Talk:Main Page

Main Page error report

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 12:41 on 23 June 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 in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 28)

Monday's FL

(June 24, tomorrow)

Not an error, but I was still directed here by the button on the edit page as a simple, non controversial change. I was the initial nominator for tomorrow's FL on the main page. Can we swap the image with Vicky McClure in 2024.jpgand change the text reading "Starring Adrian Dunbar, Martin Compston, and Vicky McClure, to Starring Adrian Dunbar, Martin Compston, and Vicky McClure (pictured),? Seems to make more sense as an image for the main page, and a similar change was made by another editor on this past Friday's FL (also my initial nomination). Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Good that you requested that change. The previous image wasn't free anyway; we can only show on the main page what's held on Wikimedia Commons. I've made the requested changes. Schwede66 05:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Kneejerk removal?

See also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Main page hook review

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Since when has it been the case that reliably-cited negative facts about a living person are haraam for the main page? The article itself seems to derive notability from the removed claim, so to call it WP:UNDUE is simply ridiculous—finding any other hook from the article would be the undue thing. I highly doubt a main-page appearance of an article like Charles Manson or Roman Polanski would omit reference to their crimes, and they're notable for a range of other things in addition, while Yoshitaka Fujii is notable simply for the fraud yanked from T:DYK. Can we stop doing this, please? GRAPPLE X 02:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Grapple here, and I've already posted on the admin's talk page. Haven't reverted as I fear falling afoul of WHEEL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, this is over reaction. It's not a case of WP:FART at all, ok.PumpkinSky talk 02:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. As stated above, Yoshitaka Fujii is notable primarily because of this controversy, so the claim that a DYK item about it constitutes undue weight is quite perplexing (and tantamount to a declaration that we mustn't mention Fujii on the main page at all). —David Levy 02:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Undone, per the consensus here and the fact that the admin has not replied on his talk page in an hour (seems to be offline). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Crisco. As the user who created both the article and the hook, I was very annoyed by its removal from the main page. The last I looked, WP:BLP did not say "Wikipedia can only say nice things about living people." Ironically, I suspect that the fact that this guy managed to publish 172 fraudulent papers before he got caught is probably due in part to people's reluctance to believe bad things about other people. --Orlady (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. And yes, shocking indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The DYK was removed citing BLP and undue concerns and Crisco 1492 restored it after after barely 30 minutes and three comments (one by the editor who rubber stamped the hook's inclusion). For what it's worth, I also agree that adding such a contentious hook on the main page without a serious review is a major concern. This cursory review does not seem adequate for a main page spectacle. I'm concerned about the apparent false urgency in putting this DYK back on the main page without a thorough review. I will be raising the matter at WP:BLPN for additional input. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you look at the diff? The admin cited UNDUE, although he implied BLP. Undue does not apply in this situation, as the subject is notable for exactly that thing. If we not allowed to report negative things, most biographies of criminals (an unrelated example) would not be allowed near the main page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have waited for DragonflySixtyseven's response and a bit more discussion (with the hook added to an upcoming queue if consensus dictated). That notwithstanding, I see absolutely no basis in policy for the removal. My best guess is that DragonflySixtyseven didn't realize the extent to which Fujii's notability stems from the controversy. —David Levy 03:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea; I was mainly worried about the 8 hour circulation problem, and had not considered just moving it to a prep or queue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Having (properly-cited) articles about criminals or people who're accused of doing horrible things -- sure, I've even written some myself. But putting them in DYK and thus the main page like this, when they're still alive and subject to BLP protection... no. DS (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Modest Genius ^talk 14:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And why would ITN be exempt? Compare with an ITN from March 2011: "Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, is charged with "a criminal sexual act" in New York City." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How, in your view, does WP:BLP justify such a restriction, and what's the relevance of WP:UNDUE?

By this standard, we mustn't mention John Hinckley, Jr. on the main page (except, perhaps, to state that "he played football and basketball, learned to play the piano, and was elected class president twice"). I've informed Howcheng of this discussion so he can bring Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 30 and the other relevant OTD sets into accordance with the policy that you've apparently enacted. —David Levy 19:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Crime is a staple of OTD, so to say that we shouldn't have blurbs about people who engage in criminal activity, especially when that crime is of historic importance, is silly. In a similar incident, User:Sandstein just removed a blurb from today's OTD set, citing BLP. Now I'm not going to wheel-war with him/her, but I don't think that removal is justified, either. —howcheng {chat} 19:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've also responded on my talk page, but I'm of the view that neither the article I removed (Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident) nor this Yoshitaka Fujii case are of any apparent lasting historical significance. They are contemporary news stories; and such topics would need to demonstrate (in their articles) why they are of an importance similar to the outbreak of wars, epochal scientific breakthroughs etc. Also, per WP:BLP, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist"; this, in my view precludes highlighting negative aspects of BLPs on the main page just for the fun of it. We should run such "headlines" only for topics that are of truly great importance.  Sandstein  20:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm of the view that neither the article I removed (Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident) nor this Yoshitaka Fujii case are of any apparent lasting historical significance.

As noted in the Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident article, "the crime sparked a public debate over the U.S. military presence in Japan, the privileges of extraterritoriality, as well as the fair trial practices of Japanese legal system and the Japanese police." How, in your view, is that not historically significant?

I would argue that Fujii's record-setting research misconduct is historically significant, but that's more relevant to the determination of whether our Yoshitaka Fujii article should exist; I don't see how it's directly relevant to BLP concerns stemming from the main page appearance. In the past week, the controversy has received coverage (of far greater prominence than a DYK hook) in major publications, so it isn't as though we injured Fujii's reputation by plucking him from obscurity or resurrecting a long-forgotten scandal.

They are contemporary news stories; and such topics would need to demonstrate (in their articles) why they are of an importance similar to the outbreak of wars, epochal scientific breakthroughs etc.

Firstly, on what policy or guideline do you base this assertion?

Secondly, DragonflySixtyseven hasn't even made such an allowance; he/she has declared that if "criminals or people who're accused of doing horrible things" are "still alive and subject to BLP protection", we mustn't highlight their articles on the main page in DYK. [edited 00:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC) due to a clarification by DragonflySixtyseven; see note below]

Also, per WP:BLP, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist"; this, in my view precludes highlighting negative aspects of BLPs on the main page just for the fun of it.

I agree with that statement and disagree with the implication that such a thing occurred in either instance discussed above. —David Levy 21:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of degree. Certainly the Brown case has some historical significance, at least for Japan, but it does not have the same degree of importance as (to take other examples from the same day) a Shuttle mission or the death of the North Korean ruler. Its relatively minor importance (in terms of world history) does not justify, at any rate, putting the same BLP name - in association with his crime - on our main page each and every year on the same day. We are an encyclopedia, not a pillory.  Sandstein  22:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Needless to say, you're entitled to your opinion.

Your earlier statement that "such topics would need to demonstrate (in their articles) why they are of an importance similar to the outbreak of wars, epochal scientific breakthroughs etc." came across (to me) as an interpretation of policy. Is it actually a criterion that you propose? —David Levy 23:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

←Before I comment I will note that DragonflySixtyseven asked that I comment here. I'll start by saying that I acknowledge that Yoshitaka Fujii is notable primarily because of this controversy, thus I will contend that the undue weight argument does not really hold any water. That said, I feel that the BLP argument does. While I certainly would not argue for the article to be deleted, I do not feel that it is appropriate that we further publicly humiliate Mr. Fujii by placing this hook on the main page. In all reality, Mr. Fujii did not commit a crime and was never arrested or officially charged. I just don't see this as good grounds for a DYK hook. Tiptoety ^talk 04:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, are you merely expressing your personal opinion, or do you believe that the item violated the BLP policy? —David Levy 05:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So will the verdict on Ratko Mladic be published on DYN/ITN?

'Politician X got a parking ticket' generating a 'so what?' reaction is not relevant: 'the Minister for Transport has collected 100 parking tickets' is.

'Category of topics which only justify a single DYN/ITN appearance.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.45.17 (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: DragonflySixtyseven has clarified that he/she was referring strictly to DYK (not the main page in general). I've invited him/her to resume participation in this discussion, which has included other sections as well. —David Levy 00:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

4,000,000th article

So the 4 million article mark is quickly approaching. How will the main page be recognizing this momentous round number? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, it's only a C class article, but I'd like to see History of Wikipedia mentioned somewhere. I've only looked at a small amount of it, but it is an interesting read. I'd assume something needs to be mentioned. Maybe a banner of some sort could appear, like when we are asking for donations, letting everybody know. It wouldn't require anything different to be done on the main page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Big numbers like this don't come around often. I think we should do something BIG that people will instantly notice like changing the main page color scheme to gold or something. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe make a mention at Village pump Miscellaneous to see if anyone cares to weigh in? I think it would be good to insert a countdown while we are getting there. One exists at User:Jimbo Wales. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite doubt there will be a countdown or any special colour. The article and milestone will probably be mentioned on the main page, as it always is. Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

How about a giant banner that reads "We value quantity above quality! Please create as many new articles as possible instead of improving existing ones!"? That's what we want to convey, right? —David Levy 07:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Improving is as important as creating new ones as many articles are in very poor state around.  — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 07:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my point. When was the last time we put up a main page banner touting article improvements?

I realize that people get excited about round numbers, but the celebration has gotten old. People know that Wikipedia is big. Can we please stop bragging about the size, thereby implying that it's our top concern? —David Levy 07:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with David. Far, far, too much importance is given to how big WP is, and far, far too little importance to how good it is. We shouldn't over-emphasise the size aspect (having the embarrassment of DYK constantly on the main page is bad enough) - we should come to decisions on how WP is going to change, so that it is able to become better. It would be wonderful if we could use the excuse of the 4 millionth article as a basis for saying, right, that's enough to be getting on with, this is how we are going to make both article content, and reader and contributor interfaces, better in the future. Rant over. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Cynically I also find it difficult to believe that No 4 million would not be carefully manipluated to make sure it was duly worthy - rather embarrassing if it turned out to be a rubbishy fanblog tagged for rapid AfD? or even a disambiguation page (are such "articles" included in that impressive total?) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the norm is to exclude any article that is deleted although I guess that would require a rapidfire AFD as well as any disambigation page in choosing number 4 million (or whatever). In reality, neither are particularly likely nowadays since the 4 million mark tends to get a lot of somewhat experienced editors submitting articles they'v pre-prepared. I don't think you can say the selection process is 'manipulated' per se although it's not simple since the number is in a constant state of flux. (It's possible although again because of the large number of ready submissions probably unlikely it will be passed more then once.) Article quality doesn't tend to be a problem because of the massive attention the 4 millionth article gets. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What will be considered the 4,000,000th article anyways? There is a decent chance that there will be 2 or 3 of them due to deletions. I disagree with the idea that we value quantity over quality. We have a featured article on the main page every day, is it that bad to mention that we've hit 4 million? I wouldn't mind seeing new GA's mentioned on the main page, but the process is too iffy. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As I remarked, I don't think it's actually that likely the milestone will be passed more then once because of the large number of creations that tends to happen around the time. As I hinted at but perhaps didn't really explain, the constant flux of numbers (and definition issue) does mean there's no constant 4th million article, however the changes will be way, way more then 2 or 3. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So the question is simply which article will be the first to cross the 4G-line and not be subject for speedy deletion? /Michel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.189.132.206 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Typically Template:Main Page banner is updated to make note of the accomplishment. I see no reason to not do that this time (for maybe 24 hours).

Regarding which article is chosen for a milestone, it's always been a complete fabrication. The article count isn't even accurate, as there's no clear definition of what constitutes an article (disambiguation pages, stubs, etc.). Some article will be crowned based on it being created near the time when the counter reaches 4,000,000. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, there's a part of me that would prefer an article that has cleanup tags, rather than finding a good one created near the time. Readers will understand that a random article isn't going to be excellent, and when that many people see a problem, some of them will feel compelled to fix it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is what the three millionth article looked like when it was created. Decent, but certainly no masterpiece. If the four millionth does have a cleanup tag, I'm sure there will be plenty of editors who will work to fix it quickly. Jenks24 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Where does this counter live? is it visible to all? presumably, if articles are deleted or merged, the counter is adjusted accordingly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just use {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}. E.g 6,839,704. Jenks24 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Special:Statistics too, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"(Bar) Stewards" and "Trans wikitrainspotters" seem to be a bit thin on the ground, don't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully once we pass the number with many zeros which seem to fascinate so many, we could start focusing more on substance. Fully agree with David Levy and Ghmyrtle on this. Has anybody noticed that while there are more and more articles, readers read less and less? Time spent on Wikipedia has been constantly decreasing (check out the "time on site" tab), now falling below a dismal average of 4 minutes per user. Therefore I suggest celebrating the 4,000,000th article by removing the counter from the top of the main page, and instead start paying attention to quality. --ELEKHH^T 08:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Bravo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.54.104 (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And I think we have our "killjoy of the year"-winner right here. So anyone excited about rounding four million articles by definition doesn't give a damn about article quality? Article quality is improving; more than 700 new GAs have been promoted only since the beginning of June. As for the correlation between article quality and time spent on page, I don't see it. This is rather a result of changing patterns of usage in the general population.

Marking a milestone like this is a good opportunity for Wikipedia to get notice in the press, which will in turn increase traffic and hopefully also attract new contributers. It's a false dichotomy to say we need to chose between quantity and quality; we can actually focus on both. Lampman (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Bravo! Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is the 4,000,000th article?

Which article was the 4,000,000th? Was it Mushtum? I compared the Statistics page [1] with the New pages page [2] twice and got that article. But, if there is a delay on either page, I might be wrong... 77.219.165.210 (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I did the same and got St Columb Major Rural District, so I'm not sure how reliable that method is. Actually, it pages are deleted, then it won't be accurate. --W. D. Graham 14:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Idaho State Highway 50, I think. I got this article, using the same method, which 77.219.165.210 used. But I'm not sure too, because some atricles may be deleted, during 20-30 minutes. --Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 14:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"OMG" - so it's already happened? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, so where's the banner? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah crap. I missed my chance to have something that is not Anglo-centric to be the 4 millionth. Though while I can understand the excitement for the 1 millionth, the 4 millionth was more of a meh for me, not for the reasons stated above; I like a rounder number than 4 million, like 10 million, or 5 million.

As for quality over quantity, I'd figure a majority of the 4 million articles aren't that shitty. A great majority of the DYKs, despite their bad rep over here, are actually well written. Not all non-FC/GA articles are bad; some just don't submit their pet articles either, for some reason or another. Personally, it's not worth it: a day on the Main Page is not worth a month of criticism, sometimes those which can not be acted upon, at WP:FAC. I'd rather push for an article at ITN as it's much, much, much easier (arguably easier than DYKs, especially if you're not writing from scratch), and it stays there for about a week, tops. You'd just have to find a suitable topic though: for example, if you're into rugby union, you can cough up an update at the Heineken Cup final article for it to be posted; now if you're into college basketball, American or otherwise, your best chance at Main Page glory is at FA or DYK. –HTD 14:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Izbat Al Borg is what someone updated {{Million milestones}} to say. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The template was updated by user who created Izbat Al Borg. Isn't it a bit early to do that? I'm not necessarily saying it was Mushtum... :) Abdullais4u (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. I'm sure WMF will pick one soon enough. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

When did we get to the 4,000,000th article and how did the hard work go for it to get to our 4,000,000th article created? I am so proud and confused about this 4,000,000th article creation. We have more than 4,000,000 articles?!?!?!?!?!?!𝕁𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕒𝕟 𝕁𝕒𝕞𝕚𝕖𝕤𝕠𝕟 𝕂𝕪𝕤𝕖𝕣♩♪♫♬ 15:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanKyser22 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Five-million pool should be reopened should it not?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality vs. quantity: "Why so serious?"

I can't see why this harmless celebration needs to be dampened. Providing quantity does not detract from quality -- and there's no evidence that it does -- quantity is something to be celebrated.

I think it's actually a virtuous cycle: the bigger the encyclopedia, the more important it becomes that its quality should be improved, and the better its quality, the more incentive there is to add new entries to it as the key public knowledge-base. There's not a single undifferentiated pool of biddable contributors out there, to be directed either to quality or quantity: instead, some people are quantity-focused, and others quality-focused. There's no conflict between these goals, and no reason to belittle the efforts of either.

To that end, I propose that we make the banner read as follows:

The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating more than 4,000,000 articles

Perhaps we should also make the background flash rainbow colours and have the large bold digits dance up and down using javascript.

-- The Anome (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately we have an obligation to both. Yes, quality should be more important, but our basic duty as an encyclopedia is to try to provide information about notable topics. If you solely try to focus on existing article quality you would be neglecting the many millions of notable articles which are missing. I would argue that yes, we should be focusing more on expanding existing articles on important topics abd should be aiming for at least 100,000 good articles. Like does the average reader care about a tiny mountain village of Morocco for instance if the article on Marrakesh is that bad? Would they not rather a very good article on that big city? I've always tried to split my editing time between quality writing and stubbing. Our eventual goal of course is something like 50 million featured quality articles. I think notable subjects will always be notable subjects and they must be routed out and started. But there is an argument that if the stubs contain no information as such that they are rendered useless in the meantime and greaten the task needed to improve the overall quality of wikipedia by adding to the workload. All I can say is that we are all volunteers here and whilst wikipedia is seriously under achieving in relation to potential we should still at least be proud of what we've accomplished to date. Try thinking of 4 million articles off the top of your head! The articles which I find the most enjoyable are those where I see other editors working with me and providing their own expertise and foreign language knowledge to improve them and collaboration to produce something quite impressive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Wikipedia is a perfect example of the parable of the stone soup. Mass-generation of stubs (for example) might temporarily lower average quality, but it actually increases the total quality of the encyclopedia, both directly, because there is now something where before there was nothing, and indirectly, in that it encourages others to improve those stubs. We have seen this time and again, in many different topics. Armies of systematizers, copyeditors, data checkers, adders of images, and so on, each add their own tiny bit to stubs until eventually the article becomes sufficiently inviting to warrant serious attention, and a quality article comes into being. And once there are a few quality articles among the stubs, this invites complaints that not all the articles are quite as good, which in turn provokes quality improvement drives, and the virtuous cycle continues. Complaining about the people bringing the stone, or others bringing the wrong kind of vegetable, does not actually increase overall quality of the encyclopedia. -- The Anome (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a great achievement, fullstop. Ironic that the main detractor, David Levy has done no real mainspace expansion since complaining about quantity over quality. Easier to bitch about it, I guess! Lugnuts (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I don't invest a great deal of time and effort in Wikipedia's betterment? Does the fact that I focus primarily on other namespaces make my contributions less valid?

I don't appreciate your characterization of my input as "bitching". I've expressed my honest opinion in good faith. You're entitled to disagree, but there's no reason for belittlement. —David Levy 20:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think that I'm "complaining" about the creation of stubs (or suggesting that it should stop), you're mistaken.

My belief, which I've expressed many times in the past, is that these banners are no longer necessary (because the public is aware of Wikipedia's large size) and imply that our goal is simply to accumulate as many articles as possible, without regard for their quality.

I'm not suggesting that the creation of new articles (including stubs) is a bad thing. I'm saying that the banner makes it seem as though it's the only thing that matters to us.

Why not compromise on wording along the lines of "The English-language Wikipedia now contains more than 4,000,000 articles, which we invite you to improve."? That brings some balance to the message. —David Levy 20:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Mmm do I detect an ounce of sarcasm in this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal proposal: bold, large digits for 36 hours

OK. I'm not going to make this change without at least some informal consensus here, so here goes: I propose to make the main page banner read as follows:

The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for creating more than 4,000,000 articles. Congratulations!

and suggest that we should keep it this way for 48 hours after the 4,000,000th article was created: which is I think now about another 36 hours. Any comments, for or against, welcomed. -- The Anome (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support this can only be good. Lugnuts (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support Do you think we should link to Wikimedia UK's blog post?
• Strong support. And is it possible to add a more noticeable background color to the banner so it sticks out more? It kind of blends into the background right now and isn't very noticeable. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Assuming we use the exact version here, it will probably be visible. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the bold/large-typeface quantity. I've resigned myself to the banner's presence, but can we at least not specially highlight the number?
  Even displaying the entire sentence in bold would be preferable. Bolding just the quantity makes it seem as though we're shouting that part, thereby conveying that we care more about a big, round number than we do about thanking contributors for Wikipedia's improvement. (Well, the banner already does that, but this greatly amplifies the sentiment.)
  I also see no need for "congratulations" on top of the "thanks".
  Given the mixed opinions on the banner's very existence, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that we not make it (or the number) more prominent. —David Levy 20:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  Boy you're a real stick in the mud. I'm guessing you don't like New Years, birthday parties, or wedding anniversary celebrations either do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  How, in your view, is the above personal attack called for (or constructive)? Is my suggestion that we simply retain the banner's current version really so objectionable to you? —David Levy 21:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  Come on dude, lighten up. It wasn't meant as a personal attack, it was more tongue in cheek. If you don't want to change the banner, fine. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying the intended tone. I'm sorry that I didn't detect the jocularity, which sometimes fails to come across in text. —David Levy 23:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral, and only because I don't want to spoil everyone else's fun. Personally, I think we crossed the point where pure number of articles mattered about 3 million articles ago. If we're going to do banners like this, I'd rather they focus on quality milestones. 5000FAs, 20,000 GA+FA and the like. Resolute 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  What's your opinion of the wording "The English-language Wikipedia now contains more than 4,000,000 articles, which we invite you to improve."? —David Levy 23:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  Or, keeping the more informal tone, "The English-language Wikipedia now contains more than 4,000,000 articles: let's make them better!" -- with a link to the Wikipedia:Article development page for "let's make them better!"... that would work for me. If it's OK with you too, let's go for it. -- The Anome (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  How about "The English-language Wikipedia now contains more than 4,000,000 articles that you can help improve!"? —David Levy 00:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  I like it. The invitation seems genuine rather than generic and it shows that the encyclopedia, as large as it is, can still be improved. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  Okay, I've updated the banner. —David Levy 00:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  I'm sorry I was late to the "consensus", but from here it looks like you changed the banner from a statement of celebration for reaching the milestone, into an informational statement about how 4 million articles need to be improved. Wasn't the banner congratulating the contributors before? Is that suddenly pointless to do? Kreachure (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  I reverted for the moment. David, that kind of change would need more discussion. It fundamentally alters the emphasis in the banner from the milestone, which is the only reason for enabling the main page banner in the first place. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  There was no consensus to display the banner in the first place. (It was discussed above, with very mixed opinions on whether it was a good idea.) This was a compromise. —David Levy 03:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Formal proposal". This is a "formal proposal"? Ooookkk... -- tariqabjotu 01:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal as posted, and support any of the three versions suggested by David above ("The English-language Wikipedia now contains more than 4,000,000 articles: let's make them better!"). Since there hasn't been consensus for the former, maybe it would be fair to display the alternative for the same lenght of time. --ELEKHH^T 08:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Integrating all sides of the discussion

I've now attempted to integrate all sides of the discussion above, and have posted a banner which combines the following elements:

• Congratulations
• Encouragement to write more
• Encouragement to improve the articles we already have

Hopefully this will please everyone. Please feel free to improve this, as opposed to simply reverting it. -- The Anome (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the way it is presented, I'd remove congratulations. It appears like it is directed towards the reader and not towards the editors and if I saw it as a reader I'd be confused by the congrats. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a bit off. I've replaced it with the original "thanks" and tweaked the call to action. —David Levy 17:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Anome: I want to thank you for your efforts to address everyone's concerns. It would have been easier for you simply sit back and go with the flow, but you instead decided to pursue real consensus. I sincerely appreciate it. —David Levy 17:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Question now is how long it stays up for? Does anyone want to look up how long the banner was up last time it was used for this? And a 'call to action' to improve 4 million articles is a bit useless if only put up for a few days. If this can be leveraged into widespread and long-term improvement drives, good, but such improvement drives should be advertised more widely and for longer than just these milestones. Carcharoth (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone want to look up how long the banner was up last time it was used for this?

Roughly a day and a half.

And a 'call to action' to improve 4 million articles is a bit useless if only put up for a few days. If this can be leveraged into widespread and long-term improvement drives, good, but such improvement drives should be advertised more widely and for longer than just these milestones.

Agreed. In this instance, the goal is to avoid implying that we value quantity above all else. —David Levy 19:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvement. --ELEKHH^T 20:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The banner now conveys all the things that people here wanted to convey, without diluting the main idea, the 4 million articles. --Kreachure (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

'A'-centrism

I'd just like to complain about the 'A'-centrism in the top article blurb on ITN. Out of 72 characters, 16 - that's a whopping 22.2%, almost a quarter - are the letter 'A'. Down with this sort of thing! 81.158.24.0 (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If you take out the names and places, there is only one A out of 19 letters- a measly 5.3%! Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Careful now. GRAPPLE X 17:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

careful indeed195.59.114.70 (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

steady now -- The Anome (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You...calculated how many A's there were in ITN?.. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's hear it for Zs!! Emboldened! In a banner!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we please make sure all letters get represented on ITN in the future? I suggest The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. Lampman (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I remember a game I invented for my kids when they got bored on long car trips. In turn, they had to come up with country names, each one starting with the last letter of the previous one. It was quickly discovered that a huge proportion of country names end in "a". Wasn't a very useful game. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither As nor Zs in Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.

And what is the best way to avoid fortcoming complaints about 'excess of sports'? (Anyone wish to develop 'obscure sports' articles sufficiently to feature on the main page?) Jackiespeel (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't there a futsal article on the main page the other day? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

.. and where's Edith Clampton when one really needs her. mutter Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Harold Macmillan of where?

Harold Macmillan and his Cabinet is not identified.

It should read "...Harold Macmillan (pictured) dismissed seven members of his UK Cabinet..." tahc ^chat 21:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the identification of the country isn't really necessary for a DYK listing, but even if it were necessary your phrasing is horrible. --Khajidha (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Media attention: main page still "ugly"

Well, we tried a while ago, but the "keep it ugly" forces won out. Sue Gardner's comments don't help, either. [3] Tony (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd take exception to the "'keep it ugly' forces" remark, but Sue's comments don't make it easy.

While she could have worded some of her statements better, her point is valid. Reddit is a good example of a website that's thrived in spite of (in part, because of) its "ugly", bare-bones interface. Meanwhile, competitor Digg, which was much slicker to begin with, self-destructed despite becoming fancier and more high-tech. (That isn't the main reason why its popularity plummeted, but it did nothing to help.)

Here's a relevant article from Forbes.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't pursue a main page redesign, but we need to be careful about the direction we take. The current design, while long in the tooth, does have a certain charm. —David Levy 03:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't; Tony is quite right. The "keep it ugly" forces did win. Malleus Fatuorum 03:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

And what, in your view, motivated these editors? Malice? Spite?

As noted above, I agree that we should pursue a main page redesign. But we need to work together, acknowledging and respecting each other's concerns. An adversarial approach won't lead to consensus. —David Levy 04:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What motivated them was an unwillingness to accept change, an all too pervasive attitude here. No significant change will ever occur here if it must first gain a consensus among those who oppose all change. Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the adversarial approach to which I referred.

Has it occurred to you that editors claiming to like the current design (or elements thereof) might be telling the truth (not indiscriminately opposing all change)? I realize that you find it ugly, but is it possible that others might honestly disagree? —David Levy 04:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The adversarial approach has served the English legal system very well for rather a long time now. As it has the American legal system, although not for anything like as long. Others may honestly disagree about whatever they like, but when they're wrong they're wrong, and consensus-building efforts in the face of intransigent wrong-headedness are simply a frustrating waste of time. But go ahead and try to prove me wrong, if you can. Malleus Fatuorum 04:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't even begin to reason with someone declaring that others' aesthetic opinions are "wrong". —David Levy 04:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What you can or can't do is no concern of mine. The design of the main page ought to be handed over to a competent third-party, not endlessly debated by a load of incompetent reactionaries who will inevitably vote to keep it just as it is. Have you even bothered to look at the last time a redesign was considered, two or three years ago now I think? Malleus Fatuorum 04:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw the most recent main page redesign attempt (organized as a "competition" instead of a collaboration) collapse. In the beginning, I warned others that the approach was likely to fail (as it did during the last successful redesign process, which almost was derailed due to similar mistakes), but others disagreed. —David Levy 05:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

But it has to be a competition, not a collaboration. "A camel is a horse designed by a committee". Malleus Fatuorum 05:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that we should avoid competition in all forms. Ideas should compete against each other, with the best ones prevailing (as opposed to everything being thrown together in an attempt to appease everyone). But editors must collaborate to ensure that this occurs.

The most recent main page redesign attempt failed because it was organized as a winner-take-all competition (with contestants creating complete designs, which were then voted on).

You like only certain elements of a design? Too bad. It's a package deal. Take it or leave it.

Some designs eliminated in the last round contained ideas worth salvaging? Oh, well. They're gone. Now let's vote again.

Such an approach cannot succeed. —David Levy 05:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• The only parts that can really be changed is the "top banner" and the "other parts of Wikipedia". The five main sections (I think it was four many years back) are editor-generated content and have their own respective "departments"; there is a huge backlog of content that editors want on the front page but are constrained by space and time. I don't see how it is possible to get each "department" to cut down without getting a revolt from its respective editors. It's as simple as we can get. I think this "ugliness" is because Wikipedia looks like a wall of text when compared against other websites which has many graphics and whistles. For a start would you like each link on the navigation bar on the left to become big graphical buttons, which of course is definitely more attractive looking? - Mailer Diablo 04:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  The whole damn thing can be changed, and needs to be changed. IIRC Tony offered a graphical option during the last round of pointless discussions on the main page design. Malleus Fatuorum 04:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, be careful not to sound as though you've come here to re-work the argument having not won your way. The Main Page is fairly established as the front door to Wikipedia, and whilst old fashioned is no more useful for it. I sympathise with your view that editors of a certain bent don't always welcome change, as I've ventured into that cul-de-sac myself. Howeverthat doesn't mean change is impossible. That said, and taking Mailer Diablo's point, Wiki is a text based project. We deal in and with words. If we go down the graphics, HTML5, Flash animations and/or images route, where do we stand in relation to the project as a whole? doktorb _words^deeds 05:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall even having taken part in that "argument", so for you to accuse me of having not won my way is a bit rich. Malleus Fatuorum 05:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to induce people to defend the current design to their last breath, I can't think of a better way to do it than to accuse people who honestly like it of being part of some sort of "Keep it ugly" faction that is intentionally making Wikipedia ugly out of spite.

The approach you're taking here will swing consensus stronger against you than if you'd actually started paying people hard cash to disagree with you. 71.235.141.252 (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. The hard cash line was a nice touch. -U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 09:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone taken a look at TheAtlantic.com's home page? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! 71.235.141.252 (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Who cares ... we're here to compete against the best, not the worst on the net. Is anyone happy with the "just-rolled-out-of-bed" look, to quote the media report? Tony (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some of us like the current design. It isn't particularly modern or fancy, but it's clean, simple and functional.

What's your opinion of the Reddit front page? —David Levy 07:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

David, are you seriously suggesting the Reddit front page is "clean, simple and functional"? I know reasonable people can disagree, and often do on stylistic issues such as this, but that Reddit page is woeful and, as someone who has never really visited the site, very confusing for newcomers. Perhaps the users of Reddit like it, I don't know, but it is definitely not something that Wikipedia should emulate considering we are trying to appear as a professional encyclopedia that is easily accessible. The only website that really springs to mind as "clean, simple and functional" is Google. Jenks24 (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

David, are you seriously suggesting the Reddit front page is "clean, simple and functional"?

Good heavens, no. That was my description of our main page. My Reddit question relates to the separate (but related) matter of how aesthetics can impact a website's success.

In my opinion, Reddit's default interface is ghastly. I run a script that replaces it with a different one.

And yet, Reddit has prospered, overtaking its once-dominant competitor Digg (which employed cutting-edge design elements, many of which now appear to have been scaled back).

As users began to perceive Digg as a corporate sellout, they embraced Reddit, in part because its crude, unpolished design conveyed a contrary sensibility that they found appealing. (In actuality, Reddit is corporate-owned.)

Perhaps the users of Reddit like it, I don't know, but it is definitely not something that Wikipedia should emulate considering we are trying to appear as a professional encyclopedia that is easily accessible.

Reddit is a different type of website, and I don't advocate that anyone emulate its appearance. But there is validity to Sue Gardner's comments regarding the charm of a website whose less-than-slick design reassures visitors that it isn't trying to sell them something. —David Levy 09:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Tony, what kinds of thing do you want on the front page? Animations? Scrolling text? doktorb _words^deeds 07:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That article specifically mentions Facebook and twitter, both of those sites (And many other commercial sites) are specifically designed to be distracting. Why-ever the user came to the site, the site design wants to distract you. Both to draw you into the sponsored content, and outright ads, but also to engage you with content that does well in social media, like photo galleries and such.

Those goals aren't really Wikipedia's goals. To ape those commercial sites would be stupid and counter-productive.

(That's not to say the main-page couldn't be streamlined a little or even redesigned, but a straightforward functional look is absolutely not something to be ashamed of.) APL (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Who's suggesting the aping of that appalling Reddit page? And when you say "some of us like the current page", David, what you really mean is "I and a few of my supporters like it". Tony (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have supporters? —David Levy 09:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is curious, the article has hit slashdot, and at last check, had 263 comments, most of which are in favor of leaving things alone. As for my opinion, the Main Page could use a fresh coat of paint, but we don't quite need to tear down the walls or move plumbing fixtures. In other words, we could freshen things up a bit, but we don't nee to radically overhaul it. Imzadi 1979 → 18:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see a reason for it to change, it is not complicated75.73.114.111 (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Redesign competition

We should run a competition where high profile web design companies can submit designs for English Wikipedia front page, obviously requiring that these designs be licensed CC-BY-SA, and let the readers vote on which one they like the most (and include the current design as an option). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A/B testing would be a good approach. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think "bland" is a rather more suitable word. The problem is that the diversity of opinion on what would constitute a more attractive main page is an excuse to keep it as it is. I have proposed that a graphics package is introduced where you can also design your own skin as most of them are also really bland. The writer of that article is very right though that useability and aesthetics are extremely important in attracting people, and a change has been long overdue. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• 3 points to make:

1. This (I'm assuming) is a spin-off of a conversation that I started on Jimbo's talk page, so it would be useful for everyone here to take into account what people have been saying there.
2. I totally agree with us getting web design companies to design things for us to actually see and judge. I just don't get why people think the current format is ugly at all. On the contrary, I think it is very slick and aesthetically beautiful. I am very intrigued to what people think this "better" version of Wikipedia would look like. What is actually *so* bad about the currect version and what would be so much better about the new version?
3. Just found this: it could be useful to this discussion.--Coin945 (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd keep it ugly but functional. It might be instructive to take a look at the saga of Digg vs. Reddit: Digg went through numerous professional and stylish redesigns, but slowly alienated their userbase in doing so; Reddit stayed ugly but functional, kept its users' loyalty, and prevailed -- and how! -- The Anome (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Update: I've just read my way proplerly through the material above, and discovered (a) these points have already been discussed above, and (b) I'm largely in agreement with Sue. If it works, don't fix it. -- The Anome (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Re Digg, they redesigned the entire site, and it was buggy. The vector skin was our 'site redesign'; there was no mass exodus, as it was minimal and mostly without bugs. The biggest problem with the Vector skin was the design flaw to hide interwiki links and, after the community got out pitchforks, the Vector team removed this 'feature'.
      OTOH, we build the front page for the readers. We jam it full of content, and our readers love it enough to keep coming back day after day, and clicking on the links we place on the front page. Anyone attempting to redesign our front page needs to have a very good appreciation of what the readers want from the front page. It wouldn't surprise me if our readers preferred the current main page design over new designs. However web designers and our readers would really enjoy the opportunity to participate in designing and rating front page redesigns. We can make it fun, and it will give us good data on what the readers think of our current front page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ms Gardner is quoted at Coin's linked news report as saying that:

“ Wikipedia has always been kind of a homely, awkward, handcrafted looking site. It’s not a pretty site. I don’t think you’d use the word flashy. It’s clearly not at all designed by marketing people. I think that kind of homeliness at the visual layer for readers is part of its awkward charm. It is clearly not trying to sell you something… It’s not employing mad patterns to encourage people to stick around for financial reasons because we’re monetizing their eyeballs. So there’s an element of that I think readers find charming. ”

What I find embarrassing is her assumption of simple opposites: you're either homely, awkward handcrafted-looking, and unpretty, or you're "flashy", "trying to sell ... something", or "employing mad patterns for financial reasons". And people above saying "keep it ugly but functional". Does anyone buy this conception of extreme opposites with nothing more nuanced in the middle ... that you can't be cool and authoritative at the same time? Why can't Wikipedia market itself not for financial reasons but for all of its mission goals? Why can't the front door look attractive and classy to make people want to hang around to get access to the world's classiest, most neutral, non-commerical, high-quality information site ... the one you can trust—rather than to "monetize their eyeballs"? At the moment Ms Gardner's awkward, homely look is a nerdy turn-off to much of our demographic target (i.e., everyone).

This design is tired by now; it was slapped together as the result of a whole lot of compromises some six years ago. The net has moved on since. A good-looking front page would reflect the professional standards of the project, and beckon visitors into the tree of knowledge behind the page. And I was thinking of epithets other than "flashy", actually. It's just basic that you don't squash so much text into a net page, and that you use images and white space more strategically. I like John V's idea of talking to design professionals, who would give their eye-teeth to boast they'd won our main-page design competition (pro bono).

So the surprising thing about Wikipedia is that it can use modern techniques of attractive design without being commercial: this is what non-commercial state broadcasters such as the BBC, the ABC, and NHK usen't to do, but now do, not to mention many non-commercial websites. Tony (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with holding a design contest, but I wouldn't limit it to design professionals. And I'd definitely suggest that we should remember the lessons of Reddit vs. Digg, and also the 2011 Gawker redesign: I'd invite incremental improvement, as opposed to a total redesign. Take a look at the new Wikidata logo for what can be achieved by open competition. And we should still feed the winning entry through the mincer of our community process. Sorry, design professionals, but what works, works. -- The Anome (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There's only one truly relevant part of that story about how supposedly ugly Wikipedia is. The story veers off to a discussion on the UI that is used for editing. It is clunky and cumbersome. It is indisputable. So if any effort is to be spent, it should be on the backend UI mostly.

If you have an iPhone or iPad (works on Windows also), you will see that Safari has a 'reader' mode that lets you see a simplified version of a page. I find this to be very elegant and attractive. So the idea that achieving an attractive site means we need to overhaul a lot of Wikipedia is silly. The writer of the 'ugly' article seems torn between focusing on attractive pages versus what the UI for editing is like. If a browser can remove information and create a more attractive page, then it seems as if maybe Wikipedia is actually trying too hard. Let the user's browser define an interface and keep Wikipedia clean and simple. But for the editing side of things, the point is a reasonable one -- not a great point however. In the 'ugly' article, she decries that non-geeks can't edit Wikipedia easily, but while I think the editing interface sucks, I don't think it is bad to have a threshold of competence. The idea that anyone can edit Wikipedia is egalitarian, but while anyone can edit, the question still remains whether *anyone* can edit it well.

Work on the backend. Make the front end simpler. There's nothing wrong with a gridded layout. This is an encyclopedia, not a art house magazine. Her quote "The disregard for mind-calming images!" is practically nonsense. People come to Wikipedia to look up something about beetles or aluminum or the history of bow ties, not to be mind-calmed or de-gridded. My impression of the writer at the Atlantic, which incidentally has a very gridded and blog-esque look to its website, is that she doesn't quite know whether she's complaining about how people edit from a technical standpoint or whether she's complaining it is just a simple design. She offers no alternatives to the basic article style of Header, Summary, ToC, and Body (sprinkled with images). The Atlantic website uses a serif font for the body unlike Wikipedia with its san-serif default. Is that the key? Add a few serifs and Wikipedia is a whole new beast? Anyway, much ado about very little, in my opinion.

Work on the backend. Like this discussion page. It is difficult to separate and follow discussions. Work on the backend. The edit interface doesn't need a zillion choices for most users. Entering text, bolding, italicizing, that's enough for most edits. Adding an image is far more difficult than it ought to be. -- Avanu (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Design competitions are a bad idea (see http://www.no-spec.com/about/ for the designers take). Design is a process not a one shot activity. That isn't exactly conductive to trying to design things via contests.©Geni 19:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think what is being proposed is (or should be) a hybrid of design process and testing. With a widespread community vote at the end of the process based on a shortlist produced during the design process. That is sort of what happened in 2006. And I agree, it is well past time something was done to freshen things up - though I would probably oppose too slick a design as some seem to be pushing for. Does anyone want to flesh out a more detailed proposal, and should it be at the old design process pages, or a new set of pages started afresh? If new pages are started, do include links to the two previous design processes (both the one that succeeded and the one that crashed and burned). Carcharoth (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started a draft at Wikipedia:2012_main_page_redesign_proposal. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

CSS and templates only?

Perhaps we should run a design competition where designers are only allowed to change the contents of CSS and templates, with everything else unchanged. That would leave the "soul" of the currrent design unchanged, while giving them free rein to change margins, fonts, colour schemes etc. to their hearts' delight. -- The Anome (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is the only way forward in the short term. How else could you significantly change the aesthetics without altering the balance of content? History shows that you have to do that to a large extent, otherwise the resulting opposition will almost certainly sink the proposal. —WFC— 16:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think redesigns should be required to include all of the content elements that are part of the current front page. To do good A/B testing on the design, the content on the page should be identical. Also, none of our front page content selection process should be interrupted or complicated during the competition. However the designs should be given the ability to change the structure of the front page (e.g. let them do something really dumb like place the featured article on the right instead of the left). Dumb designs will be voted down quickly, and we should disable a proposed design that is performing very badly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hindustan Times article about the needed makeover here. Somehow Sue is under the belief that the more amateurish looking the website, the more trustworthy it looks. Strange outlook. Andsurely a glossy slick looking wikipedia can exist without it being commercial LOL. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is not a Hindustan Times article but rather an AFP news item and makes valid points. It's nice to see AFP is interested this way in Wikipedia! Of course small subtle changes rather than drastic ones is the way to go so that the changes are introduced without much fuss and opposition. Of course a big redesign will make headlines, but will created great opposition as well. werldwayd (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Some history

According to Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Is there some way to make the Main Page look better?:

There are periodic attempts to revamp the look of the Main Page. A community effort in December 2004 to redesign the Main Page and key pages linked from it may be found here. The current design was implemented in March 2006 after several months of discussion and input from the community organized by the Usability WikiProject.

The last major attempt to redesign the Main Page began in July 2008 and can be found here. A number of proposals were submitted, but after several months neither one of them attained consensus within the Wikipedia community, and so the March 2006 design remains.

The last major discussion about the future layout of the Main Page occurred in mid-2011 and can be found here. There was some agreement by the Wikipedia community that the Main Page needs to be modified at least to some degree, but the community still has not attained consensus on the specific changes.

For a look at the Main Page on 28 February 2001, see the Internet Wayback Machine archive. For a range of choices, ranging from those past formats to designs created by users, see Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives.

The discussion in 2006 was mainly here (and in the associated archives). Carcharoth (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding more language links to the left column on main page

Main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page which is arguably the most visited page of Wikipedia lists a number of languages. I don't know what criterion is used to list the ones that are there (is it number of Wikipedia articles, is it the number of speakers, other criterion???). But I detact languages that are not national languages but are there, like Català, Euskara (Basque), Galego (Galician), Diné bizaad... yet no national languages like Armenian, Georgian, Azerbaijani, or a multinational language like Kiswahili. I am requesting that these 4 languages that are excluded at present are included in addition to other important world languages that are national and have developed Wikipedia pages to be included on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page werldwayd (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

See Template:Main Page interwikis. It can be discussed at Template talk:Main Page interwikis. All languages and stats are at meta:List of Wikipedias. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedias listed in the sidebar match those listed at the bottom of the page, which meet quantitative and qualitative criteria (a minimum of 50,000 articles, with certain Wikipedias omitted because they consist primarily of stubs and placeholders). —David Levy 20:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I double checked some languages from list here that are still absent. Azerbaijani has 88,383 articles, Georgian has 58,334. Yet no language listing on left werldwayd (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have overlooked the above notation regarding the omission of Wikipedias consisting primarily of stubs and placeholders. —David Levy 21:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of a better inclusive Wikipedia, and in order not to just repeat the list on the left, we can at least add at the bottom of the main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page the 20,000+ languages under section "Wikipedia languages" for better access. This way many more world languages would be reflected on main page of Wikipedia including a significant number of national languages now absent. Presently we just have 50,000+ languages... By the way, I still want to question the inclusion of Diné bizaad on the left column of languages that leads to this http://nv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Diyis%C3%AD%C3%AD_Naaltsoos Somehow it doesn't seem to me at least, a significant page to include with the languages on left.... werldwayd (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! Someone recently added the Diné bizaad link (in the wrong order) without discussion or explanation. I've removed it. —David Levy 21:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But I am still thrilled and fascinated by this language "Diné bizaad" and with http://nv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Diyis%C3%AD%C3%AD_Naaltsoos Just exactly what language and Wikipedia is this? werldwayd (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I discover it is Navajo language from the code "nv." werldwayd (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"In the News" section

This section is a prominent section of Wikipedia, and hugely visible( top right), yet it is sadly not updated often. We have some news items at times that are outdated and insignificant... The priority of those responsible of that section of what to include on Main and what not to include is very questionable indeed... Another very annoying thing is the picture included is almost always not related to the top news item. So it is misleading when right now you have a Syria news item, yet logo of Tonga which is a news item far below... It just sounds so inaccurate even though "Royal Standard of Tonga pictured" is mentioned below. This section needs to be updated more frequently and photo should match the main news item there. If you want to keep the Tonga logo for some reason, why not move it further down to make it coincide with the news item it is directly related to? werldwayd (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well you could try nominating stuff at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. However the very nature of of the wikipedia project means we will pay attention to stories for slightly longer than news organizations and we do try and take a globalist perspective which can result in stories that don't seem that important to someone who doesn't know the background.©Geni 21:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the second news item right now is about the Okogbe road tanker explosion that occurred on 12 July 2012 when a road tanker in Okobie, Nigeria fell into a ditch, spilled fuel, and then exploded. Of course we are saddened by loss of life anywhere, and I don't want to belittle loss of life... But a road accident is hardly an international news item. Road accidents happen all the time. This is a very questionable item as far as newsworthiness goes. By the way, today is July 14 and a lot of time has passed from that accident on July 12. But still its there... Just another solid proof that "In the News" section is not updated often, as far as news items go werldwayd (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that you complain ITN is not updated often and, at the same time, you point out that it features insignificant items. If we are to update ITN more frequently we have to lower our standard, which will result in displaying even more trivial items. Or, if you think ITN has omitted some "significant" items, you are welcome to give some specific examples. What did we miss, exactly? --BorgQueen (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the Federer and Williams item is from July 8 when the tennis finals were held. So what is it still doing on July 14 on the page most visited in Wikipedia? And in answer to you, the news should be updated more often, PLUS they should be significant. It's not either significant or current, but both significant and current at the same time. We do surely have very significant news items that are recent at the same time. All one has to do is to pay more attention and interest to updates with a news-savvy judgement put in place. Now, it seems, we are not very significant in our choices of news items, nor are we sadly current enough. werldwayd (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You are just repeating what you have already said. You say "We do surely have very significant news items that are recent at the same time". Ok, fine. Please give specific examples. What did we miss? --BorgQueen (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

99 dead in one road accident is an international news item. That kind of death toll is unusual. You might see it in some tunnel fires but thats about it.©Geni 21:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

But it was TWO DAYS AGO and still we have it on TODAY's page! That's the point. werldwayd (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Err yes? You want a constantly updated news ticker go to a news website. ITN has the luxury of allowing things to go at a slower pace.©Geni 22:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with constantly updated system for a website that is in Top 10 of all world sites and a greatly-sought site of reference at that. Yes, people do browse us for updated news and we have it on TOP of our main page as well for a reason. In any case, the whole exercise on a talk page is to keep stirring for some good issues nobody is questionning sincerely, pinpointing some possible shortcomings that we actually have (it is a subjective matter of opinion I do agree), and try to create a momentum for a more strategic thinking of what Wikipedia should be, in this case our News Section. werldwayd (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

To colleague User:BorgQueen. You ask for suggestions for very recent AND significant news at the same time... For example the devastating Japan floods [4], news about Afghan MP Ahmad Khan Samangani killed with 20 others in a bomb [5], Visa and Mastercard settling 7.25b fees dispute [6] I found these in a research of three minutes All these are more significant and more current than Federer winning the title on July 8 while we are now on July 14...werldwayd (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't have articles on any of them though. Historicaly not all dead politicians have made it to the main page Mario Fernando Hernández didn't for example.©Geni 22:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I am just getting into this discussion, so apologies for being late. My stance is - ITN/C is fine. It's got a few niggles here and there, but essentially, it's working perfectly well. Since joining ITN/C on a more full-time basis, if I can put it that way, I've seen the criteria for entry wax and wane from soft to hard, seen the Occupy movement (rightly) rejected, seen a number of high-profile deaths rejected (both rightly and very wrongly) and successfully removed some items from ITN/R.

There's a lot of work still to be done, though your approach seems to ignore two very important facts.

Firstly, News doesn't happen in the way you'd like. The big bad world out there doesn't have events happening at convenient times. If there's nothing being nominated, there's nothing happening (possibly). The more important second point - Wikipedia is NOT news. It's certainly not news.me, diggit, or the Times of India. There's numerous aggregater sites out there designed to be more 'rapid' and 'responsive'. Wiki is NOT, and should NOT, be one of them. ITN/C should be regarded as a filter. doktorb _words^deeds 07:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd generally like to see the notability criteria of ITN soften a bit. However ITN is a service for linking to articles, so we need to maintain that any story we discuss has been reflected in a substantial update to the encyclopaedia. There's a subtle difference between the "news" you'd see on the BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera etc., and events that have resulted in significant changes to Wikipedia's content. It's this second category that is the domain of ITN. LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly! But it seems many people simply fail to see that, or find it a hard concept to grasp, and insist on seeing ITN as a news ticker or a headlines service, rather than something to encourage editing of articles that cover topics that are currently in the news. Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Placement of photos on Main page

It seems the placement of photos is almost always a problem on main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page I mentioned that "In the News" the main item right now is Syria, but the photo next to it is the logo of Tonga related to an article much further down. It is misleading. Either match the photo to the news item, or move the photo placement down to coincide with the item concerned (Tonga to be placed near the Crown prince's marriage news item... The same comment goes for present "On this day..." section. The main item is Sedition Act with photo of Valerie Plame. These are totally unrelated. I suggest either providing a Sedition Act-related photo, or if you want to keep Ms. Plame's photo for some reason, why not moving the photo to its related section? Just adding "pictured" in italics doesn't do. We need the page to appear balanced with photo matching the item near which it stands. werldwayd (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry? —David Levy 22:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for pointing out the page where it clarifies the reason why the picture is not aligned with the news items. Now we know it has to do with other News pages we are keeping on alternative pages and moving the photo to coincide with the news item on Main will mess things up. Point taken. But why to link a front page Wikipedia to all these pages automatically and thus put us in the risk of formatting and creating problems for many other pages. In simpler terms, why can't the front page be designed independently from all the other pages it is linked to... Isn't there a possible program to avert this problem? To my mind, Main (a very visible page) should be designed independently as is, and giving us the freedom to design it properly and to remain appealing and as factual as possible and not create confusion like I feel it is doing now. Other news pages may be edited separately though remaining in sinc with priority of news we have chosen to feature on Main. If we have been able to reach people to the moon and back countless times, we can fix a simple technical programming glitch for sure of adjoining pages. Our front Main page should stay clear and not misleading as far as photos go. werldwayd (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"to the moon and back countless times". Well, I can count to six. Perhaps other people just don't see this image position issue as very important. The text always mentions the picture so it is lead misleading if you read all the news items. 67.149.234.194 (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That few attempts to the moon huh? I thought they were in hundreds by now and a matter of daily tourism LOL. Well we have reached Mars and beyond... Any life on Mars though? LOL... Back to the issue. A small programming may do the trick here. It is infinitely an easier problem than putting men on the moon. For example, we keep records of a comma you placed in Wikipedia say on 3 August 2006 with the time stamp on and the edited page before you inserted the comma and the page after you inserted it. So we can get back to that useless minute detail after years. So, we can certainly find a plausible way of putting a photo near its news item. Simple right? I know "pictured" is mentioned way down. But people do not read everything. A top story has an attraction of its own and merits its own photo. If a photo cannot be provided for some reason, so be it. I'd rather see the section remain photoless rather than see a photo unrelated to the main item. We CAN survive a photoless section, but not a misleading photo. The first impression for the ordinary reader is this -- You read the first news item. But what does it have to do with the picture you are seeing stuck to it? Nothing!!! The next question, why is it there then? People do not read further down. Trust me on this. This is how people browse. When they don't get the relation between the news item and the photo, they are disenchanted just like I was... Am I being too picky? I don't know, I thought it was a valid fact to mention, since in the entire talk page now, check all the items above (so I do read then... LOL) we are talking about redesigning the Main Wikipedia page. Since we are talking about redesigning I thought it was the most opportune time to point out this idiosyncratic Wikipedia fact of not matching a news item with its relevant photo for whatever reason. werldwayd (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No need for "Welcome to Wikipedia" where "Wikipedia" suffices ...
and that matter of "anyone can edit"

A big anomaly of Wikipedia is that it welcomes you when you browse it. This is unique in any main website you browse. Other websites splash their name in shining colours. We just waste our main headline by bidding welcome to browsing public... What the hell did designers think when they created "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." and in all languages. You see this useless "welcome" word in all the other language Wikipedias. It is so fake and unnecessary... What next.... When you are exiting Wikipedia, a page pops up to tell you "Thanks for visiting Wikipedia" just like when you enter a town or leave a town. How about "If you were happy, please visit us again..." Just stop this useless welcoming to start an encyclopedia by. Of course one is visiting to get information, welcome or not. He CHOSE to come in. The first thing we need to redesign is to remove the "Welcome" note and start having pride in the prominent brand name we have. We should clearly say: "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." No welcomes. What makes our behaviour even more atrocious is that "Welcome to" has the exact same font and size as our name Wikipedia. How can we get more humbug or "holier-than-thou" more than this. Remove "Welcome to" and just keep "Wikipeda" and splash it IN BIGGER LETTERS and in all the attractive COLOURS of the universe. Stop being apologetic and oh so submissive about it. Announce you are WIKIPEDIA and be proud werldwayd (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

All the colours? Even hooloovoo? — foxj 01:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL.... Funny... We do need that spirit ... werldwayd (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I also have a big reservation regarding "anyone can edit" when we are saying "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Of course it's true. Anyone CAN edit. For example I can open a page anonymously, no signing is needed anyway, and I say to my 2-year-old kid: "Look my dear: Type a dot here..." and he hits the dot on the keyboard. Then I show him the "save" button and say: "hit this button here dear" and he hits, and lo and behold, my kid "the anyone can edit Wikipedia guy", my 2-year-old hero has edited Wikipedia!! But is THIS what we want to promote? Saying "anyone can edit" is a big blow to our credibility and just makes our product suspicious that "anyone" has edited it. We can leave editing for all, but we don't need to use that terminology in our headline. I suggest amending it to the more neutral "the free publicly-edited encyclopedia" which brings the same message that everybody can edit but is immensely better than to say "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". werldwayd (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 89#Wikipedia's motto. —David Levy 01:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. But look what came out of THAT one... It seems to me we just talk talk talk and barely nothing is done... There are so many strange things about Wikipedia and why it is what it is.... So "anybody can edit" will stick despite being so awkward and despite what we have to say werldwayd (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Others disagree that the wording is awkward. You're entitled to your opinion, but our failure to act on it doesn't mean that "barely nothing is done". —David Levy 01:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

So, our famous 4,000,000th article IS.... (drums please...)

So what is our famed 4,000,000th article? I have read so many speculations but no definitive confirmation to celebrate for. We want to celebrate before we go to our beds tonight werldwayd (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Izbat Al Burj was the 4 millionth article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

And curiously which article missed it by just one... What was the 3,999,999th article and the 4,000,001th article. Were they more worth our while? werldwayd (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

See this Wikimedia blog post. Dr. Blofeld created a few thousand Turkish villages leading up to the mark and Idaho State Highway 48, Siersza Power Station, Albert C. Baker, and Intelsat 605 also came close. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We need to bite the bullet: there's too much text and we use images poorly

It's really surprising that the gigantic RfA last year that exposed community opinion on many parts of the MP led to almost no change, even though there was clear consensus that some links/buttons are redundant or simply unnecessary. Why weren't they dropped immediately? It shows how sclerotic our MP governance has become.

Part of a redesign—indeed a good starting-point—is to revisit which bits can easily be dropped; that would prepare the way for harder questions of how to reduce the amount of clutter on the first-level MP (i.e. the immediate display). One obvious thing to dois to display less of the FAC lead, linking to "more" a bit earlier in each piece. The existing page would be much cleaner tomorrow if we dropped them, but let's wait and make this an initial part of the cleaned-up new design process.

What a dramatic photo of the eruption we have today: but its treatment on our page removes all of the drama: it's small and relegated almost to the bottom. One has to display the best stuff at the front of the shop, not down in the cellar. And I really think FAs without a suitable picture should have to try a bit harder to reach the top of the queue. Today's is a good example. Tony (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

See my suggestion to trim the space given to "featured article". This conveniently answers to your concern about too much text. I suggested moving the featured photo to the space saved from long quotes from "featured article" immediately making the page more attractive much higher up in the page. werldwayd (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't disagree with that. No-brainer, in my view. Tony (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you. Featured Article is the right balance - it reminds casual editors/visitors that we're an encyclopedia, not a news aggregater or social media site. We are not Tumblr nor Twitter - we're not here to provide snippets of information with bright pictures. We're here to educate, not entertain.doktorb _words^deeds 06:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

God, how disheartening. 'Too much text' on an encyclopaedia main page. Tony seems hell bent on getting a redesign, saying anyone who is against this is one of David Levy's cronies. I've got news for you Tony. I don't know David, in fact I know no-one on Wikipedia. I have used it for eight years. I like the way it looks: simple and functional, with lots of text. The recent BBC website redesign was a complete disaster in my view because, for some unfathomable reason, they decided to put much less text on, used a bigger font and add acres of white space, with the consequence that you have to scroll/click a lot more to see what information it holds, and it now looks like a website for children. If it ain't broke, why fix it? You think it is, I disagree. It conveys knowledge. It doesn't need to be all singing and all dancing. It doesn't need to appeal to those with short attention spans. It just needs to show us what is in the encyclopaedia - and that's mainly words. 86.133.208.73 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Today's featured article" occupies too much space on main page

Although it is interesting to follow on a daily basis, I think "Today's featured article" just gives too much space to a big chunk of the article, thus wasting valuable space for other important matters that can occupy the space. The whole aim of a "featured article" is to entice you to check further the article. To do this, all you need is one brief well-written summarized paragraph (let's say 10 lines), an attractive photo and a link that is conveniently found on the subject anyway. Save space cut from lengthy excerpts of the article and move for example "Today's featured picture", always a fascinating shot higher on left column. This will save you from the general accusation that there is just too much text put in the main page. werldwayd (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Might I ask why you have now asked six separate questions on the topic of the Main Page within the space of a few hours? — foxj 04:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Good observation. Actually dear Foxj, it is just because I am in a great celebratory mood for our 4,000,000th article... Thus it helps to be self-deprecating and make some cheeky observations and pick on some given and well-established conventions of ours. It's part of being a bit too tipsy today and just testing my own limits of how far we can go on making fun of ourselves. I was not here yesterday (never ever posted a single note on this page) and I will not be here tomorrow (never ever will most probably). This is the ONLY day I am participating on talk page here, then I'm gone to things I do much better. Meanwhile it is good exercise to burst some balloons since we are so jovial today. But note that although done for celebration, they do pose important issues and should be addressed inviting good responses and hopefully needed improvements werldwayd (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather than celebrating base 10, I'd rather fix things that are crying out for improvement. Tony (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Tony, but they cannot be done by brief discussions in talk pages. In a couple of days, this page will be archived and soon bygones will be bygones... Welcome to a new talk page, "Welcome to Wikipedia" as it says on the main page... We can do only this much, with symbolic few in-between changes, with the obvious "resistance to change" we have, and frankly, sometimes this resistance is quite justified actually... Why change something that works quite well for so many who are accustomed to things this way. When Obama chose "Change" as his slogan, I knew we would have four more years of the "same", only worse. Sadly, Wikipedia, despite its lip service commitment to change, does not want to change and will not change at the fast pace we are hoping for... unless there is healthy competition to it with strong financial backing. As long as their is hegemony by one site, Wikipedia, with no viable alternative, things will remain as they are. When a huge competition does emerge though, we will see quicker changes emerging. Meanwhile let's celebrate our 4 millionth article and have some fun... I'm done actually and have to sleep very content of this specific achievement of 4,000,000. I will not return here though.... Perhaps I will, but with the 5,000,000th Wikipedia article... and still plead albeit hopelessly for a change for one more time and then disappear again to come back and celebrate the 6,000,000th... Many happy returns. werldwayd (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Languages are not in English..

Who's bright idea was it to have all the languages in the side column of this and any other wiki-page written in their own language rather than English? If the whole Côte d'Ivoire vs. Ivory Coast thing has taught us anything, its that in an English Wikipedia, we must spell everything how an English-speaker would spell them. It's very confusing for me (and I'm assuming many others as well) to find a certain language in the list of languages... if I don't actually speak the language. I say we make them all English.. or at least make them English and them have the other titles in brackets.--Coin945 (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously they're not in English, that would defeat the point. The idea is that if you are a speaker of some other language and want to read Wikipedia in that language then you can click on the link. If the link titles were to be written in English then non-English speakers wouldn't necessarily be able to find their language. The links to not exist for the convenience of English speakers and therefore should not be written in English. Hut 8.5 15:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. In the French Wikipedia, the links should all be in French. In the German Wikipedia, in German. Etc. How is it of any use to us having a whole column of what is essentially gibberish to many people. I stand by my view that... at the very least we should have the languages in English, and then in their own language in brackets.--Coin945 (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"if you are a speaker of some other language and want to read Wikipedia in that language", then why would you be scrolling through a language column on the English Wikipedia? If the answer is that the languages appear the same in every version of Wikipedia, then I think we have a problem...--Coin945 (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Suppose I do a Google search for something, and click on a link to the French Wikipedia. I want to read an article on that topic in English, so I look at the links to other languages at the side. If the links were written in French then I would not be able to find the appropriate one unless I happen to know that the French for "English" is "Anglais". Hence if your proposal were to be enacted then my ability to find English-language content depends on my ability to speak French, which just doesn't make sense. Putting the foreign language term in brackets wouldn't help much, since they would presumably be sorted alphabetically according to the French term (so English would be under "A" rather than "E"). Hut 8.5 16:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as an English-speaker, I sometimes find myself wanting to look something up in the Wikipedia version of an article in another language, and I then have to go and look up what that language is called in that language before I can click on the right inter-wiki link... Can you instantly identify all the languages down the side of an article, or do you have to go and look up which one is the Russian one and which one is the Bulgarian one (not everyone knows the two-letter codes off by heart, and certainly not random readers)? If I look down the list of interwiki links on most pages, I can only usually identify about half of them. There should be at least a helpful link to the list of all languages in both their own languages and in English (I think this list lives on meta). For example, is Eesti Estonian? It might be, but I'm only really guessing. And I have no clue what Galego is. The list on meta is at meta:List of Wikipedias - that would be a very useful addition to what-ever generates the inter-wiki links. I know this link is already at the bottom of the Main Page in the 'Wikipedia languages' section, but where it is really needed is in the inter-wiki links bit that appears on every page, along the lines of "For an English-language key explaining which languages are which in the list below, see...". Though ideally that would link to an alphabetical list so people can easily see what the languages are. Alternatively, set things up so if you hover your cursor over the interwiki link, a mouse-up will tell you what language it is (e.g. Estonian for Eesti; Galician for Galego, and so on). Carcharoth (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would you be looking something up in a language you don't understand? And why is this being discussed on the Main Page talk page? --Yair rand (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong location, but I'm only joining a conversation that has already started... And to answer your first question, I sometimes find that the information I'm looking for (e.g. on an obscure historical French person) is only a stub in the English Wikipedia, but the French Wikipedia article is a lot longer, so I stick that into Google Translate, and that gets me closer to what I want to find out. I sometimes do that for obscure Russian historical people as well, and sometimes other languages. Does that answer your question? (Me, I would never question someone trying to research in another language, I would welcome it and try and help them!). Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I can answer your second question (obviously... as the starter of the discussion and all... :D). TBH, I put the discussion here for 2 reaosns. Firstly, I genuinely thoguht the discussion was only relevant to the main page, and then halfway through my post, I was like "hey, wait a minute", but I just thought "screw it" and finished it off here anyways. Secondly, I know this is a bit of a cheat, but since this page has received a lot of attention due to the 4 million articles thingy, and my post on Jimbo's talk page about Wikipedia's ugliness which has sparked a whole reform on this page, I figured that any query I would post here would get replies and intelligent discussion rather quickly. Of course, we can always notify the correct forum for this discussion with a simple link back to here. Does that answer the question sufficiently for you? :)--Coin945 (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Plus, for the record, I think that Carcharoth's "mouse-up" idea is inspired and rather a brilliant solution. I say we go with that.--Coin945 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not that inspired. If you look at the 'Wikipedia languages' section, the languages mentioned there already have mouse-ups. And on the side-bar, most of the options have mouse-ups. I just got to wondering why the interwiki links on the sidebar don't have mouse-ups. The real prize should go to whoever can find where the changes need to be made (presumably somewhere in the MediaWiki namespace) and how to do this in the most efficient way. I found MediaWiki:Interwiki config-sorting order, but that doesn't look like the right page... Maybe ask at the technical village pump? Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

My feeling on this matter is that the pages on the bottom should be in English, and the ones on the side should be in their native language. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What nonsense. If the Ivory Coast incident has taught us anything, a clique of young Americans are trying to force their ignorance across the project for kicks. The whole point of inter-language links is to assist non-English language speakers to a corresponding page in their language. How arrogant of you to assume they're in native languages for some kind of frivolous joke. doktorb _words^deeds 17:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're unable to find the language's name for itself in its native tongue, then I can't imagine you having any use for the articles contained on that Wikipedia. If you're willing to use a translator for the article...then do the obvious thing and look up the name for that language? This is quite possibly one of the most absurd complaints I've ever seen on the main page. Yes, let's defeat the purpose of the alternate language column to save you 10 seconds of looking up the language's proper name. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In order to know which language to translate from, you need to know what the language is (isn't that obvious?). And not everyone knows where to go and look up the name of the languages. The person who set up the mouse-ups in {{Sec link auto}} didn't think that was a waste of time. Can we please not be confrontational over this. Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Rather than argue over this, can anyone help with a question? I looked into where the mouse-ups were coming from for {{Wikipedia languages}}, and I looked in {{Wikipedia languages/core}} and found the mouse-up coding in {{Sec link auto}}. Is there anyway to use that so that whenever someone hovers over the interwiki link on the sidebar for an article, you get a mouse-up in English? That would help English readers know what that link was for, while presumably native language speakers wouldn't need the mouse-up (though it might confuse them, but if you have two people trying to work out what a link means, one knowing the language, the other not, you will always confuse one of them). Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A bit more, from Template:Wikipedia languages/core/doc:

The interwiki links of this template are within the emplate Template:Sec link auto, which will make the link go to the secure server if the user is there and otherwise returns a usual interwiki link. The third text parameter of this template shows a mouseover, which is the English language name of the language and its IS0 639 code within brackets. To determine the English name, it calls . Furthermore, there are "lang" and "xml:lang" within the text so that browsers recognize it's a non-English text and treat it properly. The text of the link then uses the parser function , which displays the language's native name as it's used by MediaWiki, e.g. within the interwiki links. This is done to ensure consistency with the interwiki links in the sidebar.

Is there a way to get that kind of mouse-up functionality enabled on the sidebar interwikilinks for all articles? Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wording

Do you know what syntax is?

"... that Michael R. Perry was inspired to write Millennium's "The Mikado" by the "dark side" of the internet, Jennifer Ringley's JenniCam website and the Zodiac Killer?"

This sentence implies that the "dark side" of the internet *IS* "Jennifer Ringley's JenniCam website and the Zodiac Killer", not what is meant, that he was inspired by 3 separate things. Why is that on this site, on which bias and objectivity so important, people can't copy edit something read by millions in one day?

Cosprings (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I understood the sentence as it was written. Did you have a suggestion on how to word it better? —howcheng {chat} 17:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)