Whereas we are unable to penalise 1-2% (or 3-4%) of users who browse the internet at below 1024 width even though every other website on the internet does. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, we're having two separate discussions here: one about image sizes in general and another about PNG vs SVG. Let's try to keep it to one topic or the other. howcheng {chat}17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is we're not penalising them. In fact, as I said SVGs are still often an advantage even to those without native support. Yes I know you've collapsed the rest of the discussion so I won't reply to you other misleading claims (except to say edibility is often an advantage not a disadvantage of SVGs) there but as long as your IMO extremely misleading claim here stands, this is a fair reply. Nil Einne (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sandbox does indeed look ugly, but on my old laptop (1024x768, but browser not maximised, So something like 900x700). The text spills over more height than the image occupies, and because most of the width is image it horribly messes with the text justification. Which I think is the opposite of the point you were making! Modest Geniustalk18:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a problem but the one which would be fixable if it's possible to make the text appear below image when necessary as I suggested. The oddity of a large image vs. a tiny amount of text particularly visible at higher resolutions is not something easy to fix except perhaps by always putting the text below or by increasing the amount of text (which sort of defeats the purpose of it being TFP). Nil Einne (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is predicated on the premise that displaying featured pictures at substantially larger sizes on the main page is desirable (provided that it's technically feasible). I disagree.
Wikipedia isn't an image gallery website. It's an encyclopedia, whose images are presented in a manner intended to complement the textual content. Our featured pictures aren't standalone entitles; they're encyclopedic assets selected because their high quality or unique significance enhances articles to an exceptional extent.
We don't use giant image sizes in articles, so I see no reason to do so on the main page (thereby presenting featured pictures in a context contrary their reason for being). In my view, this would convey "here's a cool image" instead of "here's a valuable element of the encyclopedia."
Readers are, of course, able to click on the featured picture to view it at a higher resolution, just as they would when reading an article. Perhaps we could actively encourage this (which also would serve to inform newcomers of the function). —David Levy19:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Enhancing the size of an image to a resolution at which the text makes sense would most certainly be useful. At the resolution of yesterday's TFP, there was no way to tell those brownish-greenish blobs on a blue background were islands, much less that vegetation was more prevalent on one side than the other. If we're not going to render the TFP at a useful resolution, let's scrap it altogether. I'd rather see a permanent TFL or GAs or featured topics or something that requires more than uploading an image from NASA's website. But if we're going to have a "Today's Featured Picture" (not "Today's Featured Caption"), we shouldn't display it at such low resolution that readers can't even tell what the picture is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If an image's subject is unrecognizable, I agree that this is problematic. I had no difficulty discerning the islands (or even the vegetation distribution), but perhaps this is because my resolution is lower than yours. I'm not arguing that we mustn't make the thumbnails any larger, but the sandbox/screenshot example strikes me as over-the-top.
Indeed, this is "today's featured picture," but that doesn't mean that it should be displayed on the main page at anything approaching its native resolution. We include only a small sample of "today's featured article," with the expectation that interested readers will click through to access the real thing. I see no reason not to apply this principle to the featured picture, just as we do when using images in articles. —David Levy20:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the TFA blurb is very informative, even without reading the entire article. It's the lead, a nice concise summary. A smaller version of a picture isn't exactly the same as a summary.
One important point is that at WP:Featured Picture Candidates, the full resolution is the deal breaker. A very large resolution is required for images to even be considered, and minor flaws (observable only at the full resolution) are often the reasoning for oppose votes. Now, in WP:FAC, we also judge the entire article (even though only the blurb will actually feature on the main page) but I think there's a more direct connection there. Firstly, it's unlikely the blurb will be good if the rest of the article isn't, and secondly, the page views for TFA are much more than the full size views for POTD.
An unrelated point is that on most monitors, the POTD isn't visible until you scroll (I personally am annoyed by this, I find POTD far superior to the high-profile ITN).
Summary: the current judging criteria at WP:FPC rely on the full resolution, but only a minority of readers ever see that. At the mainpage thumbnail, the pictures don't really have the qualities (excellent sharpness, wow factor, high detail) they are chosen for. I like User:Eraserhead1's 1024px width box. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to imply that an image thumbnail is "exactly the same" as an article summary, and I agree that it's as important for an image to be displayed at a useful size as it is for a blurb to convey useful information. But just as the TFA blurb doesn't illustrate every consideration behind the FA promotion, the TFP thumbnail needn't illustrate every consideration behind the FP promotion.
We want readers to click through to featured content of interest to them. That relatively few readers do so with the featured pictures is unfortunate, but it obviously is no more feasible to display the full-resolution version on the main page than it is to display a full article there. That's why I suggest that we actively encourage readers to click, perhaps via a format similar to the one occasionally used for animated GIFs. —David Levy21:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Displaying it at full resolution would plainly be impractical—it would take up a huge amount of space and it would be murder on the load times—but I think we're a bit too conservative with resolutions. We could easily make the TFP slightly bigger without any adverse effects, and it wouldn't be necessary even to do it for every TFP—the resolution was okay for the (very cute) koalas, and it's not bad for today's battleship, but it was inadequate for the image which prompted me to start this thread, and has been for others (especially landscapes) in the recent past. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support enlarging TFPs on the main page. I think 100% in height and in width would be excellent, failing that, 41% (doubling of the area on screen) would be good. --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the idea of slightly increasing the size when necessary and actively encouraging readers to click through to the image page. —David Levy03:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but that isn't a comparable context. I don't advocate that the images' dimensions increase by a finite amount (or at all unless the issue described by HJ Mitchell arises, in which case it would depend on the specific image's characteristics), so I'm unable to provide the sort of response that you sought. —David Levy17:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"100% in height and width": do you mean the picture should be displayed at 100% of its height and width, or do you mean 100% of the container's height and width? The former is obviously impractical because most of the images are several megapixels in resolution and several megabytes in file size. If you mean the latter, that's not technically possible: images can only be set to a fixed size, not a relative size. The best you could do is a Javascript hack that calculates the available space and then dynamically loads the right size. However, the drawback to that is that MediaWiki creates thumbnails on an ad-hoc basis. The Main Page being one of the site's most requested pages, we are going to have a huge variety in browser screen widths. That means MediaWiki will end up creating that many different thumbnail images. Disk space may be cheap (and even then, you'd need to consider that having N thumbnails per image per day will quickly eat up disk space anyway, and almost all of those thumbnails will never be used again), but processing power isn't, so that's not really practical either. howcheng {chat}16:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wording confused me as well (with both of those interpretations coming to mind). I then realized that Ohconfucius was referring to a 100% height/width increase (quadrupling the image's size). In my view, even doubling the image's size (mentioned as a second choice) is excessive. —David Levy17:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
