Jump to content

Talk:Main Page/Archive 206

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Main Page

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.20.111.51 (talk) at 04:27, 27 January 2023 (→‎Difference cultural variables between United Strates and Hawaii: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 200 ← Archive 204 Archive 205 Archive 206 Archive 207

Request for comments: Do we need a second box for hooks on the Main Page?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached to reject the idea of a new Main Page section. Storye book (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


The issue to !vote on: Should we retain the existing DYK box as it stands on the Main Page, with its quirky hooks "interesting to a broad audience", but add a second box containing factual hooks for specialist articles?

Note: this issue to vote on is solely about whether we want a second box or not, and the discussion is about why we may or may not want a second box for WP's improvement. At this stage, it is not about logistics such as whether we have enough reviewers, or where the templates should be listed for review and prep, or Main Page overall design.

History: This issue was triggered by difficulties on Template:Did you know nominations/Talia Or (and previously many other similar difficulties on previous nomination templates). In the hope of resolving the difficulties which were stalling the progress of certain DYK nominations, a discussion and Rfc was opened at: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Request for comment: The need to update Wikipedia:DYK#gen3. The difficulty was that some reviewers felt that DYK hooks should all have quirky or intriguing elements aimed at a "general audience" (however one defines that). But some nominators and reviewers felt that sometimes a factual hook was the only type suitable for a particular article, even if that article contained potential quirky-hook material. It has been impossible to reach a compromise, and that is why the idea of an extra hook box arose, and why the Rfc has been opened here. Please see the "Possible reasons for adding another hook box" section below, for more information. Storye book (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

!voting

(Please !vote Yes or No, for or against an extra hook box, or for Other if you have a more complex view. Please keep comments brief so that the voting can be seen clearly. There is a discussion section for your longer comments, below.)

  • No - A longer explanation will be written below in the Discussion section. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • No, let's not make the Main Page even more convoluted. Also see discussion. —Kusma (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • No. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of people to mix different types of hook. Bazza (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • No - this sounds like putting very mundane information onto the main page. The idea of DYK is to get people to click the suitable article. We achieve no clicks on non-hooky items. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • No - A second box would serve unclear purpose (especially if it were effectively just replicating the DYK process/format) and needlessly dichotomize content as either "serious" or "fun(ny)"/"hooky". —⁠Collint c 15:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • No - I'm actually unbothered by "boring" or less quirky hooks mixed in with silly ones. If there's nothing funny to say about something, then it's quite okay to just state something important or interesting. --Jayron32 17:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • No. If DYK wants to modify the types of blurbs it runs, that's fine with me and something to be discussed within the project. FWIW I don't like quirky blurbs, because they're often misleading or confusing. I would prefer all blurbs to be factual statements, expressed in terms understandable by non-expert readers. Whatever DYK blurbs are run, I don't see any benefit to separating them into two sections on the Main Page. That's an unnecessary complication which would only confuse readers and make more work for admins & DYK queue prep, for no discernable benefit. Modest Genius talk 17:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • No - blurbs should never be so bland they need to be shoveled into a separate section. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes - you nailed it. Therapyisgood (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • No - per Sarek of Vulcan's reasoning. It isn't that hard to find something interesting to say about an article. And if there really isn't anything better than the "singer sang song" level of comment, then don't bother taking it to DYK. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • No - I agree with above "no" comments. I also believe that adding an extra box would just make the main page more confusing to readers who are not familiar with Wikipedia policy. I agree with Modest Genius that if the type of blurbs being run are an issue this is a discussion that should discussed within the DYK process. Also, what is "hooky" or interesting varies from reader-to-reader, and I have seen other editors like Modest Genius who dislike the quirky blurbs. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  • No There's a wealth of good reasoning below, but at the end of the day I'm most sympathetic to it being not needed. The main page is the introduction point. Simplicity as a design choice is well attested in the web design world and it makes it easier to navigate the main page. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Possible reasons for adding another hook box

(Note: this is not about criticising the policy and contents of the existing hook box. It is about whether we should add another box for articles which are peer-reviewed in exactly the same manner, but with a different type of hook)

  • Some specialist articles deserve factual hooks in specialist terminology which represent their contents or a main point of the article, such as "Scientist John Doe discovered Foo", or "This botanical species has been discovered to be related to that botanical species".
  • Hook-examples like the above, in specialist terminology, are important features of specialist journals, and in the right place they can elicit great excitement from the readers of such journals. But those people read WP too; sometimes looking for a first-stop glance at a subject peripheral to their own, to see if widening their view can shed more light on their work. Serious newspapers and magazine journalists constantly check online (including WP) for developments in academic and other specialist fields. We do have another audience, besides whatever concept we may have of a "general audience".
  • Our Main Page represents what we want the public face of WP to be. The current fun and quirky hook box represents our user-friendly side. But we do also have a serious academic side, and our articles do also serve specialist groups of readers such as those interested in baseball or railway systems.
  • The existing featured-article box is fine for featured articles, but it does not serve the need for the public airing of our newest specialist articles, which we can be proud of, too, however obscure their terminology.
  • "Specialist" can include any article whose special-interest hook is not designed to capture the casual browser. For example, Jargonese articles/hooks on baseball and computer games can be included, where only that terminology puts the point across precisely.
  • Even if a new Our newest specialist articles (or however-named) box were to be added, specialist article nominations and their hooks could of course still be featured in the existing DYK box. This request for a second box is only for those articles for which a quirky hook is deemed inappropriate by the nominator.
  • The additional hook box would not need to compromise space or cause slower uploading. It could be, for example, a scroll box. (The scroll box idea is just to suggest that an extra box could be done; how it is actually done is not at issue at this point). Storye book (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I just do not see the point of having two separate article sections on the Main Page, one for "quirky" hooks and another for specialist information. Any desire to promote specialist articles on Wikipedia already have their own avenues, mainly DYK, but theoretically even other Main Page sections such as TFA/ITN/OTD and so on. Such a section would feel very redundant to DYK, which was always intended to promote topics that may not necessarily be familiar to our general readership. In addition, the comments above imply that specialist topics such as baseball, railways, computer stuff, and so on can never be interesting to a broad audience. If there is a desire to promote specialist topics on Wikipedia, what's preventing an editor for simply writing a hook about that specialist topic that still appeals to a broad audience? A specialist topic doesn't need to limit its audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
    You say, "the comments above imply that specialist topics such as baseball, railways, computer stuff, and so on can never be interesting to a broad audience". That is not the case, my friend. What I actually said was, "specialist article nominations and their hooks could of course still be featured in the existing DYK box. This request for a second box is only for those articles for which a quirky hook is deemed inappropriate by the nominator". Storye book (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
If a nominator does not want a hook that is interesting to a broad audience, and one is impossible, the nomination should be closed. A hook doesn't necessarily have to be quirky, but the rules currently state that a hook must be interesting to a broad audience. Barring a change relaxing or dropping that rule (and based on currents trends in the WT:DYK discussion, I frankly don't see a consensus for that happening anytime soon), a nomination can be rejected if no suitable hook is possible. If the nominator rejects all hook options, that's also a reason for closure since no consensus on a hook can be reached. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
That puts nominators of specialist articles with informational (non-quirky) hooks in a situation where they have nowhere to go. They have no compromise/re-write of guidelines to permit their hook, and they have no other place for their hook to be aired. So they have to close their nomination, or it gets closed anyway. That is why we are here, asking for another box. No-one wants the hassle of another Main Page box, including me. But there is nowhere else to go. Storye book (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The solution is very simple: write a broadly interesting hook about a specialist topic. Editors have been able to do that for years no problem, so I don't see how it's impossible. I can understand if writing broadly interesting hooks about a field are impossible, but that's rarely the case. In most cases, a broadly appealing fact about a subject can be found if you know where to look. Even if one particular subject doesn't have a broadly appealing hook possible, that doesn't disqualify others in that field from having such hooks if it's possible. I don't see why there's an insistence on an "informational (non-quirky)" hook even when a broadly appealing hook is possible. For example, take the article Mami Kawada. Anime music is a very specialist topic and one that is niche. Yet the article was able to run on DYK with a non-specialist hook: ... that Mami Kawada's music career began after she was discovered by her music teacher? It didn't have a hook that went ... that Mami Kawada performed the opening themes to the anime Shakugan no Shana? because, despite being a specialist topic, a broad interest hook was still possible. Instead of insisting on a specialist hook, why not just simply follow existing guidelines and write a hook that is broadly appealing? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
While I agree with your general point, you picked a horrible example of a non-specialist hook. That hook should have been tossed in the trash. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Back in the day we had subject-specific portals that could have subject-specific and specialist DYKs. Specialist content should be targeted at specialists, not given to all random strangers. —Kusma (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Kusma:. You say "Specialist content should be targeted at specialists". How do you suggest that we do that, if not with hooks on the Main Page? Storye book (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
    Put them on a page where more of the readers are specialists. You may not get many readers, but those you get actually care. —Kusma (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @Bazza 7: You say, "I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of people to mix different types of hook". Do you mean that we could have two types of hook - quirky and factual - in he existing DYK box? Or do you mean that a single hook can contain quirkiness and factual information at the same time? Whichever is your meaning, I agree with your comment, and that is the type of compromise that we were looking for. We have been told that it's not going to happen. That is why we are here. Storye book (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Storye book I originally meant the former, but am happy to adopt your other interpetation of what I wrote as well! Thanks. Bazza (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @Jayron32: You say, "I'm actually unbothered by "boring" or less quirky hooks mixed in with silly ones. If there's nothing funny to say about something, then it's quite okay to just state something important or interesting". You are, of course, right. However we have been told that such a compromise is out of the question. That is why we are here. Storye book (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm not terribly sure what person told you that, but sometimes people are wrong. --Jayron32 17:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
      There have been several statements to the effect that a compromise is not going to happen, or about what would happen if there were a no-change decision. One, by Theleekycauldron, on the Talia Or nom template, said " It seems that a compromise on a hook that satisfies both the nominator and the consensus of current guidelines is not obtainable at the moment". (The context was that the nominator wanted a factual hook, and the guidelines were perceived to demand a hook "interesting to a broad audience" which was in turn perceived to mean a quirky or intriguing hook). There have been a few statements by other people in the same vein, some saying that if a hook cannot be made "interesting to a broad audience" as described above, then the nomination should be closed. There have been suggestions that in exceptional circumstances a nomination with a factual hook should be referred to IAR, but I don't know what that is. There is a page WP:IAR which is called "ignore all rules", but it contains no formal process. On a DYK nom page it would have no sway. Storye book (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
      Look, I don't know what to say. When I'm named Emperor of Wikipedia, I'll make sure all of the hooks, boring or quirky, get posted to DYK. Until that point comes, however, I'm not sure what I can do for you. --Jayron32 19:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
      Thank you, Jayron32. And thank you, everyone here, for voting as you have, so far, and for saying what you have said. This discussion - so far - has clarified for me what has happened with DYK and why we are here in this discussion today.
      Until this year, of course there had always been problems and brief spats on DYK templates, but on the whole it worked. Quirky and intriguing hooks aimed at the broad audience were passed, gave pleasure on the Main Page, and brought attention to new articles - all fine by all. And besides that, informational hooks were passed without tears or hostility, and achieved the same thing on the Main Page. It was like a sort of Paradise lost. Then a small group of reviewers took the guidelines literally and in narrow sense of "only quirky hooks will be passed, and nothing else", then they took issue with a small subset of nominators who wanted non-quirky, informational hooks for readers who may not be broad-audience-classified. Such nominations were the subject of a great deal of pressure to give in to the quirkiness requirement, and when nominators resisted, rejection was intimated. This caused a great deal of unhappiness on both sides. A formal discussion was raised, but all that did was to clarify to all that no compromise was going to happen, and that rejection from the DYK process was what our informational-hook nominators could expect.
      Before, the system worked. Now it is broken. Running away to create another Main Page Box is not going to work, because some comments by voters on this page suggest going back to the old pre Paradise-lost days, when we were permitted both sorts of hooks - but those days are gone.
      I am not permitted to close down any discussions, myself, as far as I am aware. But what I can do, is to stand up and say to those whose refusal to compromise is going to block the informational-hook nominators from the DYK process - please compromise. You no doubt have been doing your best for WP, but what you have actually done is to stall and antagonise many DYK templates this year, your actions have resulted in two Rfc discussions which have got nowhere, and while you sit triumphing in your castle of quirky-hookness, there are nominators out there who will be permanently left out of the chance to air their articles for the public. Who cares how many clicks an informational hook gets? What matters for some articles and some nominators, and ultimately WP in that case, is quality clicks, not only random browsing clicks by general-audience people who, faced with an article that they did not expect, may immediately close their browser window. I'm clearly not going to see a good result here, and neither are nominators of articles which certain reviewers have deemed good enough for WP but not good enough for hooks.
      In summary, there used to be inclusivity regarding both points of view in the DYK nom process. Now there is none, and one point of view is to be rejected from the system. I have tried and failed to regain that inclusivity by creating two Rfc's. For goodness' sake. All that is needed is to correct "interesting to a broad audience" to "interesting" in the DYK guidelines, and be a little more inclusive on DYK templates, and the problem is solved without any harm to WP. Storye book (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
      This is not a great summary of the situation. The broadness criteria has been asked for and implemented for much longer than this year. Quirkiness is not a requirement, and is only sought out for one of the eight hooks; even then sets are sometimes run without a quirky hook. DYK continues to work and function up to this very day, with the main issue being constant delays in prep building and in queue transferring, which points to an issue of there being too many hooks per current manpower rather than too few. CMD (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
      I was using "quirky" according to its dictionary definition; a quick google gives us "having or characterized by peculiar or unexpected traits or aspects", i.e. not necessarily silly. I take that definition to mean the aspect used in the "broad audience" hooks to grab a casual browser's attention. Yes the broadness criteria did work for a long time, as I have said above. Pity that didn't last. DYK is functioning well in general, but no longer working as to certain aspects of inclusivity, as I have explained. And arguments on DYK templates about inclusivity have often, at least temporarily, taken valuable promoters and prep builders away from their primary work. Storye book (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't see how or why a hook can't be factual and broadly interesting to an audience at the same time. I mean, if a hook wasn't factual, it wouldn't have been allowed to run in the first place (hooks regularly get pulled for being inaccurate, for example). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
        • Yes, of course the quirky/intriguing hooks have to be true. By factual, I meant as opposed to quirky. So long as they are true, it should be possible to make them either quirky/intriguing, or simply informational. If we could have a formal compromise, written into the guidelines, then we wouldn't need to be here, asking for a separate box. Storye book (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @Modest Genius: You say, "If DYK wants to modify the types of blurbs it runs, that's fine with me and something to be discussed within the project". You are, of course, right. However it has been discussed innumerable times on the DYK templates, and formally in the discussion linked above (see the History paragraph). And it has become clear that no compromise is going to happen. If you are a DYK nominator wanting a factual hook for your specialist article, then without such a compromise regarding the guidelines, you are going to have to withdraw your DYK nomination. That is the current situation. I don't want the hassle of an extra box any more than all the "no" voters above. I want a compromise so that we can have both wholly factual and wholly quirky/intriguing hooks in the same Main Page DYK box, as we have had for years. But it was made clear that it was not going to happen, which is why we are here. Storye book (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
    Why have you proposed something if you don't think it's a good idea? That seems like a WP:POINTy waste of time. Also, those linked discussions are very TLDR and lack a closing rationale, so I can't work out who (if anyone) has decided that hooks cannot be factual. Modest Genius talk 12:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
    Why did I start this Rfc? Please read the list of reasons above, headed "Possible reasons for adding another hook box". It's one of those things that you do because you have to, not because you want to. That's why. And I did say that I was considering doing this, in the other Rfc discussion, because I was worried that it might not be permissible. But I was given to understand that it was OK to do this. As for who, I'm uncomfortable naming names because everyone has a right to their opinion, but I suggest that you read through the other Rfc discussion, linked in the History paragraph, above. Storye book (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I know Story book means well, but I can't help thinking that what's being proposed is that we supplement the current "Did You Know?" section with a new "Why on Earth Would Anybody Care?" section. EEng 00:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • It's a little confusing to me that we're using "quirky" to mean interesting. @Storye book and Jayron32: quirky has a narrowly and specifically defined meaning in DYK terminology: it refers to the silly hook, of which there is exactly one in every set, at the bottom. The bottom hook should be quirky; the first seven simply currently need to be broadly interesting. Template:Did you know nominations/Claudia Riner is interesting, but not quirky. The first hook proposed at Template:Did you know nominations/Pronunciation of GIF is quirky. They're not the same term. Could we please note that down? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you. I have explained my meaning above. Storye book (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion ended?

Thank you, everyone, for taking part. I believe that this discussion has now ended, and that the consensus is clear. I would like to get this discussion closed now, by removing the Rfc template above, by bringing in a closer to close it for us, or both (or of course anyone is welcome to close it down for me). I am writing my intention here so that if you have objections to the closure, you have the chance to say so. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is changing the Main page layout so difficult

I am aware that the Main page has been proposed for redesigned for centuries, but it looks like none of them has been adopted yet. What makes adopting a new Main page design so difficult, and how can we overcome them (just like updating the Vector skin)? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe because the page is fine, nothing broken, and readers and editors are used to it. Leaving things alone sometimes is the best remedy. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia's culture is against change for the sake of change or fixing things that are not broken. There isn't any consensus that the Main Page is currently broken, and any changes that would affect any of the content areas (DYK, ITN, TFA etc) would need buy-in from their supporting community. For any changes, you would need to convince a lot of people that change is needed and then go through a well-made RfC. —Kusma (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Say what? DYK was added only a couple years ago, with a bizarre requirement for "recent edits". Why is that relevant? Most of the items are interesting because they are relatively obscure, regardless of "recent edits". Also recency exacerbates poor vetting of the items, such as hooks that have been way off base -- look up the hook for Action bias back in September. Martindo (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
18 years, not a couple years. While I would agree with a more reader-oriented DYK, I know DYK people would say DYK exists to promote new article creation. Art LaPella (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
A different view : Wikipedia in Android on Chromebook
There was a change made in 2020 so that DYK and OTD appeared in the mobile view. This is the view used by the majority of our readers and so presumably that's what Martindo is talking about. The previous suppression of those sections seems to have happened in 2016 but I don't recall the exact details.
So significant changes are being made but some editors don't have the big picture. For example, there are other views available in the apps for Android and iOS. These don't have DYK for some reason but do have other sections like Top read and Random article. Top read is particularly interesting because it highlights the most popular articles of the day and these are often surprising. For example, Dusty Springfield mysteriously spiked into the top read a few days ago.
I've been using the iOS app on my phone but just tried the Android app now this Chromebook supports it. Note that the sections which are shown are customisable so you can tinker with them yourself. And the default view had five columns on this screen (right).
So, to get the full experience of change, get out of your filter bubble and try all the views.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
No matter the experiences other formats provide, if DYK, for example, isn't on their screen, then they are not looking at the main page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy more than a proof. Martindo (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Correct, if a True Scotsman were looking at Wikipedia's main page and it didn't have DYK on it, the True Scotsman would not be looking at Wikipedia's main page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
People can reuse Wikipedia's content in any way that is compatible with the license, for example by via mobile apps or ad-carrying versions like Wikiwand. That doesn't mean we need to consider the experience of people using Wikipedia's content anywhere but on Wikipedia as anything other than (potentially) inspiration for how we want people to experience our content here. —Kusma (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not talking about third-party tools. The Android app shown above is an official Wikimedia product and changes are being made to it. See recent discussion, for example. Even if you just use the desktop browser view, there are continual changes. For example, there's the new Vector 2022 skin, which has a big effect on the look. And there's lots of tinkering at a low level. For example, see Balance. So, there's not a timeless, monolithic main page which never changes.

Heraclitus, I believe, says that all things pass and nothing stays, and comparing existing things to the flow of a river, he says you could not step twice into the same river.

— Plato, Cratylus
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
The WMF mobile apps are so disconnected from the Wikipedia community's needs that I see no reason to view them differently from any non-WMF third party tool. —Kusma (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
The previous suppression of those sections seems to have happened in 2016 but I don't recall the exact details. Those were "removed" from mobile a long time ago in WMF's attempt to find the best content to display on the mobile main page when they first developed the mobile skin and support. They introduced technical debt to do it then. Subsequently, other software was developed in the stack to support better user control of styling, which permitted us to more fully control what's displayed. Which is basically the only reason we see this content now on the main page (and not because anyone actively asked for it back, per se). Izno (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
On second thought...maybe too much eggnog for me. If done right an unofficial camel mascot would work but probably not be popular, camels have their fans but not universal fans. Wikipedia does nicely adhere to the quote "A camel is a horse designed by a committee", and as long as people realize the amazing design ("design" not used in a "God" created it way - that would be Goddess) and functionality of a camel, but maybe making a mascot image of it would stretch the point. Unless Wikipedians in one of the countries which widely utilize camels would like to unofficially adopt a camel mascot. I've always liked camels when visiting them in zoos, and rode one once, but, unlike moose, I've never seen what a camel really looks like in the wild where its muscles would be fully developed (I felt the ground literally shake before looking up to see a natural giant muscle-bound moose run by). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Idea lab

I found the Vietnamese Wikipedia to be one of the most modern and usable Main page on Wikipedia. We can reuse a lot of the flat design, header, and even the task center for our new Main Page redesign. (See also the Main page redesign discussion there) However, some of the features are unsuitable here because of accessibility problems, such as using flexbox in IE 6, 7, 8, and 9. I'm going to mess around with the Vietnamese main page code a bit to make a demo for English here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You'll need to correct the fault which makes that page too wide for the browser window, regardless of that width. (Using Chrome Version 107.0.5304.107 (Official Build) (64-bit).) Bazza (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
The Vietnamese main page has an attractive look and their task centre is a good idea. What I notice is that they don't have an In the News section and have split DYK to replace it. DYK takes the place of ITN at top right and there's a new section of Good Articles underneath the FA section. As Storye book just proposed a similar split of DYK above, they should take a look at how they did it.
But they still bury the featured picture down at the bottom. I don't know why this is done when it seems so obvious that the featured picture should be at top right in the two-column view -- balancing the featured article and giving due prominence to a picture that is usually easy on the eye.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I think trying to resolve the whole world has been a predominant issue of previous main page discussions. Moving things around on the main page is one of those "no one will agree" kind of questions. Can't we just start by eliminating our rainbow colors? An RFC with a main page marked up more or less as it is today but with much less color I anticipate could gain consensus. Izno (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
MediaWiki no longer supports browsers older than IE11 and given how few pageviews we get in that regime, we don't either. In fact, flex box is used on the main page here today, in case you missed that. Izno (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:POTD template formatting

Moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors § Errors in the summary of the featured picture
 –  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I've done what you described above, which was missing from the original request - Dumelow (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
For context, the timeline is:
  1. Original request: Special:Diff/1124093224.
  2. Original fix: Special:Diff/1124093189
  3. Second request: Special:Diff/1124257325
  4. Second fix: Special:Diff/1124310153
—⁠andrybak (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@Dumelow and Schwede66:, and for anyone else wondering what this is about, I think what this is all getting at (in a rather convoluted way) is that Dumelow, as you're probably already aware, you made an error when you copied the unprotected version to the protected version. That operation requires copying of the blurb and, if necessary, image/credit details etc, into the relevant positions on the protected template. It doesn't mean copying the entire Wikitext of the unprotected template, though, because they have a different format. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Amakuru, I don't have much knowledge of POTD and will steer clear of fulfilling such request in the future. Can anyone explain why POTD is unique on the main page for having protected and unprotected versions of the template? It just seems to complicate things - Dumelow (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I’d be keen to learn about that, too. Here at Errors isn’t the right place. Post at Talk:Main Page? Schwede66 17:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I just want to say, Dumelow, although you didn't get it right, you also did nothing wrong. Please continue to fulfill error requests such as these. Mistakes happen. Very few people know these things. You are now one of them. It may an uncomfortable way to learn something but I am happy there is one more admin that understands how this works just a little bit better. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@Dumelow: oh yes, indeed, fully echo C&C here - I didn't notice your "steer clear of fulfilling such request in the future" comment earlier. Please do continue to handle them, it's not really rocket science once you understand the basics!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Thirded! Schwede66 04:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
@Dumelow, Schwede66, Coffeeandcrumbs, and Ravenpuff: continuing the discussion here, per your suggestion. Regarding why the POTD process differs from that of other sections of the main page, I don't really know the full history... I suspect it was just a historical accident though, someone set it up that way and a bot was written to match, and that's how it stayed. Some of this was alluded to at Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day/Archive_8#Further_discussion as well. Certainly I'd be happy if someone wants to propose an alternative way of doing it. The best way would I think be something akin to TFA, where editors edit the actual template that will appear on the main page, and it simply becomes protected by default 24 hours before its run starts as a result of transclusion at WP:Main page/Tomorrow. The main things that would need to happen to make this a reality are: (1) amend the default template for creating POTDs so that it has a user-friendly version of the "main page" format rather than the {{POTD}} template currently used; (2) amend AnomieBOT so that instead of doing the copying and archiving it currently does, its only role is to insert the previous few days' POTDs into the template, much as FAC bot does for TFAs; and (3) edit the main page and the derived versions Tomorrow and Yesterday to transclude the new-look POTD templates. Plus anything else I haven't thought of yet!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Users who often know much about the history of WP settings include Stephen and xaosflux; I'd be keen to hear from them. Schwede66 19:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I would also appreciate reform here; it is what has stopped me from attempting to support POTD using modern code under the hood, since otherwise the TemplateStyles will be copied onto many pages (an issue with the main page archives also as discussed somewhere or another). (The tables are a mess and it leaks into the main page styles directly to support small resolutions.) Izno (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia splash page English article count

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T323731

On the international splash page for Wikipedia, the English article count is off by an order of magnitude, having "657 000+ articles" presumably due to a missed zero in an update. (Would this be a message for here or Meta-Wiki's Main Page?) Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a message for Phabricator. —⁠andrybak (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's not actually wrong, is it? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Since all other languages there have more updated article counts, this gives a false impression that the English language WP is way behind them. So an update for en WP there is warranted. Brandmeistertalk 18:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
How embarrassing that the Wikimedia Foundation with its staff of 550 and $160 million annual income can't correct such a straightforward and obvious error 2.5 days after it was reported - Dumelow (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Solving the problem is blocked on updating a volunteer-maintained tool; it's also the day after US Thanksgiving, so I imagine a lot of people are on vacation. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
They could presumably just replace it with text that says "6,570,000+" while they work out what has gone wrong with the automatic update? Even if its slightly behind it would be better than the 657,000 that has been up for the past three days - Dumelow (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing we, here on the English Wikipedia, can do about this. This also has nothing to do with Main Page. Anyone is welcome to write and submit a patch. — xaosflux Talk 23:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@Vahurzpu: what makes you say that the tool is volunteer-maintained? Legoktm (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
@Legoktm: not looking too carefully and making a mistake. The "volunteer-maintained tool" I was referring to was pagecounts on Toolforge. Given that the source was hosted at https://github.com/MaxSem/pagecounts, I saw a Toolforge tool with source on a random personal GitHub, maintained by a user whose userpage didn't mention being an employee, and assumed it was volunteer-maintained. Looking more carefully, it appears that MaxSem used to work for the Foundation, and JDrewniak (WMF), who ended up actually fixing it this morning, is a current employee. Vahurzpu (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
It is weird that the code of this staff-maintained tool is stored on GitHub and not https://gerrit.wikimedia.org. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The Roaring Lion

Amakuru, what we all overlooked in our Errors discussion about this POTD candidate was that it had gone through three previous deletion discussions on Commons. Long story short, the conclusion for The Roaring Lion was that PD-US also applies because it had been on the cover of Life magazine in 1945, with copyright not having been renewed by the publisher. Hence, we can safely run it. Adam Cuerden, this POTD got pulled and if you've got an opening somewhere, please help yourself to this one. Schwede66 09:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Schwede66: OK, I guess so then. I've looked at those discussions and I have to say I can't really see what the justification is for keeping them. The "keep" !votes look like emotive "please don't delete this, it's very useful and unlikely anyone will challenge it" rather than actually grounded in the letter of Commons or Wikipedia policy on copyrights. But then again I'm no expert either, so perhaps those guys are right. At the very least, before any putative main-page run, it ought to have a licence note for the US put on the page, so it's clear under what interpretation they're saying it's valid. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm literally not seeing any sign of any of this. Which day was it? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 13:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
That's because any trace of it had been nuked! Sorry, I did not realise that, Adam Cuerden. I've restored it to Template:POTD/2023-11-30. Schwede66 18:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66 and Amakuru: Did it actually run at all before being swapped out, and, if so, for how long? I feel that 24 hours on the main page is the minimum for a FP, so if it got swapped out partway through I'd like to rerun what it was swapped with. Presuming we're agreed it's fine, and it hasn't just run, I'll probably slot it in to the 9 December gap. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 21:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: yes, it ran for almost half the day actually. I did the swap at 11:44, with what's now Template:POTD/2022-12-01, the red-bellied piranha, filling the remaining 12:16 of that day. The thing is, issues had been raised with the image the previous day and it was swapped over between the 30th and the 1st, but then nobody followed up, which I assume had been the intention, given the consensus at the time that the Churchill image wasn't satisfying PD-US. So if you want to give them both equal airtime on the second run day, then you can just flip those 11:44 and 12:16 values around. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Little awkward, but should be doable. Not actually an admin, though, so might just put both in for February or so Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 23:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok, here's what I suggest we do:
  • Adam, move The Roaring Lion template to when you want it to appear.
  • Once done, we'll move this discussion to the template's talk page.
  • We'll then move the Pygocentrus nattereri over the top of The Roaring Lion.
  • Once it's run for half a day on the chosen day, an admin reverts to The Roaring Lion.
  • We'll then copy The Roaring Lion to the unprotected version, too.
  • We can appoint an admin who will be online at the correct point in time (that won't be me; it'll be just after midnight when the revert needs to occur).
That way, both items will have had two half-days on the Main Page. In the archive, Pygocentrus nattereri appears as having run on 1 December 2022, and The Roaring Lion will show on the chosen day. We should probably leave notes on the talk pages of the archive versions that points to this discussion so that nobody is confused should they choose to look at the templates' histories. How does that sound? Schwede66 00:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Pretty good. Probably wise not to do it too soon, though, as it's not that odd to think someone might have viewed it before noon that day, after noon the one we choose. I guess there's another option, but I'm not sure it's a good one: We do have the tech to randomly show one of X images on the main page, randomly choosing one to show. But having such disparate images might just make it confusing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 21:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh, for the record, if this happens again, it's better to use an image that has already run, as I do feel more than a day is much better than less than a day. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 22:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
"Probably wise not to do it too soon" – so would 30 November 2023 be fine, Adam Cuerden? Could also run this exactly one month later as that's the anniversary of the 1941 photo shoot. Schwede66 02:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 16:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we remove the outdated Wikipedia slogan "Anyone can edit"?

WP:SNOW The slogan isn't going anywhere --Jayron32 14:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To the Wikipedia users and staff members, over the 20 years that Wikipedia has been around. I've noticed over the 20 years that there's been Wikipedia vandalism over the years and the title "Anyone can edit" is outdated, abused, misleading and taken advantage of. Can we change the slogan from "Anyone can edit" to "Users can edit"?

Unsigned visitors have sometimes been vandalizing Wikipedia articles as a prank and I want to protect the Wikipedia articles from unwanted vandalism. Also, we need to make it a requirement for people to log in their Wikipedia account to edit anything on all Wikipedia pages so we can better monitor the activities to make sure they are following the Wikipedia rules.

Let me know if you like my suggestion slogan "Users can edit" Because the current "Anyone can edit" slogan is now outdated and gives visitors the wrong idea that they can type in whatever fake words they want. Also, if you have a better slogan idea. Let me know, because we need to replace "Anyone can edit" slogan right away to prevent and discourage vandalism and misinformation to any Wikipedia articles. CrosswalkX (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

CrosswalkX As the slogan is not just for the Main Page, this is probably best discussed at the Village Pump. Requiring accounts to edit is a perennial proposal. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
On the English WP, anyone can indeed edit, anonymously, if they like, and there are a significant number of beneficial IP edits. There is no requirement that anyone register an account. Edit filters and bots have gone a long way toward dealing with vandalism. That "anyone can edit" is a fundamental tenet of crowdsourcing, and a way of attracting new editors. You appear to be advocating for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, or at least is not reflective of how the project works. The "anyone can edit" is more often abused by POV-[pushers with agendas, who wish to advance their own views. Most of those have accounts. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Exactly what you said Acroterion, that's why we need to change the outdated Slogan "Anyone can edit" Because there are POV pushers with agendas or pranksters, or unwanted unsigned users online who take advantage of Wikipedia and attack the Wikipedia pages and it's been happening too many times over the past 20 years, and I want the Wikipedia technicians to add online security like requiring people to be signed in Wikipedia to better protect Wikipedia articles.
Can we have an online Wikipedia staff meeting to discuss about changing the Slogan "Anyone can edit"? I want to present a new slogan for the Wikipedia company and team with these ideas "Members only can edit", or "Respectful users can edit", "Privileged users can edit", "Wikipedia Users can edit"
Also, I personally think there should be a requirement for all people and editors to sign in as Wikipedia members, then that way we can prevent most vandalism and track down who the Wikipedia users is on editing articles. This is not the 2000s anymore, this is the 2020s and it's time Wikipedia CEO and all the Wikipedia staff and user members to start having an online meeting and talking about making changes to Wikipedia including changing and replacing the outdated slogan "Anyone can edit" and in the future making it a requirement to require all users to login to edit Wikipedia articles so we can verify them and make sure they are not putting out fake information. And that they are editing correctly. Otherwise, we'll keep having the same problems we have now with POV pushers with agendas and pranksters targeting Wikipedia page articles. I'll make sure I talk to the correct contact staff members elsewhere about this issue. CrosswalkX (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
im against this, anyone including anon people too. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
There is no staff of the kind you imagine, and nobody's going to do anything differently because a slogan has changed, or are so literal-minded to imagine that we accept abusive editors because of that. I don't think you understand the role of the community versus the WMF, or how the WMF operates. Wikipedia is not and never has been a free speech outlet - it's not owned by an autocratic billionaire. In any case, you're in the wrong place. Start a discussion at WP:VP if you want to pursue this, but not here. Acroterion (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia slogan "Anyone can edit" is both historical and correct, and a discussion at WP:VP will get the same type of comments. Please understand that what the slogan does not say or imply is that anyone's edit will stay, or that once "anyone" edits the edit won't be reverted, the editor bounced as a vandal, or anything promising that the edit will survive. There is a world of differences between 'can' and 'permanent'. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
The slogan doesn't drive the site. We could change the slogan to "The Encyclopedia Only Cats Can Edit", but it wouldn't change the actual editing rules, or slow vandalism at all. ApLundell (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding Extra Info That Is Not On Google

Please Only Include Information That Is On Google Not Information That Is Not On Google 2607:FEA8:41DF:BF00:714A:9572:D5B:98AC (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not limit itself to what is on Google. And not everything that is on Google can be used on Wikipedia. They are different approaches to organizing information. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Greetings! There some links about other main pages on the left below side of EnWiki Main page. But, in here main page of UzWiki doestn't exist. Why, Anyone knows? On Wikidata, all things are true when I checked it. Does anybody can help? Thanks. Salazarov (chat) 14:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I see on Wikidata that there 327 entries for main pages. Of these, I get 47 displayed on the English WP main page. Clearly, that’s a selection of what is available. I don’t know how that selection is chosen, Salazarov. Schwede66 17:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Salazarov and Schwede66, the correct venue to request this is at: Template talk:Wikipedia languages. There is a quality threshold to meet as well as numerical, to exclude some of the wikis whose article count has been inflated by large numbers of short bot-generated articles - Dumelow (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
There are old discussions at Template talk:Wikipedia languages/Archive 6#Uzbek Wiki and Template talk:Wikipedia languages/Archive 7#Uzbek Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Revising main page colors

The colors as the main page currently stands looks really unorganized and illogical; it seems that they are grandfathered in from the early days. Maybe we should use the wikimedia color palette as our guide for the redesign? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The colours are fine in my opinion; what about them is "illogical" in your view? TFA and DYK both highlight content, and are in green; ITN and OTD highlight events, and are in blue. This also lines up with the columns. Then TFP is stuck on the end and gets purple.
If we used the WMF colour palette, what would be more logical about that? It seems like a change from something very familiar to a significant percentage of Internet users without any particular reason. CharredShorthand (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, I agree with that. Perhaps some things don't need to be changed after all. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

On This Day updates needed

I just noticed that Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 6 had not been updated since the last 2022 posting. I've placed new items for the births/deaths. People can edit for that date or other future dates at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January, or beyond. If a specific date's page is fully protected, feel free to make change suggestions at the errors section above.—Bagumba (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, good call thanks. Volunteers gratefully received. Anyone interested can have a look at WP:OTDRULES to gain an idea of things to check when looking for new material. In particular, that the article should be in a decent condition and the date of the event mentioned fully cited etc. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for ping Bagumba. When I had time I would to wait to see Howcheng's "update for x year" edit summary before checking upcoming OTD entries. Last August it appeared that Bumbubookworm had taken over as 'coordinator' in compiling new sets. But now neither user is creating the new sets (nor keeping the notes on each date's talk page up to date which summarises what was used/not used etc for that year). And now, sets are mostly repeats of the previous year's set (with Dumelow and others noting problems and fixing or replacing). Is that a correct summation of the state of play? Pinging @Bumbubookworm, Howcheng, Dumelow, Amakuru, and Ravenpuff: for comment. JennyOz (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
To be honest I don't think it's a terrible thing if the same set repeats a year later. Obviously some variety is nice, but it's not like running the same DYKs for several days or something, it's not that the ship won't run if nobody tinkers with it. And rather that than swap out hooks with good articles for those that don't meet OTDRULES, as I think has happened a few times. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm grateful for the work people did in the past, but it's their WP:CHOICE if they choose not to continue. At the same time, even if they were still contributing, nobody WP:OWNs any page, so anyone can contribute, even more so now if few are looking to make updates. Certainly, to Amakuru's point, do promote pages that meet minimum OTD standards, and don't make changes merely for the sake of change. —Bagumba (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"Painted Live Snakes"

Just an amusing wording to that DYK article about Isabel Cooper. I thought the blurb states that she applied paint to live snakes as she held them. Might need a slight tweak to avoid confusion. -- Veggies (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

This is an observation about how articles with "complex" titles (i.e. titles that cannot naturally be repeated verbatim in the lead sentence) are handled in the "Today's Featured Article" section.

For example, today's Featured Article is 1920–21 Burnley F.C. season.

For consistency, I propose:

  • The section header to say "From today's featured article: 1920–21 Burnley F.C. season"
  • Removal of the bold title in the opening sentence, and text to more closely follow that of the article

Benefits:

  • Exact article title would always appear on the Main Page, which gives greater clarity and is less surprising for the reader
  • More consistency between the Main Page text and the article text
  • No awkward re-phrasing of the title in the Main Page lead, which is in contravention of MOS:BOLDAVOID and MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD.

I appreciate that the Main Page is itself not an article, hence might be considered a special case in terms of MoS. Nevertheless, I believe the above suggestions would promote consistency and good editing standards. --Jameboy (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems like an issue to discuss at WT:TFA. FWIW, I don't have a problem with the current style, and MOS does not apply to the Main Page, so would follow WP:NBDF. Making the title longer could have unindented consequences for layout, especially on mobile view. Modest Genius talk 13:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Difference cultural variables between United Strates and Hawaii

different cultural variables between United states and Hawaii 98.20.111.51 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_206&oldid=1135837466"