Welcome! This page is for discussing the contents of the English Wikipedia's Main Page. For general questions unrelated to the Main Page, please visit the Teahouse or check the links below. To add content to an article, edit that article's page. Irrelevant posts on this page may be removed. Click here to report errors on the Main Page.
If you have a question related to the Main Page, please search the talk page archives first to check if it has previously been addressed:
For questions about using and contributing to the English Wikipedia:
Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
Offer a correction if possible.
References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 07:29 on 19 October 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.
Nice4What, the bio lead says: who served as the de facto[citation needed] leader of Hamas Could you please sort this out there and once agreement has been reached, please let us know. Schwede6623:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{subst:dyk admins}} Apologies for the very short notice on this. I just expanded @Jeraxmoira:'s draft of Navin Chawla (judge) and published it. I think "a judge" in "... that a judge is threatening to shut down Wikipedia in India over a defamation lawsuit?" should link to it.--Launchballer23:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't think the link is necessary; people can get there from the bolded article. On another note, does WP:DYKBLP apply? I suppose it's whether you think shutting down Wikipedia is a negative or positve... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As this is an actively ongoing case in which the judge's position is interactive, it obviously violates WP:DYKHOOK requirement for "a definite fact that is unlikely to change". As the case involves defamation, it obviously violates WP:DYKBLP too. And as Wikipedia is itself a party, coverage of the matter and posting on the main page is not impartial but comes across as canvassing. And the big violation is WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, "Do not post legal threats on Wikipedia." Legal threats are supposed to be referred to the WMF, which is handling the matter. Has WMF's legal team been consulted about this? Andrew🐉(talk) 06:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is solved by changed "is threatening" to "has threatened", if we have to. The second one is incorrect, there are no DYKBLP problems here as ANI is not a person and the judge's action here isn't implicitly negative. The third one is a pretty cut-and-dry use–mention distinction, unless you're arguing that DYK is making legal threats against the WMF somehow. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"... that the statue of John Stockton was re-positioned by its sculptor about 20 times by using a wrench to adjust ball-and-socket joints on steel rods?"
I have to agree with that concern. Reading the source, it was the clay model or models that had been adjusted. Once it's been cast in bronze, it won't be moving any longer. The hook needs a tweak in my view. Pings to Left guide (nominator), Dr vulpes (reviewer), Rjjiii (who nominated the hook), DimensionalFusion (mover to prep), and Crisco 1492 (mover to queue). Schwede6603:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Deseret source and the article prose are pretty clear that these adjustments were made while sculpting in the artist's home basement studio, and that aspect should be made clear in the DYK hook if there's potential ambiguity. Furthermore, the source was published in June 2004 before the statue was ever erected outside the arena in public because it says will eventually stand outside the Delta Center in bronze. Left guide (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, but I don't think I nominated anything for this one, just expressed confusion. Also, I agree that the text in the actual article is not confusing (at least to the same degree) because it's placed in a sequence of events. Rjjiii (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had proposed to change it to read that DYK "the sculptor re-positioned a clay statue of John Stockton about 20 times by using a wrench to adjust ball-and-socket joints on steel rods before making the casts for the bronze version?"Dr vulpes(Talk)04:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.
The use of the modifier 'although' in the first sentence of the featured article, 'John Helm', is misplaced
The use of the modifier 'although' in the first sentence of the featured article, 'John Helm', is inappropriate. The fact that he was the 18th and 24th Governor of Kentucky is in no way diminished by the total amount of time he spent serving in that office. Perhaps it should read "John L. Helm (1802–1867) was the 18th and 24th governor of Kentucky. In contrast to other Governors of Kentucky of the era, his aggregate service in that office was, in total, less than fourteen months." 174.58.42.212 (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The word "although" refers to the disparity between the likely assumption that a two-time governor served more than 14 months in office and the fact that he didn't, not the disparity between his time in office and that of other governors. —David Levy00:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Why would an assumption be made that having served 14 months in office is more exceptional for a one-term Governor than a two-term Governor, regardless of whether it was sequential or non-sequential? A lack of attention to the non-sequentiality of his terms in office is negated by the use of the word 'aggregate'. Its use draws attention of that Helm's terms in office were not continuous.
It would be similar or analogous to stating "Jerry Brown is and was 39th and 34th Governor of California, although 27 years elapsed between his two terms in office." The fact that 27 years elapsed between Brown's two terms as Governor of California does not diminish the significance and the exceptionality of the fact. The only rational assumption that ought to be made is that the use of the modifier "although" somehow makes the fact of the the statement made by second clause diminish the significance of the statement made by the first clause. It doesn't--Jerry Brown is and was 39th and 34th Governor of California, and the fact that 27 years elapsed between Brown's terms in office is irrelevant to the fact or to the significance that Jerry Brown is and was 39th and 34th Governor of California.
It might be appropriate to write "Richard Nixon was 37th President of the United States, although he was the only President ever to resign the office." Or it might be (arguably less) appropriate to write "Bill Clinton was 42nd President of the United States, although he was only one of two Presidents to be impeached" (it's arguably less appropriate because although Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, Clinton was not convicted by the U.S. Senate, nor was Clinton thereby removed from office). The fact that Clinton was impeached but not convicted and removed from office did not diminish the significance of the fact of his Presidency, i.e., the duration of time Clinton was in office, or the significance of the policies for which his was responsible for having made in office.
By contrast, to say "Richard Nixon was 37th President of the United States, although he was the only President ever to resign the office" would be inappropriate, because of the exceptionality of the fact of his resignation does not diminish the fact that Nixon was 37th President. Whether or not Nixon's resignation diminished the amount of time he spent in office does not diminish the fact that Nixon was 37th President of the United States, but the fact that he was the only President to resign is of significance, although not to the fact that Nixon was 37th President.
It would be appropriate to state "Gerald Ford was 38th President of the United States, although Ford was never elected to that office or to the office of Vice President." The use of the word "although" is appropriate there, because the essence of being President of the United States, as envisaged by the U.S. Constitution, is the quality of having been elected President or Vice President. The fact of that missing quality from the fact of Ford's Presidency would, therefore, definitely warrant the use of the modifier "although". 174.58.42.212 (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would an assumption be made that having served 14 months in office is more exceptional for a one-term Governor than a two-term Governor, regardless of whether it was sequential or non-sequential?
No one is claiming any such thing. You're badly misunderstanding the statement, which is entirely unrelated to the fact that the two terms were nonconsecutive.
The term of office is four years, so a likely assumption is that someone who served in said office (particularly twice, irrespective of chronology) did so for a total of significantly more than 14 months. —David Levy01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why should that be an assumption? Simply because the U.S. Constitution specified a limitation of the Presidential term to four years--and the States, in adopting a "republican form of government", followed suit for their Chief Executives? In the Westminster System utilized in Canada (where there is a "fusion" of the executive and legislative branches in that the Ministry is comprised of Members of Parliament who are also elected legislators) for example, as to the term of a chief executive, the maximum duration of one term of office for the Prime Minister (through a limitation on the maximum time a Parliament can remain constituted) is limited to five years. However, governments in the Westminster System often fall on non-confidence votes, mostly on national budgets. Also, since the Prime Minister is also the titular leader of the political party which is elected in the most Parliamentary seats, if that Member of Parliament is voted out as Leader of the Party, by very strong position, it also means that Member of Parliament is no longer Prime Minister, because such a departure would lead to a non-confidence vote. 174.58.42.212 (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The statement turns on an issue of the duration of time spent on office during two non-sequential terms in office. It does not diminish the fact that Helm was both 18th and 24th Governor of Kentucky. The use of the modifier "although" implies that Helm was somehow "less" the 18th and 24th Governor of Kentucky for having served in that office an aggregate fourteen months. 174.58.42.212 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I watched two baseball games, although not full games."
"I went to school during spring and fall semesters, although only for two weeks total."
This is entirely reasonable and normal English. It doesn't "diminish" anything, it clarifies that while these things were done, they were not done with the completeness that they normally imply. APL (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Americans probably won't be immediately familiar with term-lengths of US Governers, while they would with seasons/school semesters. --Kurr12:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but knowing that two terms are 8 years total puts the 14-month total term into (a meaningful) context. -Kurr22:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The context seems fine to me. Even if an average term length was 2 years, saying although for 14 months would still be fine. If people are interested in precisely what is normal they are welcome to check out the articles. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10th Anniversary FA
There was a discussion here about what the FA for the 10th anniversary (Jan 15) should be. Some of the ideas thrown out were (in no particular order):
Featuring an essay describing the FA process, or perhaps linking to the old signpost dispatch describing it
Featuring 10 featured article that have previously appeared on the main page
Featuring a range of content that normally doesn't make the main page - featured sounds, featured lists, etc. (I find this idea particularly intriguing)
I wanted to open up discussion here and see what everyone thought. Time is short, so I need to decide this soon. (I'd also like to see suggested blurbs for the above ideas, particularly for the ' range of content that normally doesn't make the main page ' suggestion). Raul654 (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two problems with that idea: (1) it would be impossible to get up to FA status in 3 days, and (2) The transport article dates back to November, 2001. Doubtless there were earlier articles whose revision histories have been screwed up, which doesn't strike me as a reason to get excited about it. Raul654 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that could be got up to FA standard at all could be got up to FA standard in 3 days provided there's the will to do it and we can be confident that the topic is not going to be contentious (I reckon so, anyway). U was redirected in Feb 2001 from UuU, created on 16th Jan 2001. I expect that [[1]] probably predates this by a few hours, although early edits are not in the database. William Alston was edited on 17th Jan (so ditch Transport), although it might be hard to FA. --FormerIP (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A look at the logs here: [2] appears to show that the first WP article was titled "Philosophy and Logic" (no article by that title now - this also appears to inclclude WP's fist ever gross violation of NPOV, by placing Ayn Rand in a short list along with some philosophers). The second ever article seems to have been "United States". The first page with actual article content was Afghanistan. Assuming I'm understanding the logs correctly. --FormerIP (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do like having the other WP:FCs in there, even just for a day. lists can replace ITN, sounds can replace DYK, topics can replace OTD, and the portals at the top replaced with the Featured Portal. Can we just have a randomizer (1 of each per refresh) that'll allow all featured content to be on the Main Page for that day? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to feature a Wikipedia-related article (which normally I would not), so long as it is actually a featured article. But I don't think any are up to FA status. Raul654 (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Australia is our oldest article to now have FA status, according to the log I just mentioned. It looks like it was created by a regular user in Australia and it has the log number 979992628. Can someone else verify that I am right about this and can this be our anniversary FA? --FormerIP (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think age is a good criteria on which to base the selection. Nobody is going to make the connection unless they read this thread, which is bad. Raul654 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support the 10 FA idea. Browsing through the category of unused FAs, it doesn't seem we have any single article that would be quite good enough. 10 FAs would be a bold change to the main page that would draw attention to the anniversary. And it would be able to showcase the broad range of FAs that we have. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't limit yourself to unused ones. If you could pick the 10 best/most interesting articles to feature on the 10th anniversary, regardless of whether or not they have appeared on the main page, which ones would you want to see? Raul654 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good to open that to some form of community input, although it might be tough within the short timeframe. WRT our great writers, I don't think we should have one Australian cricketer, one Alberta politician, one South Vietnamese military article, and one mushroom. I'd go with (a) FAs that are highly viewed (demonstrating that we can write well about significant topics); and (b) across a broad range of subject matter. But we'd also need to take care that we weren't picking any old FAs that had degenerated significantly since their promotion. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly that's a bit biased towards science topics. Or we could supplement with articles from WP:VITAL. If we do have a rotating list, there should be some sort of indication that we're doing so, rather than just a random one showing up each time someone hits F5 (how will they know to do so?). Modest Geniustalk21:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the core idea, but yeah, the bias is a bit of a concern. Ultimately, I think we should showcase our variety of coverage. Mix a couple sciences with a couple biographies with a sporting topic with an entertainment topic with something completely off the wall. Resolute21:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Love the idea of 10 FA's, so....
Irrespective of the Actual FA's, I strongly support the idea of showing a lot of featured content (totaling 10) on the main page (and in-line with what Raul describes as "intriguing" above.
The issues are, however;
Coding the page to work and look okay (I assume we will need to remove ITN, OTD, DYK etc. ??)
Balancing the FA's (we have 8 portals and my personal like would be 1 FA from each portal, one Featured Picture and One Featured .......list? Featured .....sound? Something to balance but show diversity.)
Agreeing, QUICKLY, said content - Raul will have to be pretty firm here if this idea was accepted.
I've left out articles on countries or religions - which ones of those to select will unnecessarily divide opinion. The list has four biographies, one sports article, and no more than two related to the one country. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... Shakespeare, Elizabeth I and Darwin all strike me as being from the same country; Shakespeare and Elizabeth I are also from the same era, and four bios is at least one too many I think. How about Oxygen instead, and / or an animal article such as Sheep? My original suggestion at WT:TFAR was ten randomised FAs, using the same code idea as for US Presidential Election day when we had two random FAs on display - I don't think that removing DYK / ITN / OTD would be a good idea, particularly because placing the entire focus on the FAs would take away the spotlight from the other sections that people might find interesting or useful. BencherliteTalk22:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd cut out QE1. And you've got 4 bios but only one science now. And yes we've only got the FA box to work with, there's no way we can exclude all the other sections. Modest Geniustalk22:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You're right, it's three British bios and that's too many (especially with no Americans). Oxygen is an excellent idea: it would be good to have an element article. Perhaps we should dump Shakespeare. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as main page balance goes, we don't need to do ten full TFA's, I think, but rather a standard size TFA blurb that brings ten FAs together? Resolute23:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of an FA blurb in the range of 1x to 2x the normal size. If we go with a larger-than-normal blurb, we can balance it out by putting something at the top of ITN along the lines of "Wikipedia celebrates its 10th anniversary." Raul654 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our mini-blurbs for each TFA might need to be so short as to be essentially useless. Another option might be a collage of pictures, with a "clockwise from top left, ten of wikipedia's most prominent featured articles..." caption. Perhaps someone with some creative ability might have a bright idea from "outside the box", so to speak. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I started wrigging an example mockup of the 10 article idea at User:Raul654/test1/User:Raul654/blurb1, but I stopped because with pictures it is much too long, and without them, it looks just like DYK. I think the idea needs to be scrapped unless someone can come up with a way to do it that doesn't re-do DYK with FAs. Raul654 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No question test2 is the better, and perhaps you could make it better by moving one (if the sound) or two of the images to the right.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You're right: the 10 FAs just don't work. Making it work would seem be a graphic design/coding feat that we couldn't realistically ask of anyone in the little time that we have. The "other featured content" comes up quite well and isn't too much longer than a normal ITN. Would Solar System or Nobel Laureates be better for the featured topic? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a science article, so solar system isn't a good choice, and the nobel laurietes article doesn't use the name of the article in the introductory paragraphs (which makes it very hard to write up a blurb). In short, I'm happy with the articles I've picked. Raul654 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see this discussion earlier, but what would be the chances that we run this sort of trio for either 1 week, 1 month, or 10 days? Nergaal (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that someone was going to ask that sooner or later. My answer - For now, for this is a one-off thing. Assuming this doesn't blow up in our faces, after the anniversary, we can discuss doing this (or something like it) on a more regular basis. Raul654 (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Featured content for a day
Ok, just so everyone's clear - I'm going to go with the "Today's featured content" blurb that I've done up at User:Raul654/test2, which includes a featured topic, list, and sound. I'd appreciate it if someone could check my HTML and make sure I didn't do anything bad. I'd also appreciate it if someone could play around with the pics to get rid of the empty space below the featured sound. Raul654 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, are we planning to have some kind of "Wikipedia celebrates its 10th anniversary" statement somewhere on the main page? If not, I will put that in the featured content blurb. Raul654 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a test edit on your /blurb2 talk page; it transcludes without the space and looks fine. Just a minor quibble: is the external link necessary? Nergaal (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Starting with your version, I flipped the music to the left and the Vivaldi pic to the right, then decided I like it better without the Vivaldi pic at all. Raul654 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, about the external link -- we got the file because I found John Harrison's webpage, emailed him, and asked if he would please contribute a few. I walked him through the process of registering and uploading them. His username is User:Whyameye, a red link. Ditto commons:User:Whyameye. I figured an external link was the best thing to do. Raul654 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Raul: I was thinking you were going to mention it somewhere so I took it out of OTD, but we can put it back there if it's hard to fit anywhere else. howcheng {chat}00:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it might be a good idea to put it at the top of ITN in a bigger-than-normal font, which should help balance out the main pag (the FA blurb is going to be about 1/3 longer than normal). Raul654 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came up with a mock-up of how it might look in ITN here. It looks really weird with just the text you suggested at WP:ITN/C, so I added some text under it to pad it out. It's an idea at the very least. --DorsalAxe14:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We traditionally display such announcements via {{Main Page banner}}, which I believe makes more sense than adding a meta item to ITN or any specific section. I created a mock-up.
If we start doing this on a regular basis (per Nergaal's question above) it might be a good idea to create a template for this purpose. Raul654 (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe interspersing Today's featured picture with a featured list, a featured sound, a featured portal, a featured topic and a good article each day of the week. It does not is a bad idea. TbhotchTalk and C.02:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about we finally show the one we never showed when it was due i.e. File:Michele Merkin 1.jpgThis will make a fun TFP. I'm sure the foundation will love the attention for their anniversary even if no one knows it is because they're all too busy thinking of the children. That will fulfill the criteria of 'different'/'not normally featured on the main page' and I'm sure many will agree it fulfills the criteria of attention grabbing and interesting. Hey we don't even have to worry about the self ref in the description since it's our anniversary so we expect self refs! (Okay it doesn't fulfill the wikimedian criteria but it was specifically donated to us as free content.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find the discussion of the content selection for tomorrow's featured content triptych. There's some above, but I can't find a good explanation for any of them. Moons of Saturn seems a good choice and The Four Seasons is probably the best of our featured sounds. But BBC Sports Personality of the Year seems a curious choice for the featured topic. I can't speak to the quality of the featured topics, but I certainly think a more interesting one could have been chosen. Nobel laureates, Noble gas, Saffron, or Guadalcanal Campaign would have been of much higher interest and better choices. It's probably too late to make a change; I just thought it was worth pointing out. If anyone can point me to a discussion elsewhere, thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with using a featured sound or featured list. The Four Seasons was not created by a Wikipedia user, it's simply hosted on Commons (not even Wikipedia) under a public-domain license (which is not an accomplishment). Featured lists are also a dull category. This is our tenth anniversary; we should showcase something bigger and better than the normal items, and lists are just "FA-light".
I agree with the earlier idea, to showcase ten of the most vital FAs in a bold, colorful display. I don't know why this idea was dismissed so fast. We're trying to impress users, not confuse them or show them our peculiarities.
Another good option, which would showcase our diversity and breadth, would be to set up a random featured topic on each pageview (and each item clearly marked as an FA/GA). This will involve a lot of Simpsons and WWF but it's still an accomplishment, and it's better than showcasing a sound file uploaded by one user to a different site. —Noisalt (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative proposal
I know Raul654 has essentially made up his mind, but I pressed on regardless. Here is my proposal for the main page, including 10 featured articles. It also includes an optimistic introduction at the top. What's represented: Geography, history, science, literature, sports. Some may object to so many images, but look what's represented so succinctly:
Earth
United States
Europe
UK
Africa
Russia
East Asia
Arabic culture (not Middle East but Algeria, close!)
I wholeheartedly support this proposal, including the choice of FAs. If image placement was a problem before, then this shows it can be done in a way that is both concise and aesthetically pleasing. That being said, there might still be some issues with page stretching at lower resolutions and I'm not sure about the "Here are some of our favorites" line. As suggested above, information about the 10th anniversary could be added to ITN to balance the sections. mgiganteus1 (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I liked this proposal, apart from the empty space that I saw below OTD (screen capture). So I insertedDYK to fill the gap (screen capture). Noisalt reverted with the summary "I don't know how that looks on your computer but it looks pretty bad on mine... DYK can take a breather for one day." This led me to realize that the special section contains a highly variable amount of white space above and below the images (depending on people's resolutions and browser configurations), resulting in an extraordinarily inconsistent layout (and an awkwardly narrow column of text at lower resolutions). For this reason, I must oppose this implementation. —David Levy13:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that there are severe display issues with this proposal. It's a nice idea, although I think I prefer the idea of content not normally featured getting a chance to shine for once. --DorsalAxe14:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noisalt's alternative is eye catching - it never occured to me to do away with DYK for a day, but it's a good idea in this case. However, it's a non-starter until and unless the display issues can be resolved. Raul654 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changes for 0:00 UTC
Here's a quick summary of the changes that need to be made at midnight UTC to accomodate the featured content blurb:
On the main page, {{PAGESIZE:Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{#time:F j, Y}}}}|R}}>150|Today's featured article need to be changed to {{PAGESIZE:Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{#time:F j, Y}}}}|R}}>150|Today's featured content|
I noted above that we routinely add additional items to the section to accommodate long TFA blurbs. Raul was referring to that. —David Levy22:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please tweak the code (or modify it by hand) so that it persists into the evening in the Americas and the Pacific? I raised this issue here and there was significant support for doing so. A banner that disappears on 16 January UTC time makes no sense because it will be 7 PM in New York, 6 PM in Mexico City, and 4 PM in Los Angeles when Wikipedia stops celebrating its tenth Anniversary for the day. That's lame. The usual justification for cycling stuff on the UTC clock (having the TFA, etc. up for only 24 hours) does not hold in this case. Thank you.--Chaser (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The special content to which the message refers will appear from 00:00 to 23:59 UTC. If we were to display the banner beyond that point, it would need to be modified to mention only the tenth anniversary. —David Levy22:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a great idea and a rather nice logo too. As an aside, we also need to remove the anniversary blurb from the featured content box, as it has been made redundant by the banner above it. --DorsalAxe22:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a preview of tomorrow's page? I notice that Main Page/Tomorrow has different code then Main Page. I don't know if this is intended or that that may cause the main page not to show the main page banner properly. I tweaked some spacing in Main Page/Tomorrow, but that may have no effect on the real page. — Edokter • Talk — 23:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The picture that is currently going up tomorrow for the Guadalcanal Campaign is not related to that. It was never chaged when the featured topic of changed from BBC Sports Personality of the Year. This needs to be changed. Zginder 2011-01-14T22:38Z (UTC)
Yes, good catch. But what image should be used do you think? And as someone said above, the BBC sports personality trophy does have an unfortunate resemblance to a sentry gun... ;) --DorsalAxe23:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quic note - when I said above that ITN is going to have to add a few additional items, I was talking about adding a few standard news items for balance -- not a 10th anniversary announcement, which David Levy's suggestion makes unnecessary. Raul654 (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Increase in account creation or number of editors?
Hi. I would be interrested in statistics regarding the current banners displayed (those that encourage editing Wikipedia). Are we seeing an immediate effect on the editing? Cheers, 131.111.28.35 (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, after the fundraising banners and the fundraising thank you banners, but before the anniversary banners, there was a banner encouraging editing. I clicked it, and there were choices such as WP:GOCE. Art LaPella (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm wondering why I haven't seen any of these banners... I enabled the gadget that hid the fundraising banners, which presumably hid these too. Anyway, what does this have to do with the Main Page? Modest Geniustalk23:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. Just dropping by to suggest that Main Page patrollers and error reporters install the above script to their Monobook/Vector skin as appropriate. What is does is to highlight links to redirect pages, pages that are up for deletion and disambiguation pages by changing the colour of the displayed links from the standard blue. The last one is most useful, it identifies where a link does not go to the intended target and will help us to pre-emptively clean these up in TFA, OTD, TFP and DYK blurbs. I've suggested this to all editors involved in the FA and Main Page content processes. Regards. Zunaid12:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Julian calendar
Why does the anniversaries section always have Julian calendar holidays? Most holidays are simply listed as occuring on this day (for instance, some feast in Iran is on March 3). The Julian calendar has historical importance, but why is it given equal standing to the Gregorian on the main page? There are many other calendars in use in countries like Iran and Ethiopia that aren't listed.-RHM22 (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A number of religions (such as Eastern Orthodox christianities) still use the Julian calendar for there their liturgical schedule. That's why you see things like "Christmas (Julian Calendar)". On the day that appears (which isn't 25th Dec on the Gregorian calendar) Eastern Orthodox christians are actually heading off to Christmas services. Regarding today, Old New Year is an informal holiday for Slavic Orthodox Churches. Non-major holidays tend to be on a shared/rota system for OTD, and there doesn't appear to be any other candidates for January 14, (besides Uttrayan or Makar, neither of which have an article.) By the way, we do mention new years for other calendars, when they are associated with celebrations, such as Chinese New Year, Rosh Hashanah, and Islamic New Year. -- 174.21.250.227 (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, then. I didn't know that other calendars were included for festival dates. Thanks for clearing it up!-RHM22 (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ten years in, and we have done so much: over a billion edits, 3.5 million articles in English alone, and the 8th-most-visited site in the world. What will the next ten years hold? I can't wait. Ed[talk][majestic titan]00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by removal of the word "acting". Schwede66 02:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
