Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

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

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 20:09 on 5 November 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

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

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Typhoon Thelma

... that 1977's Typhoon Thelma was the most destructive event in Taiwan since World War II?

This just seems to be one person's opinion and that's not definite enough for a superlative claim. Consider the 1964 Baihe earthquake, for example. That had more fatalities and thousands of buildings were destroyed, not just damaged. And there have been more natural disasters since 1977 so the opinion is dated. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Anywhere else on WP we'd expect WP:INTEXT attribution, but DYK I guess allows using a WP:WEASEL word or at least quoting the opinion. Anything but in WP voice. —Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tavantius, Oldelpaso, Hilst, and Crisco 1492: Courtesy ping to hook participants.—Bagumba (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

In the citation, I'm not sure how the text file relates to the pdf link. The relevant quote ("Thelma, the second typhoon of the 1977 season, brought more destruction on Taiwan than any event since World War II.") only seems to be in the text file.—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The PDF URL is erroneous as it's the 1991 report not the 1977 report as the citation claims. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

A quick search gave me the actual source of the text file, this 1980 NASA report. The relevant quote can be found on page 173. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That's page 6.5-1 using the doc's internal numbering system. The confusing part is the WP article says the quote is from "a member of the Joint Typhoon Warning Center". Is it one person's opinion, or does it represent the organization as a whole? If the latter, is the hook OK in WP:WIKIVOICE. The complexity is that the hook is a paraphrase of what's in the source, so it's not as simple as the usual hook trick of just adding quotes. —Bagumba (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait wait, I was wrong. Here is the actual 1977 report, with the World War II comment on page 29 (22 on internal numbering system). As far as I can tell, it doesn't say who wrote what bit, but the foreword does say that it is "prepared by the staff of the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC)", which leads me to believe that the quote does represent the opinion of the entire organization. I'll update the article to fix the citations. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 13:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It's sounding as if the WP article should strike "a member of" from the lead and body, i.e. ... prompting a member of the Joint Typhoon Warning Center to state ... Then it's a matter of whether the agency's statement can be reasonably contested and whether the hook should be in WP's voice or not. —Bagumba (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Don Bragg

• ... that the Korean War allowed Don Bragg to set a UCLA basketball record for the most rebounds by a varsity freshman, which stood for almost 40 years?

This fact is not given in the article and is SYNTH. If you look at the nomination, source one says that due to the Korean War freshmen could play varsity sports and source two says Bragg's 1952 rebound record was broken in 1989. The causation presented here is completely OR. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• In addition, this blurb is incomprehensible to anyone unfamiliar with college basketball. At minimum, please link 'rebounds' to rebound (basketball) and link 'varsity freshman' to an article that explains that term (I couldn't find one). Modest Genius ^talk 13:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve taken care of wikilinking Rebound (basketball). Schwede66 14:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, some DYK copyeditors routinely remove links as "the details are in the bold link" (and entices a click), while at ERRORS complaints are that links should all be in the hook.—Bagumba (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Freshman refers to a student in their first year at college (university), while the varsity team is an institution's top sports tier. In those days, freshman were not allowed on the varsity basketball team, but an exception was made for the Korean War. —Bagumba (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, "source one" explains the Korean War exception specifically w.r.t. Bragg. Still, DYK hooks are routinely sourced from multiple sources, where the entire hook is not explictly stated in one source. This higher bar for DYK "OR" would need wider consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Next DYK

• Q1, 2nd hook "Ojców, a 1897 Polish adventure and travel novel" - pls tweak to 'an' 1897 JennyOz (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

   Fixed – Schwede66 07:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

• ... that the lyrics of Gigi Perez's "Sailor Song" were criticized by far-right conservative Christian communities?

Two sources describing the critics. The Official Chart Company uses that language "Given its central queer love story, the release of Sailor Song drew criticism from some far-right, conservative Christian groups online for the line "I don't believe in God, but you're my saviour." [1] but Billboard says the critics were "religious tiktokers" [2]. I don't think objecting to that quote makes you far right, and isn't this really plagiarism? It's certainly a quote. Secretlondon (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer, Mrfoogles, MaranoFan, AirshipJungleman29, and Crisco 1492: Courtesy notifiction to nom participants. —Bagumba (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that while not all religious tiktokers are far-right, some certainly are. Objecting to someone essentially just saying they're an atheist is somewhat questionable, in my opinion. I agree with the other on the copyright basis and I think that the source is reliable for this on the factual basis. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:LIMITED, I wouldn't regard this as plagiarism. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Precisely. I can't readily think of a ready way to express the concept succinctly without using those words, at least without changing the meaning.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What they both said.--Launchballer 16:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 8)

Monday's FL

(November 11)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

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

General discussion

Featured sounds vote

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It appears that there is generally consensus to do this. I suggest that we do a trial of this at first for the entire month of March, and then take some time off in April to see if we like the change. But that's merely a suggestion. NW (Talk) 00:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

---

An example of how featured sounds might look on the main page, including the proposed location. Exact details may vary after final coding. Created by Sven Manguard.

There are currently 155 featured sounds, which, thanks to some being long, symphonic works, equals 235 files. There is also a backlog of featured pictures over a year long.

The basic proposal is that a second featured pictures section is added to the main page. On Saturdays and Sundays, this will become a Featured sound section instead. I've run this past Howcheng, who manages Picture of the Day, and he fully supports this.

This will both deal with the massive backlog in featured pictures, while at the same time giving featured sounds more visiblity, thus encouraging that sort of content. It would also make for a good press release.

As a further beneficial side effect, the code to make that possible can easily be adapted to have other additions to the main page. The Featured List community have expressed an interest in Wednesday, for example. (Though that is another vote)

With the number of featured sounds we have, at two a week, we have between a year and a half and two years of backlog before we run out. However, the greater visibility of the project should both encourage people and groups to offer more recordings to Wikipedia, and increase participation in the project. Should the number of featured sounds being nominated and promoted increase, we could add additional days of sound. (In the very unlikely event that featured sounds cannot become viable after this, it can be scrapped from the main page at such time as the sounds run out.)

The formatting will be roughly the same as Featured pictures.

I created the backend for the MOTD section of the Commons Main Page, and have a high level of experience in Wikipedia templates and code. As such, no further technical assistance is required. For the code geeks, my rough plans for the backend are below the following cut.

Technical details
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The new section will use a modified form of the code currently used for FPs, adapted to allow multiple content types. The layout for FSes will be similar to FPs, though some minor changes may be made for aesthetic reasons. The box will be able to be set to several modes, by assigning a parameter. I believe that the starting modes will be: Featured picture: Emulates the formatting of the other box. Featured sound: One sound + description, similar to the featured picture Multiple sounds: It will be convenient to allow for more than one sound, so that, for example, we can give a whole symphony, instead of just one movement. I suspect the maximum will be 4 or 5. Video sound: We have a small number of these, but since videos and sounds use completely different formatting, it'd be useful to have a dedicated mode. Panorama: Suppresses the FP/FS box to accomodate a very wide image in the main FP box. Should only be used on FP days. =) Featured list: The featured list project is interested in claiming a day on the main page, and it's fairly trivial to code basic support in to help facilitate this. Further modes could fairly easily be added, if needed later. User friendliness and accessibility can, if necessary, be improved by using a >inputbox< on the collective page for Today's Featured Whatever. This will preload the correct formatting for the featured content. The Today's Featured Picture section uses special code and formatting to make things easier for machine readers to find out what Today's Featured Picture is. I will try and retain this feature for Today's Featured Whatever. However, since multiple content types are used, I cannot guarantee complete success. I'll try to come up with a suitable way to automatically separate the different types of content into their own archives. This shouldn't be too hard, as we can always check the mode, and only show, for example, those days that use one of the sound modes. In the other main page columns the left gets 55%, and the right 45% of the width. This will probably be retained (and is easy to change if something else is desired). Estimated coding time, including debugging: 1 month.

This proposal is made with the full support of the featured sounds community.

Voting will close on the 22nd, at about 8pm. A 2/3rds majority is required.

If this proposal passes, the coding will commence. Coding time is estimated at one month, though it may be quicker. When it's complete, it will be put up for review, including a mock-up of it in action, and a "rubberstamping" vote at simple majority to confirm its use. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Sven Manguard Wha? 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support providing a diversity of featured content on the main page is a worthwhile objective, and featured sounds would be a logical step. --RexxS (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support for the same reason lists should be on the page. And apologies, this wasn't intended to be a vote for FL, it was simply to see if the usual objections to lists on the main page still existed. I've collapsed that part of the discussion until we have a complete technical solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support —Chris!_c/t 19:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support (e • nn • en!) 20:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support The Celestial City (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support putting featured sounds on the main page. (About the others: I support putting featured lists on the main page in principle, if there's a way to mesh it with the existing content. I oppose putting the featured topics/portals up - I don't think they're well-suited for the main page, at least as illustrated by File:Front Page Mockup with Featured Sounds and Topics.png.) Raul654 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support featured sounds - very much so. This is fully in keeping with a NOTPAPER encyclopedia. Thanks as ever to those providing the technical solutions for their generous work. Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Fully. This has been necessary for a while. (X! · talk)  · @939  ·  21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support It's not "featured content" if it isn't, well, featured! --Dorsal Axe 21:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support It seems that the community's atttitude toward putting other featured content on the Main Page has changed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support in concept although I will reserve final judgement for when the layout is done. howcheng {chat} 23:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • What do you think of the layout in the mock up in the image above? (focusing only on the purple section, not the yellow section.) I think that Adam has confirmed his intention to do the split that way (55/45 I think) with the ability to recombine them into one full length section on days with panoramas. It is, based on what I saw when I was doing research for the mock up, perfectly possible to do. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: that's easily tweaked. It's literally just a matter of changing a width parameter for the box. This might be better dealt with once the code's set up, and I can easily show changes. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support All featured content should have a degree of representation on the main page. —WFC— 23:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support "Sounds" (sorry!) awesome. I'm just wondering, what will the header be when the second box is used for FPs? "Featured picture two" doesn't sound very good (ahhh puns). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I was thinking "Today's bonus featured picture" or "Today's second featured picture", but that's trivial to change. We could also do some clever code to make it "Today's featured pictures", and so on. There'll be a period of feedback before the final vote when all this can be discussed and tweaked, but, for obvious reasons, I don't want to spend days or even weeks on code before getting the community's approval. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • A single "Today's featured pictures" heading would work nicely. —David Levy 00:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support conditional on Howcheng's final approval. Howcheng and POTD are the ones giving up Main Page space, and if he's content with the final setup then I'm content. In case there's any doubt created by the image used above to illustrate how this would look, I oppose inclusion of featured topics. - BanyanTree 00:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Query will this prevent very wide pictures being suitable for POTD? They are something of a wiki-speciality - some of the most striking FPs are panoramas, of a type seldom seen elsewhere on the web. If the second "featured whatever" box is e.g. a featured sound that doesn't need much space, that'd work well, but will it be practicable to adjust the sizes of the two boxes to ensure a good fit in general? TheGrappler (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, it will not prevent panoramas from appearing on the main page. Adam mentioned in the (collapsed) technical details section that the second box could be suppressed, meaning that there would be one box on days scheduled for panoramas (identical to what currently exists today.) And I agree, panoramas are just awesome. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks Sven - I just spotted your comment upthread and struck through my query but got an edit conflict! I think the proposal should probably make this fact explicit: the fact that some days (determined by rota? at the very least it's going to involve putting some heads together) there will be only one FP, isn't obvious from what's written above. But the proposal actually sounds very good. (And in contrast to Raul, I even liked the Featured Topic idea!) TheGrappler (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • This was all made very clear at some point yesterday before the voting started. As an indication of how much has happened, and why I'm not at all bothered by the query, I can't even find it anymore. The short answer is that if this goes through, there will be two featured pictures on Mondays through Fridays, and one Featured picture and one featured sound on Saturdays and Sundays. This is part of the reason that the FP people are behind this, they've got quite a backlog to clear themselves, and this will certainly help. On days where there are two featured pictures, the option exists to combine the two boxes into one and insert a panorama there. The FP leadership will continue to determine which FPs go where, when, and the FS leadership will determine which sounds appear when, however Featured Sounds will only appear on the main page on the weekends, that's not based on rotation. I hope this clears everything up. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • For the record, I'm going to set it up so that panoramas can run on any of the double-FP days, but I don't think the percentage is high enough that there should be a specific day of the week for them, just whenever they show in rotation. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. What a great idea! All featured content should have a chance to reach the main page and I think this is an excellent way to do it.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support All of our best work should eventually be featured. The inclusion of sounds would be fantastic. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support per the peer pressure above and the fact that this is a good idea. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• support mostly we should be prepared be switch back if the backlog of FP ever becomes significant depleated. Oh and we'll need to to the usual cross browser/screen resolution and skin testing before going live. So dig out those old computers with tiny screens and IE6 people.©Geni 02:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no reason why either of those would be infeasible. I've got access to a public school computer lab, so if you want this tested on Netscape with a 600x400 tube-style screen, I can actually do that. Take a minute to contemplate how sad a statement that is. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Why bother? Not even Microsoft supports IE6 any more, and the Main Page gets horizontal scroll bars when the viewport goes below 1264px in both Firefox and Opera. --RexxS (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • 3.66% of our non mobile users use IE6 compared to 3.55% of non mobile users who use opera of all types[3]. Good news is MSIE 5.01 is down to 0.02%.©Geni 18:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
        • It won't go live until the mockups are up and have had time to be tested, obviously. =) Thanks for the reminder, though: I had forgot about cross-browser testing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It's called browsershots.org. (X! · talk)  · @106  ·  01:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    • • • • Hey, I have an old computer, and I use it when the "main" computer is being used by someone else. It has W98, MS 5 and a 800x600 CRT monitor that goes all green-ish if the VGA cable is not exactly placed in a certain position. I manage to browse and edit wikipedia in it. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support in principle. From what I remember, the FP backlog was about 300 two or so years ago. How has that changed, and what's the (average) promotion rate now? MER-C 02:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm told we have a year of FP backlog, and, looking at the last couple months, the FP promotion rate appears to be slightly above the (current) break even point at about 35 a month. This should give enough time for FS to find its feet. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)
    • I remember you saying something like this two years ago! I opposed this last time, but my concerns (mostly about inflexibly squashing the FP to one column) have been addressed. I'm confident that this will help FS to find its feet and if we run low on F[PS]s, we can fill out the space with something from the other categories. MER-C 05:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, I've actually coded a backend since then, and thus know more about what's possible =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, an excellent idea, great proposal. -- Cirt (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Great idea. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support everything looks good to me, and it adds some variety to the Main Page. Imzadi 1979 → 05:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Should also encourage people to become more active in FS and may result in some high-quality media released for WP use. Great idea! Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I would certainly hope that those two things happen. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Not only would this be a great way to show more featured content on the main page, but it would be a great way at getting exposure for the featured sounds project as well (full disclosure: also support featuring FL on the main page). Great proposal. Nomader ^(Talk) 07:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Featured Sounds is a great part of Wikipedia, and I think that everyone should know about it.--Danaman5 (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support This would demonstrate some more of the exciting resources available at Wikipedia. Major Bloodnok (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, in principle. Good idea. --Tone 10:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support A good proposal, and an applicable one too. – Novice7 (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Conditional Support I am for this proposal as long as the people at FP on on board with reducing their current space on the Main page, that at a certain point in time (say 6 months from when this is implemented) we revisit to see if any issues have risen we are not seeing right now, and that a proposal to include Featured Lists is forthcoming.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that they are on board as this gives them a chance to reduce their considerable backlog of FPs themselves. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm slightly against making an "official" review-in-six-months proposal, simply because I honestly don't think anyone will remember to actually do it. But, of course, if issues arise, they should be brought up and looked at, at any time they're noticed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support Great idea! --Perseus8235 17:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • For today's featured topic, we should make a short summary of the topic, in my opinion. --Perseus8235 18:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Topics aren't part of this proposal, and, frankly, without someone involved in them pushing for it and planning things out, it's not going to happen. You can't put something on the main page without that community's support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Strong suggestion - in this case, someone ought to crop the mockup image at the bottom, to remove the "Featured Topic" section. Particularly since the technical details are hidden in a collapsed box, I suspect a lot of people are basing their decisions on the mockup (which is certainly the most prominent and easily-understood part of this proposal). TheGrappler (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Fixed Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Thanks, I suspect there'll be a bit less confusion now! TheGrappler (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. We need to have more diversity on the Main Page and need to do some promotion to get more sound files. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Full support for increasing the diversity of content on the Main Page. Happy‑melon 18:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support I believe that this will be a positive change to the main page. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work. I really hope this turns out as well as envisioned. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 20:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support – I agree with the general feeling that a piece of featured content should be able to have its day on the Main Page, and think that the example shows that a featured sound would be a good fit there. It just feels right in that position. I wouldn't want to see an FS every day because we don't have enough of them, but twice a week should be fine. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Not every featured sound or featured image needs to hit the front page. The process of selecting items for the front page should be a second layer of editorial control. With regards to featured sounds, the quality and quantity are currently too low to warrant a spot on the front page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you on several points here. First of all, with over 150 featured sounds, there is over a year and a half of sounds if we place two a week on the main page. Several editors are working on acquiring more high quality recordings, and a few Wikipedians upload their own performances. As to the quality of the sounds, these sounds represent the very best of free sound on the internet anywhere. Also featured are historical recordings of great importance, including presidential speeches and "firsts" in sound (such as the first known recording of the human voice.) I believe that there are plenty of excellent works that deserve to be featured.

If this still does not sway you, consider the comparative states of Featured Pictures now and when it first began appearing on the main page. Clearly much has improved since then, in quality, quantity, and participation. Many of us in the featured sounds community see this as not just a way of featuring excellent content, but as a way of pushing the genre forward, much as the at first occasional featuring of pictures on the main page did for images.

I do hope you and the community come to embrace and support this, I wholeheartedly believe it is truly deserving. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support: More representation of featured content on the Main Page. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Change to "Support", after discussions, but I do believe the system should be prepared to adapt if it becomes clear that there are shortages of "professional"-standard featured sounds. We simply do not have the kind of professional-quality sound files to sustain two exposures a week—and here I talk mainly of our music files. The same issue does not apply to speeches and animal sounds, I think. But music files are different from everything else, including featured articles and pictures. The standard of performance and the audio-engineering that is essential to produce an acceptable quality in a music file occupies a highly professional, exclusive realm. We have very few featured sounds that are of professional standard. The few that are of professional standard are unsatisfactory in certain ways—it's complex and multifactorial. This contrasts with high-quality pictures and prose, which involve skills that are less reliant on exclusive, advanced professional training, which don't suffer from the same extraordinarily tight rules about copyright as apply to music recordings, and the almost total lack of a culture worldwide of free uploading by professionals. Let us not forget, too, that "found" featured content is just a little bit weird when we drum on about it on the main page, whereas featured articles always show off the talent of WPians. I can cope with "found" featured pictures, although the work of our own photographers is somehow inherently more satisfactory when highlighted on a page that is quintessentially associated with the achievements of the community and its product. On another level, I believe the public who arrive at the main page are going to be far more judgemental of music files than they are of pictures and prose: music files are in your face a lot more than pictures are prose. I love the idea of two featured pics per day (there's a huge backlog), but I think one featured sound per week would be wiser, not two, given the current state of our repository. Who is going to choose these music files for main-page exposure? I'll be coming in as a wet blanket, applying the highest standards, at the venue for selection. It will end up being a slot for frog noises and old speeches, and very occasionally a music file. Tony (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

To the concern of who is deciding on what appears on the main page, it is my understanding that Adam would be integral to that. As you know, he is just as capable of picking out the finer points within a musical performance as you are, and I don't think he would allow anything substandard onto the main page. You, of course, would also be invited to weigh in. The objective here is to showcase the best of Featured sounds on the main page, which will by virtue of prominence promote the upload and expansion of the FS process. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I reject the argument. There may be some sounds that do need selected out, but can you name a repository of freely-licensed music that's better than Wikipedia? No. Because none exists

Featured sounds will improve with exposure. Denying that exposure, while asking it to reach a level that's only possible through a slow process of increasing quality, is counterproductive.

Even then, we have many sounds that are of professional quality. Pandora Records was a professional record company that opened its archives after failure. We have expert-level performances by User:Jujutacular on the classical guitar, User:Makemi singing, and User:La Pianista on piano. We have Enrico Caruso, the first recorded jazz piece, Scott Joplin himself on piano roll, and John Philip Sousa's band playing John Philip Sousa.

Dozens of Wikipedians have searched out and found the history of recording, from the earliest known recording of the human voice, which was never actually intended to be played back, to an Edison phonograph cylinder advertising itself, as the technology became commercialised. We have speeches by Walt Whitman, Arthur Sullivan, Neville Chamberlain, and even have a recording of Heinrich Himmler talking about the planned extermination of the Jews. We have entire albums by notable artists such as Hungry Lucy. Could it be better? Yes. Will the prestige of being on the main page directly lead to it being better? If Featured pictures is any guide, yes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking from (a little) experience, getting good recordings of some material types isn't beyond the ability of many with home recording instruments. It'd be nice to attract more of them - I bet most people don't even know you can upload sound to wikipedia. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Though Saturday and Sunday we receive the fewest hits of the week. What if sounds were featured on Sunday and Monday? Then you get a bigger hit day, and therefore more views? I don't see a downside to that. upstateNYer 04:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you link me to the data for that please. I didn't know that was the case. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

here. upstateNYer 18:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Outweighing that is surely the fact that people accessing Wikipedia at work won't be as likely to listen to audio content as at home. Rd232 ^talk 06:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

But that's no more than conjecture. The data illustrates my point. upstateNYer 18:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I'm all in favour of spreading the goodness of Main Page exposure more widely. Rd232 ^talk 06:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I was a little skeptical at first but Adam Cuerden's little rant above convinced me otherwise :P --haha169 (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 15:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Extremely minor issue, I have already voted, but realized a small issue. I am basically the only year round editor at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page and I am just curious as to weather or not you plan on adding the Featured Sounds before April fools day this year. If so i will have to create new pages for discussion as it is less than 2 months away.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

April 1st is a Friday, so we would not be scheduled for the main page, although I wouldn't turn down the invitation. The closest thing I can think of that would fit is File:DescenteInfinie.ogg, an aural (audio) illusion. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Fully support this well thought-out proposal. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 17:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support - this is a considerable launching pad for FS. The key to improving a wikiproject is exposure, and with main page coverage, we'll only continue to grow. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 18:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the use of the "vote" terminology. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Corvus cornix_talk 01:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • (apologies for the tangental comment) One day I'll get around to writing Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a de-facto democracy. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, but it's difficult to argue that most discussion-based processes (RfA, Arbcom elections and resolutions, RfCs, most XfDs, DRV) are democratic processes nowadays. The only exceptions are AfD (where admins can do by-and-large as they please), and the featured processes (where actionable objections must be resolved, except where there is consensus that an objection is not valid).—WFC— 01:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Do you have any comments on the concept of featured sounds on the main page or just about the method? Also, what exactly is your alternative. I point out that just under 50 people have already showed interest in this by posting here. I expect that number to at least double. With 100 people in an open discussion, the amount of chaos generated would drown out any ability to reach consensus, and it would likely end up in a straw poll when that became apparent. There's a reason that all the processes that have the highest levels of participation use polls, it might not be the idea way, but it's the most functional one. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Are there implications for server load from serving multiple sound streams over serving pictures? Stephen 03:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sound files are smaller than video files, which are occasionally included on the main page as part of Featured pictures. (For example, File:DuckandC1951.ogg, a 20 megabyte file, was on the main page in March 2009). As such, there shouldn't be any problems. Comparing them to regular pictures, I actually suspect that sounds may use less resources compared to pictures, as the pictures are served to everyone, but sounds are only served to those who choose to listen to them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what Adam said. Also, for the sake of discussion, the video on the main page today is 6.8 MB for 17 seconds. The Featured Sound that was put on the main page on January 15th for Wiki10, a part of The Four Seasons, was 4.1 MB for three and a half minutes. Sound files really are not that large, and the main page does not seem to have any trouble today holding the video file. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support per duh. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support It'd be a great way to showcase the fine sounds hosted on enwp and possibly encourage more participation in FSC. Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 01:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Long overdue.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 02:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Yay ! Hopefully encourage more participation at FSC, and possibly donation of high-quality sound files.Acather96 (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I've always believed that 'Featured Media' should make an appearance. Iciac (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support It's something that I'll never use, but I can certainly see the benefits. As long as it doesn't preclude wide images on occasion, I'm happy to support Worm^TT 09:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It won't, I assure you. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I consider myself assured ;) Worm^TT 10:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support along with FL. Courcelles 10:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • They are already working on their proposal and are going to launch it as soon as this one clears. We just didn't want to have multiple ones going on at once, it would become too chaotic. I agree though, FLs would be a wonderful addition to the main page.
• In an either/or proposition, I would much rather have FLs and/or or GAs, which are more encyclopaedic and often require more work (not that I wish to disparage Featured Sounds), but, in principle, more Featured Stuff on the MP is no bad thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • See my response to Courcelles directly above. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. --Avenue (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I have some concerns on the technical end (the player), but running stuff on the front page, may make those more likely to get fixed. Would love to see Featured Videos for same reason (probably joint with sound as FEatured Media). Featured Lists (maybe even GAs) would be good as well. I don't really care how often the run or what they steal from, just get more stuff in the mix. Wiki needs to grow or die.TCO (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To Tony's point, I think we are better off running some stuff on the front page and using that as a driver to improve quality. I could support once a week though. Maybe an FL a week and an FS a week. I don't have an issue with showing off uploaded stuff. This is about displaying what is in the encyclopedia, not about emphasizing original work, per se.TCO (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what can and cannot be done with the default player. All featured sounds should be able to run on it though, and if one isn't capable of doing so, that's actually rather easy to fix.

As to featured videos, the current system is that both FP and FS have videos. Really though, videos are much more common in FP, FS only has three. That isn't to say we don't want them, however in FS videos would have to be focused on things already covered by FS (so we would have videos of speeches, videos of musical performances, and video field recordings.) The judging would swing heavily towards the audio component of the video, although both parts would have to be of a high quality. If the audio was outstanding and the visual was awful, I suppose we might separate the two, however to my knowledge that hasn't been done or even proposed before. I suppose the best answer I have is that if you see something that you thing is FS or FP quality and is in Video form, don't hesitate to submit it. If it's primarily an audio centered video, send it to FS, if it's primarily a visuals centered video, send it to FP. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - FS, FP, FL and FV also. Although the latter video infrequently because of browser and bandwidth issues, but having a video infrequently would highlight the lack of royalty free video support on many browsers. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Videos are generally considered part of Featured pictures, and have been on the main page for ages. I don't think anyone will be hugely surprised to know FL will be going to vote once this one is done, since the proposal uses this one's backend. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's pleasing to hear videos are considered pictures. As I don't recall seeing one on the main page, can I ask when (what date) was the last one on the main page? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I know two were promoted last week, if that helps. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I remembered a plasmaball File:Plasmaball vid2.ogg, but it turns out that was over a year ago (16 Feb 2010). A cursory check reveals a couple of animated gifs, but I didn't see any other videos since then. Worm^TT 12:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Will the sound files increase the download time of the page?--DJDunsie (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • They shouldn't: Sounds are only loaded after you click the "Play" button. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:15, 22 February 2011 (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.

Suggested another category

Under the section languages are 4 categorys (500,000, 150,000, 100,000 and 50,000 articles). I would suggested another one/two with 1 Mio./250,000. It would easier to show the increase of the non-english wikis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.238.248 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Main Page/Archive 153#Over one million articles, Talk:Main Page/Archive 154#Proposal: Add million-article level to Wikipedia Languages section, Talk:Main Page/Archive 155#1,000,000 +, and Talk:Main Page/Archive 155#Wikipedia size: Implementation of proposed changes for some of the more recent discussions of this perennial proposal and the reasons it has not been implemented. --Allen3 ^talk 12:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we get some sort of note box like that about national varieties of English added to let people know not to post this sort of thing? --Khajidha (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Libya

What happened to the Libya protest in the news section? Hiberniantears (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the third out of the five there, "Authorities open fire on demonstrators in Libya and Bahrain amid continuing protests across the Middle East and North Africa." Sven Manguard Wha? 01:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Howcheng appears to have restored an old version of the template by accident; Libya had its own blurb earlier today. StrPby (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Re the final ITN item at this moment on Bahrain, I think we need to remove it ASAP. We were right to run with it on the 18th/19th, but the military stood down 3 days ago. —WFC— 13:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages

Please add Azerbaijani Wikipedia (Azərbaycanca) to "More than 50,000 articles" section. Regards.--PPerviz (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Interwikis too.--PPerviz (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the quantitative requirement, we also have qualitative ones. Please see Template talk:Wikipedia languages#Azerbaijani wikipedia. —David Levy 06:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured list proposal

The initial proposal for how it would look.

Following on from the proposal to include featured sounds on the main page alongside a second featured picture on Saturdays and Sundays, I would like to propose the regular inclusion of a featured list on the main page. There are currently nearly 2,000 featured lists, and the recent changes in featured list criteria have ensured that all new promotions meet the highest standards, and that the older lists are being actively evaluated (via our WP:FLRC process) so only the best remain featured. We propose that, on Wednesdays, the "second slot" be allocated to a featured list, replacing the second featured picture. The FL community have provided their backing to this, as have the three FL directors. This would automatically benefit from the successful FS proposal, since User:Adam Cuerden's coding for that purpose will be written so it can easily be adapted to enable the appearance of lists on the main page.

The FL community have selected a set of existing featured lists; these provide an indication of the diversity of the project's very best work in lists. The directors would be responsible for the initial selection of lists for main page inclusion; the community would have two weeks to ensure that each blurb is of the highest standard for the main page. Once the process is more mature, we aim to move toward the WP:TFA/R model, which could either be integrated with the FA version or be a stand-alone process, managed by the FL community:

The following technical details are virtually a straight copy of those produced by Adam Cuerden, who made the same proposal for the inclusion of featured sounds. The requirements for FL inclusion in the same slot on the main page are identical.

Technical details
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The new section will use a modified form of the code currently used for FPs, adapted to allow multiple content types. The layout for FLs will be similar to FPs, though minor changes could be made for aesthetic reasons. The box will be able to be set to several modes by assigning a parameter. I believe that the starting modes will be: Featured picture: Emulates the formatting of the other box. Featured list: One list, similar to the featured article Multiple sounds: It will be convenient to allow for more than one sound, so that, for example, we can give a whole symphony, instead of just one movement. I suspect the maximum will be 4 or 5. Video sound: We have a small number of these, but since videos and sounds use completely different formatting, it would be useful to have a dedicated mode. Panorama: Suppresses the FP/FS/FL box to accommodate a wide image in the main FP box. This should only be used on FP days. Featured list: The featured list project is interested in claiming a day on the main page, and it is trivial to code basic support in to help facilitate this. Further modes could fairly easily be added if later needed. User friendliness and accessibility can, if necessary, be improved by using a >inputbox< on the collective page for Today's Featured Whatever. This will preload the correct formatting for the featured content. The Today's Featured Picture section uses special code and formatting to make things easier for machine readers to find out what Today's Featured Picture is. I will try and retain this feature for Today's Featured Whatever. However, since multiple content types are used, I cannot guarantee complete success. I'll try to come up with a suitable way to automatically separate the different types of content into their own archives. This should not be too hard, as we can always check the mode, and show, for example, only those days that use one of the sound modes. In the other main page columns, the left gets 55% of the width and the right 45%. This will probably be retained (and is easy to change if something else is desired). Estimated coding time, including debugging: one month.

The proposal will run for approximately seven days, and like the FS proposal, will depend on a two-thirds majority for success. If this proposal passes, coding of the FL main-page inclusion will be put up for review, including a mock-up of it in action, and a "rubber-stamping" vote at simple majority to confirm its use. Thanks for your time and interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The proposal will be closed around 17:00 (UTC) on 2 March. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal

Mockup of FLs sitting below DYK & TFA

I'm definitely in favour of including lists to the main page. But I'm not certain about including it in that particular spot of the page, for some reason. Featured Sounds make sense there, I suppose, as all the multimedia is kept together in one place. I guess I just feel prosaic content belongs higher up on the page. I think it would look kinda weird to have FA in one corner, and FL in the other... That's just me though. --Dorsal Axe 17:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the coding proposal allows for the list to be placed on the left-hand side on the main-page, under the featured article/DYK, if that would be considered acceptable to all parties. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I just saw the other draft on your page Rambling Man. Left alignment is better in my opinion. I support this proposal, by the way. – Novice7 (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As I say, the proposed coding caters for both! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I like the look of that mockup you posted on my talk page (might be worth posting that here). It certainly makes more sense to have it left aligned, and I'm happy to accept that. --Dorsal Axe 17:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I've added a small thumb here. Not wishing to repeat myself too many times already, the proposal supports both configurations! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I absolutely agree with this proposal. – Novice7 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support The FL process has developed beyond recognition from the sorts of lists that made the grade in 2006. Nowadays we have a large, diverse stockpile of high quality material, that is worthy of being featured on the main page. —WFC— 17:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support discussed above. – Novice7 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support: There is a large selection of high quality lists covering a variety interesting topics, and they certainly have as much of a right to be on the Main Page as featured pictures and sounds. Hopefully this will inspire people to create new Featured Lists as well. BigDom talk 17:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support per all above. --Dorsal Axe 17:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support The FL process has finally matured to the point where it's appropriate to include them on the main page. We've come a long way since the process first started, and I'm more than happy to support. Nomader ^(Talk) 17:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Good work deserves to be featured, and the samples I looked at from the subpage linked above were very good work. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Wiki needs to grow or die. I see the general having of more types of featured content on the front page, very good. Not just for what we deliver to our readers, but for how it motivates us to up our game, knowning that we will have "front page" view. I know that runs through Sandy's head all the time. It is a good influence on the content work and even spreads beyond featured work itself. Lists are something we've been figuring out, and still are (are they "good" or "bad", how do we make them best use for the reader, what are the boundaries of list and article.) I think getting stuff to front page, will end up helping us work through these things and just improve overall as a content source. The simple way of starting with just a few features, and of picking the clearest best stuff, without a lot of upfront process, makes sense. We can evolve from there, but starting simple and "certain to succeed" makes sense. TCO (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• I supported putting featured sounds on the main page, but I never supported a second featured picture, nor was that ever mentioned in the proposal (such things were explicitly left to be decided later). Frankly, that would look very stupid and I oppose it. I support putting featured sounds on the main page, and featured lists too, if we can find a non-wonky way of doing it. Raul654 (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  To quote the third sentence under "Featured sounds vote" (above) "The basic proposal is that a second featured pictures section is added to the main page. On Saturdays and Sundays, this will become a Featured sound section instead." Don't know how you can say that a second featured picture was never mentioned in the proposal, Raul. Bencherlite^Talk 18:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I missed that part. I was looking at the mockup, which apparently only applies 2 or 3 days out of the week. What I'd like to do is find a non-stupid solution that makes everyone happy, like the 2x3+1 layout I mentioned on my talk page (featuring lists, sounds, and pics every day of the week, in their own dedicated panes). Raul654 (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, per Raul. If the design issues are sorted out, and Raul switches to Support, my !vote can be considered the same as his. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Update, per significant and extended discussion at User talk:Raul654 and on this page, in subsequent sections. My suggestions (below, now struck) to cap this proposal and re-start a new proposal were based on a misunderstanding (I didn't realize the FP/FS proposal was closed, and thought we needed to re-examine the entire layout proposal to incorporate all three in an integrated design-- FP, FL and FS). It remains my contention that if Sounds go on the mainpage, certainly, Lists are worthy. However, considering this dicussion, I am now opposing for a stronger reason. There seems to be some misconception that we can fiddle with the mainpage, with poor design, to accomodate the members of the various featured processes, and this is fundamentally flawed reasoning. The mainpage is for the benefit of our readers as much as, if not more than, our editors, and poor mainpage design to accomodate processes who claim they aren't quite ready for full main page exposure just smacks of amateurism. If all of these processes are ready for the mainpage, they should be prepared to adopt a design that benefits our readers and is smooth and professional in appearance, and the entire proposal should be considered at once, not piecemeal. I regret having to oppose the inclusion of a worthy featured process on the mainpage, but y'all can't have your cake and eat it too. DYK, ITN, FAC-- we all get criticized for mistakes we put on the mainpage, so either you're ready for prime time or you're not, but it you are, it should be a well designed implementation, not fiddled with every few months. Sorry, but I think the argument that FLC isn't ready 1) is just wrong, and 2) will result in an amateurish-looking mainpage, and 3) seems to indicate they don't think they should receive the same scrutiny for mistakes as DYK, ITN, and FAC do. I suggest that you all get your heads together on design, and still say that once Raul supports, I support-- my concern is not that FL doesn't belong on the mainpage, but that the mainpage is to serve our readers, and FLs are either ready or not. I'm sorry if that means that FL is paying the price for a strategic mistake in the way FP and FS put forward their proposal, but we still must put the priority of having a professional looking mainpage above other concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Have I missed something here? Where are we proposing a second featured picture? —WFC— 17:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  The very first sentence of Rambling man's proposal: Following on from the proposal to include featured sounds on the main page alongside a second featured picture on Saturdays and Sundays Raul654 (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  This was in the FS proposal, and has been agreed by the consensus of the community. We just followed in its footsteps... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  (e/c) I have to admit to being confused as the "technical details" here are virtually identical to those of the FS proposal. The screenshots are mockups, as stated, and the coding proposed by User:Adam Cuerden in the successful FS proposal would be the same as that used for FLs. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  If the design issues are sorted out to Raul's satisfaction, I'm a support (I also agree that pictures and sounds should be on the mainpage, but only if Lists are as well), but working out the design issues is crucial in mainpage proposals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  Well, Raul supported the design of the FS proposal, and that's identical to this one, which he now opposes as being stupid. I guess we'll have to see what the remainder of the community think! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  You're mis-characterizing my position. I support putting featured lists and sounds on the main page, but I think the proposed layout is terrible. And I would have opposed the featured sounds proposal for the same reason too, had I read all the fine print. Raul654 (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  It wasn't fine print. It was the second paragraph of the proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  Arguing what Raul missed or didn't in the proposal now won't be as productive as working out the design issues. There is support for including the content: the question is how. My !vote is contingent upon working this out with Raul because I will likely be traveling as the details are worked out, and if that occurs, please count my !vote as the same as Raul's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  I think the FP mention should be stricken altogether from the proposal; what we want to do on non list days is irrelevant as far as lists themselves are concerned. —WFC— 18:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  Why not just HAT this proposal and start a new one with a sensible layout? Raul654 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  I think that's a much better way forward. It's clear that some version of the proposal has support, but we should not separate that from design, which is crucial to discussions of mainpage proposals. I agree that starting over is the way forward, focusing now on design, given that the support is there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  Well as this is Wikipedia, let's allow the community to decide. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  I'm curious to know what you had in mind Raul. Something more akin to what we had for the 10th anniversary? --Dorsal Axe 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  I think this makes a lot more sense than the current proposed layout. Raul654 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  That's the long-term goal, but this is meant to allow the first steps to be taken towards getting these established. Once the systems are in place, it can be expanded. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  That's a case of putting the cart before the horse. I think we're better off putting the best possible layout on the main page, and letting those systems evolve to suit the task, rather than choosing a sub-par one to suit the systems we have now. That's certainly how it worked when FA hit the main page back in '04. Raul654 (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  Besides which, we'll be having this discussion again in a few months if we don't just Do It Now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  Yep, I think we all get the idea that you're in complete support of Raul! Since the FS proposal was allowed the dignity of being able to run to closure, it would be decent of the FA director et al to give the FL community a similar run. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  If given the choice between bad option (the current proposal, which is a good idea with a horrible implementation) and worse one (the main page as it exists today), most people will choose the bad choice. I think they deserve a good option too. And Sandy brings up a good point, that if we don't do it right now, we're going to be stuck with a bad layout until maybe we have another big discussion at some point in the future. Raul654 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  Personally, I think, push-come-to-shove, with 1,989 FL's and something like six to seven more a week, and factor in an increase of participation once there is a main page slot, the FL process could produce five quality lists a week to go with the two featured sounds. (The reverse would be much more challenging, as there are less than one-tenth the number of FS). Though the utility of this idea is also because the FP people are generating pictures at a greater rate than they can run them, and it has been discussed before the value of main page slots to attracting image donations, and the detriment to the same in the year+ backlog and fairly opaque system. Courcelles 20:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  While not my ideal solution, I think that's a very reasonable compromise that would alleviate my biggest objection (the two FP redundancy). Raul654 (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  So what you're saying is that because you think the main page should have the same layout every day that any featured content has to be willing to provide content every day of the week? But as a compromise that you'd accept FL providing content 5 days a week, with FS 2 days a week? Have you considered asking the editors whose time you are volunteering whether they consider that realistic 'before making your counter-proposal? How about a counter-counter proposal: you've accepted that FS should be featured 2 days per week, (that discussion is closed above) - so it is clear that the main page will look different from day to day; why not spend some time explaining how you feel FS on two days per week and FL on one day per week ought to be realised to meet your aesthetic standards. That would at least give the community and the coders a push in the right direction to produce an acceptable solution. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  Okay this is moving fast. Stop the presses, I have contingencies! (Don't stop the polling, just stop this line of discussion and give me about 10 minutes to churn out my mock up please. No reason for this to death spiral at the moment. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  Discussion on visuals below. As I say below, I can keep on generating mockups when needed. You should be voting on the idea of FLs on the main page. We can fine tune placement later. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support In a best case scenario, we would be able to rotate the four types of featured content that never get any MP space (lists, topics, sounds, and portals) instead of running a second picture four days a week... but the proposal on the table is better than the status quo. (Not to mention the FT promotion rate is too low.) Courcelles 18:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support (obviously, given my involvement with FL). Featured lists have improved immensely in quality in the last few years and there is a lot of excellent material here that is likely to be of interest to our readers. Bencherlite^Talk 18:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Looking at the example above, the list's lead he took is not really small by size. We must ensure we take FL with such size. The layout won't be ideal like above if the lead is small.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Questions:
  1. I share Raul's concerns regarding the layout mock-up. Am I correct that this is merely a non-binding example (and we'll have an opportunity to propose/discuss alternative implementations later)? That was my impression during the previous discussion.
  2. Is there any special significance to Wednesday? I believe that it would make more sense to use Friday or Monday, thereby grouping together all of the special content (in a memorable/promotable manner) instead of needlessly switching back and forth.
  —David Levy 18:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi David, thanks for your questions. (1) the proposal above states "If this proposal passes, coding of the FL main-page inclusion will be put up for review, including a mock-up of it in action, and a "rubber-stamping" vote at simple majority to confirm its use." so yes, the mockups are precisely that, mockups, with scope to be modified. (2) No, not really, it was simply to provide natural breaks in the second FP listings. Your proposal has merit, so a Friday or Monday could well be a better bet. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • @David: There are many permutations of ways to lay out content, so for you and any others who want to see some examples, the page User:RexxS/MainPageFL has links to over a dozen possibilities - and that's just for the case of a Featured List in the same row as a Featured Picture. You can change your browser width and see the effect of different design decisions at different screen resolutions. I'm sure Adam Cuerden, who has kindly volunteered to code the changes if this proposal passes, would be happy to hear of any preferences from interested editors if we reach the second stage. --RexxS (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - it should be possible to put FL on the left (by simply switching the locations of its and FP's box on those days), but that's a separate debate that can be had once the mock-up's ready. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Regarding the second FP slot on the main page, that was on the FS proposal, which passed already. So, to oppose the entire FL proposal because they failed to read carefully what was in the FS proposal is unfair to us FL folks.—Chris!_c/t 19:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support in principle. I'm no formatting expert and must bow to others on that subject, but to me FLs clearly deserve a place on the main page. You could make a strong argument that FLs, not FSs, should be getting on the main page twice a week. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Popping-in-during-lurking-but-not-editing-sort-of-wikibreak-type strong support ... overdue. --Dweller (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support as an obvious addition to the Main Page. Both current proposals have my support. Imzadi 1979 → 22:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Clearly, without-a-doubt support. About time. StrPby (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support this proposal to have a featured list on the Main Page one day per week. The FL community has spent a lot of time carefully examining resources, both in terms of number of FLs and volunteer time to prepare such material. I believe that the equity of having a range of featured material is now recognised. The community has already agreed to have featured sounds on two days per week, and I see no convincing reason why featured lists should be denied the opportunity to be featured on the Main Page as well. Additionally, I do not see it as productive for other editors to make counter-proposals in the middle of seeking consensus for the present proposal that do not respect the careful evaluations made by the FL community. The layout of the different types of featured content is obviously subject to community decision, but I would respectfully submit that this proposal is establish the principle, not the detail. --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support — I'd say something, but I couldn't put it any better than RexxS did — KV5 • Talk • 01:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: The main page is not for everything...too much content makes it ridiculous-looking. No matter what, it would be better to avoid a new section and feature a list every so often in TFA. MonoALT (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal for layout of the Main Page

I'll have something that solves every problem in in about 30 mins. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Further analysis of the aesthetics (Coming soon!) Sven Manguard Wha? 20:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sven's mockup is fine with me. And I agree with him that we should be polling on the general principle of featured lists, and not (yet) on any particular layout. Raul654 (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What Raul said. --Dweller (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work with the featured sound proposal, however, at all. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The proposal which secured virtually 100% support from the community over several days of transparent discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, this section should be archived. Immediately. The proposal for featured sounds was based on careful analysis of how many sounds we had, making sure the proposal gave us plenty of time to ramp up featured sound promotion rates before we hit the point where we were in danger of running out. It was a conservative proposal, just like FPs had when they first went on the mainpage - FPs replaced ITN one day a week, as I recall. This proposal would not work,a nd Sven should not have proposed it without speaking to the rest of the Featured Sound team. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And the whole point of the FS discussion was that it used the existing space taken up by FP without lengthening the page in the way this alternative proposes, thus avoiding a good number of the difficulties of the 2008 main page redesign discussions (which went on for ages and led to no change). If FS / FL get bogged down in a main page complete redesign discussion, then nothing will happen. Bencherlite^Talk 21:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a rather negative take on the status quo, considering the support for inclusion is a given. We now have coinciding proposals for including worthy new content on the mainpage, so getting the design right from the get-go is important, rather than having this discussion again somewhere down the road. There's no reason to penalize Featured Lists because the earlier proposal left them out, which I think was unfortunate. In fact, I'd like to know what on earth they were thinking when they did that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We (FL) had enough time to get on-board, do a huge amount of background work, prepare for accusations of lack of quality, variety etc, and were happy to follow in the wake of the widely successful FS proposal. It was gratifying to see the whole community shaking the tired main page design and FA-rules approach up a bit. We agreed to the technical aspects, we prepared many examples of our best work, opted for a small but significant start (one list per week), went along with an already-agreed proposal, only to be shot to bits. Imagine how that feels. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it stinks (or sucks donkey balls, as Moni3 would say). I've been in a similar situation and lost a Wikifriendship over it. It happened, it's unfortunate. But there were problems in that several proposals were put forward concurrently. The best way forward now is to put the past behind, and work for an integrated solution that makes the best sense and that will avoid future agida. I, for one, apologize sincerely to you for my misunderstandings here, but I think they resulted partially from FP and FS having left FL out, which was seriously a wrong way to go about this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No, FL wasn't really left out. We agreed that the FS proposal worked. We had a premature chat about it on this very page. I started a discussion well over a week ago about the possibilities of lists on main page, FL members were well advised as to the technical solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The FS proposal mentioned FL, but we talked and agreed that it'd be too confusing to have FL in the same proposal, due to the desire to give examples of sample FLs making a combined proposal a bit long. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

In hindsight, I think that was a rather large and unfortunate strategic mistake. There is no logical reason for FPs and FSs to go on the mainpage while leaving out FLs, and that RFC was consequently flawed from a design perspective. And I agree with TRM that it's unfair for FL to be paying the price, but a sensible integrated solution is needed. I certainly think a daily FL makes much more sense than two FPs, and this should have all been contemplated at once, in one proposal. This reminds me of the ill-fated RFC on ArbCom voting several years ago, where they put forward so many changes at once without considering the combined effect of each change (a larger ArbCom composed of members with marginal support-- it was a poorly designed RFC because it didn't account for all factors, and a well-designed proposal here would have dealt with FLs together with FPs an FSs, as they are certainly worthy of mainpage space if FSs are.) So, how 'bout if y'all voluntarily recognize that it was an ill-formed proposal, and work towards something that makes more sense wrt FLs, since they were left out ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, FLs weren't left out. The FS proposal was good, moving onto the main-page is a little like rediscovering the holy Grail. Once the possibility of something other than FA making it onto main-page reared its head, we jumped on it. The technical issues suit FL fine. One list a week suits FL fine. We don't need or want seven lists a week right now. We want to walk before we run. We don't to be accused of sub-standard featured material. We want to take our time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) You're not being shot to bits at all. The all of the people here are strongly supporting FL getting on the main page, including Raul and Sandy. The issue here is the aesthetics. I've got about 20 mock ups that I'm tossing around right now, frantically, as this took all of us off guard. A solution can be found. I happen to like the way that the mock up I generated looks, however Adam is right in that it might not be realistic.

What is happening here is that we are trying to balance the needs of several parties that all grouped together to make this happen. It would be an awful shame if one of those parties got screwed in the deal.

• Featured Pictures bought into this because the split of the FP section into two sections would allow them to drain their massive backlog. They would be able to run 12 pictures a week (assuming two days where one of the slots was an FS) or 11 pictures (with an FL and the two FS) instead of 7. If we don't split the FP section, we'd be screwing over FP.
• Featured Lists bought into the FS proposal because it gave them time to prepare and let us test the waters for them. Also, it became clear within hours that running both proposals at the same time was chaotic and created the illusion that FS and FL were competing with each other, which is categorically not the case.
• Both FS and FL are bought into this because it gives them spots on the main page, which FP has shown to be an effective way of raising participation and quality.
• All of this was made clear from the beginning, and FS has received a community mandate to run on Saturdays and Sundays with all of this information out in the open. The three featured processes, who already banded together to make this happen in the first place, need to stick together in this, make sure that everyone gets what they want, and do so in a way that comes out aesthetically pleasing. This sounds much harder than it actually is. I believe we can do this, and I believe that in the end just about everyone will be happy with the results. We just need to calm down and work together. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the gist of your post, and suggest that it should be a foregone conclusion that, if FPs and FSs get mainpage space, so does FL, which is equally worthy. But the design portion of the FP/FS proposal was flawed because FL was left out, and had everything been weighed at once, the conclusion might have been different. I prefer all of Sven's mockups to the confusing notion of alternating days, and think FL most certainly is ready for a daily shot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Note, there seems little point in "emergency layout" discussions. The FL proposal should continue to its natural conclusion, and the result of the FS proposal should remain valid, unless someone can prove that it is somehow nullified. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And note, the design wasn't flawed because it incorporated lists soon into the FS proposal. Adam Cuerden ensured it would with his technical solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that's where we need to be. FS has consensus to get some real estate on the MP. Now we're seeing if FL has the same consensus. If both are established in the affirmative, then the rest is just the details; annoying, bothersome, better handled by anyone on the planet that's not me details, but just details. The basic idea of 'FL's on the mainpage, yea or nay?' cannot be allowed to get lost in a debate on the exact specifics, which can be left to various stakeholders including Raul, SG, TRM and others to figure out, and then should be a snap to get any more consensus that would be needed for, once a solid consensus in favour of granting both processes some form of real estate is demonstrated. Courcelles 22:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Then someone should inform the FS people their work and consensus was effectively a waste of time. The consensus to finally put something other than FA and FP on the main page has been established, but all the technical work, as it turns out, despite consensus, has been wasted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Mainpage design isn't my strongpoint: I initially stayed out of the discussion, other than questioning potential design issues at FL, because I thought FS would only be sharing some of FPs space at the bottom of the page. I misunderstood from the get-go. So I'm in the unfortunate position now of opposing the process I find most worthy of being on the mainpage along with FAs, because of what I still view to be a faulty conclusion from a proposal which did not contemplate good mainpage design with inclusion of FL from the beginning. I suspect this is the last time I'll stick my neck out to stick up for FL, though, and I should move along now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't know why you'd feel such indignation. You followed Raul to oppose the proposal despite him supporting an identical proposal. We then discussed the fact that FS and FL worked together, to an extent, to develop a mix-and-match technical solution. This was still unacceptable to Raul (and you) but not to the community who supported it wholesale. FL then worked hard to ensure their similar proposal had high quality in mind, minimal expectations with one list a week, and a controlled selection system. All of this is effort is truly laudable and the FL community should be recognised for coming together (along with Sven and Adam from FS) to propose a coherent solution. Suddenly, in the middle of it all, we get spanners. I don't want this to ever be the last time you stick up for the FL community, but we've been second cousins, twice removed from FA for so long that given an opportunity to be on the main page, we grasped it with both hands, and all twelve fingers. We wanted to assure quality, we wanted to be non-controversial, we wanted a simple plug-and-play technical solution, and it all seemed fine. Then all Hell broke loose. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For weekends, one FP and one FS

For Wednesday, one FP and one FL

For all other days, two FPs, staggered as so that one is on the top and left, the other on the bottom and right. Actual coding will make formatting better, hence it will appear crisper and better aligned.

(←) Explained above. FAC, DYK, ITN-- we all get criticized when we put a mistake on the mainpage, yet FL says they can only be ready on a limited basis, and there were two piecemeal proposals that resulted in an ameteurish failure to look seriously at design (compounded by misunderstandings). Either FLC is ready or it's not; if they are, let's do it with professional design. If you think your work isn't ready for prime time, and want to be featured only once a week, in spite of having more than 1,300 FLs, something is wrong, and you are asking for an exemption from scrutiny that other processes are not afforded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed FL are ready on the basis of one day per week, just as the community has already accepted that FS are ready on the basis of two days per week. Your suggestion that there was an "amateurish failure" to look seriously at design is ill-informed - I have examined dozens of different design concepts for flaws, browser compatibility, screen resolution, and accessibility in the past week and you can see some of them by following the numerous links at User:RexxS/MainPageFL - and I'm only one of many editors who have put work into ensuring that this proposal had a sound, well thought-out rationale before it was proposed. The FL community has even anticipated the need for flexibility to fit in with varying design decisions made by others. Compare these candidates with these condensed versions to see that FL is capable of fitting in with other featured content, whether a short amount or large amount of text is required. If you want professional design, we'd better hire a professional web designer, because all we can actually count on is what we unpaid amateurs are willing to volunteer. If you don't think Adam Cuerden is up to the job, I'd be happy to hear who you would prefer. I think you can assume that the work is ready for "prime time" because the proposal has been made; yes, the proposal is asking for only one day per week and I really would think that the very people who have spent so much time working in the area would be the best judges of their own resources. The only thing that is "wrong" is that the FL community has made a modest proposal that they can guarantee the quality of, rather than running the risk of 'biting off more than they can chew', and it is unfortunate that it does not fit with your own view of what should have been proposed. I apologise for being blunt about that, but I hope you can accept that not everyone will agree that a scheme which varies its content from day-to-day is automatically a recipe for poor design. --RexxS (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Content is king. Get the lists on the front page at what ever rate makes sense (in terms of rampup). The object purely on the basis of design is putting the cart way ahead of the horse. Also, it reminds me a little of the object that they should have a whole TFAR process with full complexity and structure and complicatation, right from the gitgo, rather than just getting going with what thye knew were winners and working up to some TFA like arrangement if and how warrented. Let's pilot people. Let's roll!!!

Andy and the FS people and the FL people have put thought and work in and have some sort of structure. Let's try it out, rather then getting in one of these incessant wiki yak-yak loops. It's been freaking 10 years. Let's grow or die. We are losing all kinds of content creators and emphasis on content and some fresh air like this would really be great to get us growing again.TCO (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just giving you fair warning. I've got a new batch of mockups coming in very soon that I believe will solve every problem. They look fantastic! Sven Manguard Wha? 01:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• How do these look? This is a flexable setup that uses enough shared resources as to make coding feasible, get's everyone what they want, and looks excellent. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any point to In The News anymore?

I'm going to unashamedly take this fourth opportunity (over 24 hours after my first attempt) to point out that in some parts of the world it is Thursday now. The Bahrain shootings happened last Friday, but at this moment are still on our main page as news. —WFC— 19:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, either it needs to be changed every six hours like clockwork or it's use is diminished considerably. Here's what the issue is:

In the News

What's on my news tickers

Behgjet Pacolli (pictured) is elected President of Kosovo A 6.3-magnitude earthquake hits Christchurch and the surrounding Canterbury region in New Zealand, causing major damage and at least 75 deaths. Protests in Libya spread to Tripoli, as the government uses warplanes and mercenaries to attack the protesters. In stock car racing, Trevor Bayne becomes the youngest person to win the Daytona 500. The Iranian film Nader and Simin, A Separation, directed by Asghar Farhadi, wins the Golden Bear at the 61st Berlin International Film Festival. Authorities open fire on demonstrators in Bahrain amid continuing protests across the Middle East and North Africa.

U.S. Will No Longer Defend Law Banning Same-Sex Marriage (NPR) Gadhafi's Forces Maintain Their Hold On Tripoli (Essentially country is split East/West with Gadhafi controling only the west side) (NPR) The confirmed death toll from Tuesday's magnitude-6.3 quake near the city of Christchurch rose to 75, and officials said it was almost sure to climb further. (NPR) Democratic Party of Japan suspended the membership of Ichiro Ozawa, a shadowy political figure who once led the party, but who was indicted last month in a political financing case. (NYT) Bahrain King in Saudi Arabia to Discuss Unrest (NYT)

I just ripped those headlines out, but they could be put into a different format easily. The point is that of the current ITNs, 1 and 2 are current, 3 is days outdated, 4 is two days out and not really long term news, 5 is almost a week old, and 6 is laughably old. The five I have are all recent, and can hold up for six hours until I check my news tickers again tonight and see what's changed.

Update more often or scrap the section. Those are the only two options that don't produce a net loss of quality in the main page. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Per Sven. Update more often (and therefore be more diligent on what goes on the mainpage under ITN) or scrap. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You're comparing ITN to news tickers, the purpose of which is to relay breaking news. The section's purpose, conversely, is to link to encyclopedia articles created or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events. Perhaps we can find a way to increase the turnaround, but the content can't be "changed every six hours like clockwork" unless the appropriate encyclopedia articles exist. —David Levy 20:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this would often happen, or if Sven did it deliberately, but all five things Sven listed actually have articles that could contain the information. Too often a news ticker is over events that don't (or shouldn't) have articles... or ITN becomes "On the sports page", which as I like sports, I don't really mind, but the concepts aren't the same. Courcelles 20:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles to link to from my selections, in order: the mentioned law, the Libya protests, the earthquake, the DPJ (and the minister), and Saudi - Bahraini relations (which should exist whether it does or does not.) Sven Manguard Wha? 20:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

ITN has its interesting quirks. It's not supposed to be a news ticker - and anyone who comes to us as their source of latest news is surely a rare individual. And as our processes catch up with things to deliver quality material eventually, we'll often have a much better article later, rather than sooner, which is a strength of ITN. If you catch my drift. Yes, it has its flaws, but they're part of its attraction. --Dweller (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• The section is called "in the news", not "today's main headlines"; ITN isn't a rolling news channel (on WP at least). People can go to wikinews if they want the day's top stories in wiki format. StrPby (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@Sven the articles get updated as event goes on and are read over and over throughout the time they are on ITN. Just because it happened few days ago does not mean it should be removed. Go to ITN/C if you have a new item that you would like to nominate that is not on ITN yet. atleast do some research on what the section is or how its gets updated before complaining. -- Ashish-g55 02:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Urm, yes there is. It's the only part of the main page I actually read or care about. MonoALT (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)