Talk:Main Page

Main Page error report

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

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 02:03 on 8 August 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

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

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(August 9, tomorrow)

Monday's FL

(August 12)

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

Today's article for improvement on the Main Page

(I added the above request for comment, in hopes to obtain more input in this discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC))

The development over at Today's article for improvement has progressed significantly over the last few weeks, and we are preparing to début the new feature on the Main Page shortly. Concensus was established that the TAFI content should be placed below the DYK content. This has been successfully implemented at the Main Page Sandbox. The details of this the automatically updating process can be read more or less here and elsewhere on the TAFI talk page. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That is successfully implemented? Is anything going to be done to address the horrendous imbalance caused by this section? Is DYK being shortened? Is OTD being lengthened with less significant events? Is ITN expected to keep news stories from weeks past (as if that doesn't happen already)? -- tariqabjotu 21:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I need to agree with Tariqabjotu's concerns; I'm currently against implementation until we figure this out...the imbalance is simply too much with the current design. —Theopolisme (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, and a laudable project. Personally, I would welcome lots more OTD content - why would this be a problem? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily saying that more OTD hooks is a problem. Then again, do we really want that many? Possibly ten? And I'm quite certain there are some days that don't have enough hooks in reserve so we'd need to create some new ones. This isn't a problem if the coordination has already begun, but given that's a successful implementation, I'm not sure it has. I feel like I contribute to the Main Page a lot and this is the first time I've heard of the proposal. I imagine at some point, someone would have contacted the DYK, ITN, and OTD projects to figure out how the content in those three sections might need to change to accommodate TAFI.

This, of course, is a great time to emphasize the need for a Main Page redesign. -- tariqabjotu 21:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus was established?: the proposal, for a single line with a bare link, looks nothing like the example, which has three DYK-like hooks, multiple links and eight lines and takes half the space of the DYK section. Something so different from what was discussed should not be added without further centralised discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. TAFI was meant to slip in neatly at the bottom of the left hand column with "Help Wikipedia and join fellow editors in building _______ - today's Article for Improvement" and a random list - not several multi-linked hooks (why give alternative wikilinks if you want people to go to one article, incidentally?) The present mock-up also creates undesirable amounts of whitespace. So either TFA/DYK have to be cut back, or ITN/OTD have to be expanded. Neither consequence was part of the original proposal so there is no consensus for anything other than the previously approved wording and minimalist design. Bencherlite^Talk 22:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I missed the discussion, and I've been assisting with the section's subsequent development to improve its format and address concerns that I was unable to raise. It's quite true that the current draft differs significantly from the one originally proposed and shouldn't be implemented without further discussion.

In my opinion, the section shouldn't even be added to the column (due to the aforementioned balance issue), but I didn't learn of the plan until after such consensus was established. My assumption has been that the other sections will be adjusted to compensate, but I agree that their organizers should have been contacted in advance and encouraged to comment.

One possibility that occurred to me today is to expand OTD to include a mini-TFA-style writeup about one selected anniversary, ideally pointing to a good or featured article. But we obviously mustn't implement that idea or any other major change without discussion and consensus. —David Levy 22:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not always possible. Not every day has an event which is written to FA or GA standards. There are even 1 or 2 days where there are only 5 eligible articles, making it impossible to expand OTD on those days. —howcheng {chat} 22:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that not every date has a GA or FA (hence "ideally") and that some dates have few or no eligible articles in reserve.

The rough idea (which obviously hasn't been fully fleshed out or tested) is to highlight one of the better articles (GA or FA if available) with the image and a longer blurb, without necessarily increasing the total number of items. —David Levy 23:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The original proposal was approved with ~90% support, plus an early endorsement from Jimbo. Then someone asked about the color of the bike shed.... 71.212.238.161 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Kill two birds with one stone. Have Howcheng (or someone; not looking to volunteer anyone for anything) provide a list of the days that have very few eligible articles to the WP:TAFI crowd, who would work on a couple of articles from those days to get a bigger pool of eligible articles. Win-win. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  Now THAT'S a good idea... --Jayron32 00:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  And that may very well be a reasonable idea. I wasn't necessarily trying to suggest TAFI is a bad idea; it's just a bit surprising that it has already matured to the stage of imminent implementation when issues like this have not been ironed out. We shouldn't have to hastily come up with a solution; this should have already been decided. And if the solution was to lengthen OTD, fine. If it was to shorten DYK, fine. But the mockup by Nick was called a successful implementation, so I don't think a solution to this obvious problem had been considered until this thread. And that doesn't even account for the other issues (regarding whether consensus was really reached) that others have brought up. -- tariqabjotu 00:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  The matter was addressed in an earlier draft, which contained static simulations of the various sections (with extra items added to ITN and OTD). The current version contains live transclusions of the actual main page sections (which obviously haven't been padded to compensate for the imbalance). By "successfully implemented", I believe that NickPenguin was referring to the TAFI transclusion (including the randomization code), which no longer is simulated.
  I agree, of course, that further discussion and planning are needed. Personally, I don't believe that any new section should be added to either column unless and until we're prepared to also add a new section or subsection to the other column. Otherwise, ITN and OTD (especially the former, at which staleness already is a problem) will become badly overloaded. —David Levy 01:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with others that more centralised discussion is needed. On a personal note, I was aware of the discussion but purposely did not join in because I was undecided and the details of how it was going to be implemented were fairly unclear, e.g. there was the concern about edit conflicts and the proposal for randomisation. I therefore assumed one a proper proposal was implemented which I could actualy judge, this would be discussed again as seems to be the norm for serious chages to the main page. I'm not convinced I was the only one in that regard.

Incidentally how was the original discussion particularly the implementation proposals advertised? For example, AFAIK, the advertisiment for here being the main page talk page seemed poor. There was some mention of TAFI here Talk:Main Page/Archive 171#WP:TAFI but that was before the VPP discussion had started. AFAIK, the next mention was Talk:Main Page/Archive 172#WP:TAFI proposal where it was presented as an idea which already had consensus despite not being even mentioned on the talk page of where it was going to be implemented (from memory this is when I became aware of the proposal). While the discussion continued (most of it came after the mention here and the subsequent addition to CENT) this isn't a great form of advertisement. Someone else mentioned that had been no advertisement at WP:CENT, which was later rectified.

I would note while there was some discussion of the implementation details in the VPP discussion, this began after the non-advertisement advertisement here and no one ever told us the discussion had expanded in that way AFAIK. Was it noted at WP:CENT where from the time stamps I think the advertisement was also added before the discussion had expanded? Definitely over half the main line comments to the basic yes/no proposal are timestamped before the discussion began on implementation details although I haven't checked to see how many people in that group left a latter comment such as in the implementation discussion. And if you look at the discussion on the implemented details the participation was rather limited and while I don't think less participation in such nitty gritty is uncommon, it doesn't help if people aren't aware. Remember that there's no reason to expect people are going to hang around a discussion, many leave their comments and don't come back. And some may check out a discussion and decide not to leave comments like I did. Unless it's advertised neither have any way of knowing nor any reason to think, the discussion has expanded, even if the old advert remains in place. Don't get me wrong, it does seem there is consensus for something, but precisely what isn't clear to me and whatever it is, it doesn't seem to be what is shown here.

(In case it isn't clear, I also think this has been an example of how 'not' to propose a change to the main page. This isn't a criticism of anyone involved, simply a suggestion for future proposals, such as for any further discussion on this proposal. Beyond the problems highlighted, I would note there was about 1.5 times the total !votes for Talk:Main Page/Archive 171#GA Main Page slot proposal which failed as there was for the basic yes/no TAFI proposal. I know !vote counting isn't a brilliant method of determining participation, it depends significant on strength of feelings and other factors but it is one gauge. Not that the discussion GA discussion is a great example anyway as it was evidently competing with Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 86#One GA per shift? Jimmy's on board for reforming DYK, a highly related proposal occurring in a different area which got over double the !votes as the one on WT:MP, although that may have also been because it proposed modifying a section.)

Nil Einne (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well. I think we can all agree that my phrasing was less than ideal. I think we can also all agree that something is going on with TAFI that has gone largely unnoticed, but needs to be dealt with more succinctly by the community at large. Having read as many of the background discussions as I can find, my feeling is that there is general support to have TAFI on the Main Page.

However, the more I think about this, the more I feel this is going to get tightly rolled into the Wikipedia talk:2013 main page redesign proposal. Mostly because the current structure has become so rigid and glass-like that any attempt to integrate a new element will be met with difficulty. I also have a feeling that the latest redesign proposal is going to be successful, which is good.

So my question is, how do we proceed? Should we implement something for TAFI on the Main Page in parallel with the Redesign Proposal, or focus solely on the redesign? Truthfully the TAFI process seems to be chugging along, and it would be a waste if the system cannot be fully implemented in the near future. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 07:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Balance wise, don't expect ITN to be able to stretch any longer than it is without fundamental changes to how it works. We just about process one blurb a day. Were the section to be any longer you'd be looking at >1 week old "news" being a regular Main Page feature. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, TFA + DYK is usually longer (sometimes quite a bit longer) than ITN + OTD, so perhaps the solution might be to switch it to the right-hand column? Also it would be easy if necessary to allow a little more length to the TFA blurbs, which are often shortened during the process. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Such placement would have no thematic basis. The left-hand column highlights Wikipedia's most polished articles and newly created/expanded articles, so appending links to articles in need of improvement at the bottom is a natural progression. Conversely, the right-hand column highlights recent events and historical events, so throwing in TAFI would break that theme (and miss an opportunity to expand the other). —David Levy 03:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a rather weak thematic link, imo, between TFA (our best articles) and articles for improvement (some of our worst). Alternatively, how about putting in all ten of the the proposed articles and running it across both columns? Espresso Addict (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a rather weak thematic link, imo, between TFA (our best articles) and articles for improvement (some of our worst)

1. Wikipedia contains far worse articles than those selected for TAFI.

2. I disagree that the thematic link is weak. Since 2006 (when DYK and OTD were swapped for this very reason), the right-hand column has highlighted — from top to bottom — our most polished articles and those for which polishing has just begun. The idea always has been to present both sides of the coin, acknowledging that Wikipedia is perpetually in development, with articles spanning the spectrum. The bottom placement of TAFI (linking to articles that the community is encouraged to begin polishing) is a logical expansion of this theme.

Alternatively, how about putting in all ten of the the proposed articles and running it across both columns?

Even setting aside the aforementioned themes, it makes no sense to divide a single section in that manner. —David Levy 05:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment has anyone notified WT:FPC? --IP98 (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  How does the planned change stand to affect that process? —David Levy 03:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  It doesn't, but they occupy a piece of the main page same as ITN, TFA, DYK and OTD and probably deserve a heads up. --IP98 (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  That section isn't the "same as ITN, TFA, DYK and OTD", as it doesn't appear in either column (and therefore needn't be adjusted to accommodate an addition thereto).
  But I see no harm in leaving a note, so feel free. (And don't forget WT:TFL.) —David Levy 03:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment FWIW My PC is 1024x768. I never see DYK, it's "below the fold" for me. I have no opinion on that, just FYI only. --IP98 (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• The last time we were trying to get the implementation for the TAFI done, it was me who got the CENT notice. But I do not have a clue as to where exactly do we need to be advertising. Can some experienced editor start the necessary centralised proposal/discussion/approval, and get it advertised at all the places it should be, including all the other sections on the main page? (I believe we missed the watchlist notice the last time around). Also, now we need some clear cut consensus as to how exactly things are supposed to go from here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Updated sandbox

I have updated the Main Page Sandbox to bring it back in-line with the original proposal, as well as responding to some of the criticisms presented here. However, I have retained the multiple articles format for a few reasons. One, is that having one article or several generates the same amount of whitespace, so that will be an issue in either case. Two, is to reduce the likelihood of edit conflicts by having only one article up at a time. Three, is to encourage participation by being more likely to have a article interesting to a potential editor. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the minimalist approach (bare links with no blurbs). But we generally avoid the use of phrases like "click here", and any link that reloads a page should be labeled as such (to avoid surprising/confusing readers). I'll make some tweaks. —David Levy 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the current new approach. Keep it short and simple. --Ipigott (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Description of changes:

I replaced the purge link (the behavior of which probably would surprise and confuse readers even if labeled accurately) with a link to the complete list of selections. For the purposes of the mockup, this is located on the weekly subpage, but it could go anywhere (including the main project page) and take whatever format is desired.

The section now contains even less text (greatly reducing the likelihood of it wrapping to a second line, as the previous verson did under my browser configuration), formatted to resemble other main page sections more closely. —David Levy 21:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If we remove the purge link, as far as I know there is no way to generate a different list. Refreshing the page in the browser does not change the list, you have to purge the page with that link. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 08:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the identical link in DYK works. But given the link to the complete list, there's no need to generate a new abbreviated set (an inferior solution that forces users to purge the page repeatedly — scrolling back down each time — before seeing all ten article links).

The randomization's intended purpose is simply to avoid encouraging too many users to edit a single article or small number of articles simultaneously. —David Levy 09:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that your concern probably is that the same cached page will be delivered for long periods. I seem to recall that the actual main page is recached fairly often, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable in this area can weigh in.

If that isn't the case, it should be trivially easy to have a bot purge the page at regular intervals, which surely would be much easier on the servers than it would be to encourage thousands of visitors per minute to do it (even given the small percentage that actually would). —David Levy 09:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a major concern, but yes, I was just worried that the same list would appear for an extended length, and not all the articles would get their time in the sun. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the line "Help Wikipedia and join fellow editors in building _______" ought to be there in the section. We already had consensus for adding that line, and I personally see no reason to be removing it, as it ends up creating further confusion as to what this new section is about.

I personally also prefer a one line description of the article chosen, so anyone can understand what the article is about. (e.g. "A tomboy is a girl who dresses and acts like a boy.") This will be more along the lines of how the other sections have some caption or line about the articles involved. (There was certainly some agreement for the one-line description, though I am not sure if a consensus was formally established). TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a matter of available space (which, as discussed above, is far from abundant).

The process has been renamed "today's articles for improvement" (because multiple articles will be used at a given time), so it no longer makes sense to list only one (which would be quite confusing). But we can't list two or three and include an introductory message without exceeding the agreed-upon amount of text (resulting in its wrap under many more configurations). Likewise, descriptions greatly increased the section's size, prompting the above discussion. —David Levy 09:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be quite a controversial idea, but I wonder if DYK could be asked to limit themselves to 5 hooks. (AFAIK there was previously a system of 5 hooks in 3 queues everyday, which was changed to the current 7/8 in 2 per day. If there is consensus among the community as well as a general agreement in DYK, we might be able to reach some headway on this matter.) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the notion of DYK going back to their previous system of "5 hooks in 3 queues" (as TheOriginalSoni says). It's essentially the same amount of articles so it's not like any more or less work must be done on their part. And that gives Tafi more lines to explain what it is, list the article(s), and provide a nice definition of what it is/they are. I never said this out loud, but I really did love those succinct definitions. A great way to get people hyped, and want to get into editing an article.--Coin945 (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where TheOriginalSoni got those numbers, but I can't recall the last time DYK used 5 hooks. At the moment, we're at 7 hooks 3 times a day, which is a total of 21 hooks per day, and we're just keeping even at the current rate and with a backlog of about 250 hooks under review. These days, DYK tends to cycle between 6 and 8 hooks per set and 2 and 4 sets per day, depending on the number of new and newly expanded articles that are submitted and reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to this, where 6 hooks thrice a day was made to 8 twice a day (which again changed after that). Maybe I confused the number of DYK hooks I thought was ideal (five) with what it previously was (six).

Could there be consensus within DYK to reduce the number of hooks at any given time to 5 or 6? Those extra lines could be very useful for easily solving the question of formatting here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression there was a backlog of hooks. Wouldn't that increase the backlog by reducing the number displayed? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a backlog of hooks (currently 262), and yes, reducing the number of hooks will increase the backlog. As stated above, the current rate (21 per day) is keeping the backlog from growing, but not reducing it. I doubt there would be a consensus to reduce the number of hooks within DYK. I certainly would be opposed to it, and to losing the flexibility to change as the submission level waxes and wanes. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. TAFI has to find its own space. It should not be stealing from other projects. I have suggested in the past, however that the DYK and ITN slots could be candidates for the addition of tabs (along the lines of my mockup here from a previous proposal). Of course, the easiest solution to the TAFI unbalancing problem is to have it stand as a bar that runs across the entire width of the page, below both DYK and OTD. Resolute 05:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As for the multiple article, I personally think that we could change the text to this - "Help Wikipedia and join fellow editors in building _______ - one of Today's articles for improvement". Considering the limitation of the space for TAFI and weighing the potential confusion that might be caused by having a single article, or by having no introductory message, I think the latter has more potential to cause problems. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

As for the multiple article, I personally think that we could change the text to this - "Help Wikipedia and join fellow editors in building _______ - one of Today's articles for improvement".

It isn't an exact science, but with a bit of effort, the setup currently in use on the main page enables us to keep the columns more or less balanced for most readers.

The TAFI draft currently appearing in the sandbox consumes a predictable (and fairly consistent, in terms of its impact on the two columns' balance) amount of space under a wide range of settings. Conversely, a short sentence will wrap for many users and not wrap for many others, so each one added to TAFI will increase the difficulty of maintaining column balance.

Considering the limitation of the space for TAFI and weighing the potential confusion that might be caused by having a single article, or by having no introductory message, I think the latter has more potential to cause problems.

Certainly, readers would be unfamiliar with TAFI, but why would they become confused? Simply clicking through to one of the articles (tagged with the explanatory template) or the complete list (to which even an more detailed explanation could be appended) would provide the necessary information. —David Levy 19:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was a little bit of context for the articles, maybe just two words like Collaborate on: or something that captures that idea. Three links in an otherwise empty box seems a little too minimal. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

How much would such a construct (whether two words or a complete sentence) actually convey? Readers are invited to "collaborate on" and "help Wikipedia by joining fellow editors in building" every article in the encyclopedia.

We already proclaim that "anyone can edit" (complete with a link to Wikipedia:Introduction) at the top of the page. If that prominent message fails to convey the idea to a main page visitor, I don't see how the proposed text will help.

Note that DYK is the only section containing a basic description of its purpose ("from Wikipedia's newest content"). TFA, ITN, OTD, TFP and TFL lack such text, despite being less self-explanatory (and more likely to be misunderstood) than TAFI will be. —David Levy 22:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but all the other sections have some sort of context drivers at the bottom of the sections, linking to the larger projects behind the content. The current version of TAFI is the only section that contains none of these links. I realize the section content is ultimately just a bunch of links, but there are no contextual links links to the feature itself, to show that it is a driven process, not random selections. I guess the "more selections" link is supposed to be the context driver. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that such a link is important. I should have been clearer in noting that the "More selections..." link's current destination is merely a temporary example lacking the full content that would be presented (including a suitable TAFI introduction/explanation). The link could even lead directly to Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement, provided that it's reworked a bit. —David Levy 03:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what others prefer, but being a new section added, I think we should be giving a line of description such as Help Wikipedia and join fellow editors in building _______ - one of Today's articles for improvement under the TAFI section. If it is possible, we could also think of having the extra line of introduction along with the article, so it becomes more clear and concise to the readers what the article is about. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  You made the same comments above. I replied. —David Levy 07:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but either I did not understand what you meant, or you meant something else entirely. I do not see why having several articles with no supporting text is better than one article with supporting text. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  I explained why above. Instead of countering my arguments or requesting clarification, you simply repeated yourself at the bottom of the subsection. —David Levy 21:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  And I said that I did not understand your reply. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  And instead of requesting clarification (thereby enabling me to determine what element[s] you didn't understand and attempt to rectify the matter), you disregarded my input and reposted your comments at the bottom of the subsection. —David Levy 21:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  Instead of going tangentially and not answering the question for 3 consective times, I think you could have simply answered it the second time round. Clearly, I did not regard/realise your reply to be anything but a deviation of topic from what I proposed, and not a direct reply. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  Instead of going tangentially and not answering the question for 3 consective times, I think you could have simply answered it the second time round.
  I've already addressed your points. Unless and until you inform me of which responses (or portions thereof) you don't understand, I have no means of attempting to clarify them (and I see no point in simply repeating myself, which won't make my replies any clearer).
  Clearly, I did not regard/realise your reply to be anything but a deviation of topic from what I proposed, and not a direct reply
  I indented my messages one level below yours. In one instance, I even used a template to quote the individual comments to which I responded (as I've done in this message). —David Levy 22:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  And I've mentioned that I did not understand how you addressed my points. For instance, I still do not see how no description and 3 links is more preferable version and in line with current Main Page sections. Your reply to the same makes no sense at all to the original statement. The second reply is more direct in what it approaches, but still fails to answer the main question behind it- Is it more preferable to be having multiple articles mainly because the project has been now renamed in the plural (Consensus, per se, was for a single article, but thats not a major issue), or to have a single article but with a succinct description, (like all other sections on the main page) so readers less confused on what "that word" means. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  You keep telling me that you don't understand my earlier replies. I realize that. But unless you can be more specific (e.g. by quoting particular comments and explaining what elements don't make sense to you), I don't know how to begin clarifying my points. Sorry. —David Levy 23:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  I seriously do not know if its a genuine case of misunderstanding or I am actually being passively bullied here (which is the feeling I am getting anyways.) I do not understand how anything you said is a possible or even sufficient reply to my statements, and would have much rather preferred that you simply re-state your point in another fashion, so that I'd be better able to understand. I still do not see anything remotely satisfactory to the the doubts I raised. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  I seriously do not know if its a genuine case of misunderstanding or I am actually being passively bullied here (which is the feeling I am getting anyways.)
  I'm sorry that you feel that way. I assure you that I have no desire to bully you. Please assume good faith. (I disagree with you, but I assume that you're acting in good faith.)
  I do not understand how anything you said is a possible or even sufficient reply to my statements, and would have much rather preferred that you simply re-state your point in another fashion, so that I'd be better able to understand.
  I'd like very much to do just that. But without determining where the confusion lies (i.e. what aspects of my replies have led to the communication lapse), I don't know where to begin or how to rephrase my comments. —David Levy 00:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  How hard is it to just try and explain what you said just once again!? Its really getting onto my nerves, the way you tangentially but categorically avoid the main question I try to ask.
  Just simply try to explain whatever you said once again, if possible, in more direct words. I do not see the point of what you said there. Which is why I am unable to understand it, which again is why I cannot pinpoint what the problem is. Because I see everything you said there to be incomprehensible.
  Seriously, if you're going to rephrase yourself, just do it. Otherwise just hat all the conversation that we had that went off-topic, and let someone else answer my question/doubts. I truly do not wish to continue this conversation, and get back to finalising TAFI for the main page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  I replied to your comments as plainly and directly as I know how to. You regard "everything [I] said there to be incomprehensible", and I sincerely don't know where the problem lies or how to rephrase my messages in a manner that would make them clearer. If you could be more specific, perhaps I'd gain a better understanding of where I've gone wrong. Conversely, responses to the effect of "None of what you said made any sense. Try again!" are unhelpful.
  Again, I'm genuinely sorry. I don't mean to mock you or evade your questions. I honestly don't know how to resolve this communication difficulty. —David Levy 14:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  I am out of this conversation. Do you mind hatting everything after the first post where I restated things? I prefer someone else to explain your position or to leave things as is than in continuing this discussion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  I am out of this conversation. Do you mind hatting everything after the first post where I restated things?
  Yes, I do mind. I noted that the same points were addressed above. Hatting that portion of the discussion might lead others to overlook my earlier replies and believe that no one has responded to your comments.
  I don't object to hatting the entire exchange (including your 06:49, 10 February 2013 message) or everything after my 07:17, 10 February 2013 message. —David Levy 14:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As a bar across the page

What's wrong with Resolute's suggestion (which I actually thought of independently although can't remember if I expressed) of "Of course, the easiest solution to the TAFI unbalancing problem is to have it stand as a bar that runs across the entire width of the page, below both DYK and OTD [and above - or maybe below - TFP]."?--Coin945 (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a sensible idea, but it's inconsistent with the decision reached in the aforementioned discussion, so we'd need to establish consensus for a significantly different approach (an alternative layout requiring a larger amount of content to justify the use of a standalone, full-width box).

TAFI could appear six days per week, with TFL taking its place on Monday. (The TAFI selections are the same for a full week, so skipping Monday is preferable to cluttering it. And Monday happens to be the day on which the TAFI selections change, so that actually would provide a helpful opportunity for the project's members to switch over to the new set and make sure that everything is ready.) —David Levy 14:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you need to change the approach too much. The mock up above had two TAFI links in it one on top of the other. In this case, you could put them side by side. Resolute 20:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean that to justify the addition of a dedicated box, we'd need to expand beyond the short line of text approved by the community (e.g. by including more selections and restoring the blurbs present when this discussion began).

This wouldn't be difficult. The question is whether the community prefers it over the original (relatively low-key) approach. —David Levy 21:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Check out this diff page from Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/main page placement for an example of a bar across the page. (Note: on this page, the TAFI area would actually be above the "From today's featured list" area.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a layout example.

Today's articles for improvement Foobar is one of today's articles for improvement. You can help! Example image The terms foobar, fubar, or foo, bar, baz and qux (alternatively quux) are sometimes used as placeholder names (also referred to as metasyntactic variables) in computer programming or computer-related documentation. (Full article...)

This would solve the problem of uneven columns between TAFI and "On this day" entries in entirety. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support the above with the purge option. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

(I've struck my support here, in support of a different version below in the discussion. However, I still like the layout style here.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Like--Coin945 (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Like Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Here's ALT 1: Sans the purge option. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement Foobar is one of today's articles for improvement. You can help! Example image The terms foobar, fubar, or foo, bar, baz and qux (alternatively quux) are sometimes used as placeholder names (also referred to as metasyntactic variables) in computer programming or computer-related documentation. (Full article...)

Proposal

Stick to the formating of the TAFI (specific number of hooks and overall length/space) as approaved by consensus of the general community and place,as originally aproved, to the left and add an empty green header bar to the right with no text and no prose below. I recommend implementation of the "Today's Article For improvement" even if it has to be done by leaving an empty space in the lower righthand section. I trust the good faith and work of editors here, but the local consensus on this talkpage should not hold up the overall general community consensus to add TAFI to the main page. I know it needs to be done right, but it also may need to just be done - one way or another, with the understanding that the main page may need further adjusting.

I disagree that this needs to be held up until a solution is found, but I also feel I should provide a suggestion towards that solution anyway. The blank green bar is the most neutral manner of balancing the new addition on the left, but is it even needed? It could be left blank for now. Holding this up for the sake of balance is like saying it cannot be implemented until another new feature is decided on for the opposite side of the page. That won't happen, I'm sure, but....... there is another sister project to TAFI. we could look to the general community again to see if they would like to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week to the right hand side column. This project was suggested during the discussion to bring TAFI to the Main Page. At any rate, just my two cents.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Stick to the formating of the TAFI (specific number of hooks and overall length/space) as approaved by consensus of the general community and place,as originally aproved, to the left and add an empty green header bar to the right with no text and no prose below.

A blank heading with empty space below it? What would that accomplish? And why would it be green?

I recommend implementation of the "Today's Article For improvement" even if it has to be done by leaving an empty space in the lower righthand section. I trust the good faith and work of editors here, but the local consensus on this talkpage should not hold up the overall general community consensus to add TAFI to the main page.

That consensus doesn't trump the longstanding consensus to balance the two columns (which wasn't adequately taken into account). We're attempting to find a feasible means of honoring both.

I know it needs to be done right, but it also may need to just be done - one way or another, with the understanding that the main page may need further adjusting.

We don't rush content on to the site's most viewed page before it's ready. It's much more important to present the material well than it is to present it immediately.

The blank green bar is the most neutral manner of balancing the new addition on the left, but is it even needed?

I don't even know what purpose it's intended to serve.

It could be left blank for now.

That certainly seems more sensible than an empty section does. But as discussed above, even padding ITN and/or OTD, while not ideal, is preferable to imbalance.

Holding this up for the sake of balance is like saying it cannot be implemented until another new feature is decided on for the opposite side of the page.

Alternatives have been suggested.

That won't happen, I'm sure, but....... there is another sister project to TAFI. we could look to the general community again to see if they would like to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week to the right hand side column. This project was suggested during the discussion to bring TAFI to the Main Page.

Similar ideas have been proposed (and rejected) on multiple occasions. —David Levy 23:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A blank heading with empty space below it? What would that accomplish? And why would it be green?

I believe he meant just simple blank blue space on the right. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

He/she mentioned that (as a possible alternative) later in the message. I was addressing the suggestion that we "add an empty green header bar to the right with no text and no prose below". —David Levy 00:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

TheOriginalSoni is correct. I meant to say blue empty header box. The purpose is graphic balance.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

An "empty header box" (whether green or blue) is not the same as "just simple blank blue space".

The latter would arise by adding TAFI to the left-hand column and doing nothing else. You mentioned this as another possibility, and it would be preferable to the creation of an empty section. But as discussed above, better options exist. —David Levy 00:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If you feel one of the above options is preferred I can undertand that.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The balancing of the columns

Just to make sure, everyone here does realise that on any sized version of the main page other than at specific size parameters, the columns are not alligned, right? Every time i access the main page on my phone or itouch (when i want to edit, that is, not when i want to just view - I'll use the 'mobile' version for that), there are chunks of white space dangling at the bottom. And guess what? I don't care. I don't think anyone cares. Yes, it is nice if we can get both colomns to balance, but the fact of the matter is, it's pretty darn impossible, and i see no reason why they have to. They never used to have to until we make the decision to... oh i can't remember when it was. But the point is, I think this thing might be being enforced by people who are a touch too anal. I'll reiterate. On the whole noone cares. If we make the change, and get distressed letters from our fans..ermm..readers about how distraught they are over the patch of white emptiness that stares into their soul, then maybe we can do something about it. Secondly, this 'white space' occurs at the moment, on many platforms, and when you like your internet on a permanently scrolled in or out version. Therefore, I argue that this whole white space issue is white noise, and we should just get on with it. I'm not asking you to hold up the white flag, or trying to make this discussion go white hot...and that's not a white lie. (sorry.. i'm stuck on this colour phrase website at the moment...). The point is, that, yeah, I think we're ready to go up. A little white space never harmed anyone! (well, unless you swatted a fly with a blank sheet of paper.. in which case an A4 sized white space critically hurt a fly... :/).--Coin945 (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And guess what? I don't care.

Others do.

I don't think anyone cares.

Please speak for yourself.

They never used to have to until we make the decision to... oh i can't remember when it was.

It was a major concern during the 2006 redesign, so it's been at least that long.

But the point is, I think this thing might be being enforced by people who are a touch too anal.

Right, denigrate those who disagree with you. That's constructive.

I'll reiterate. On the whole noone cares.

...excepting those of us who are anal.

Secondly, this 'white space' occurs at the moment, on many platforms, and when you like your internet on a permanently scrolled in or out version.

Admins (myself included) strive to minimize the white space as much as possible. As noted above, the longstanding layout enables us to keep the columns more or less balanced for most readers.

Indeed, people's settings vary greatly, so the balance will never be perfect or 100% consistent, but we generally manage to keep it within an acceptable range under most configurations. Inserting TAFI without compensating for its addition would worsen the balance. That won't happen (because admins will continue to compensate for imbalance), but when this discussion began, the version displayed in the sandbox would have caused significantly greater difficulty. —David Levy 07:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Options

Lets take a step back and look at our options for implementing the design discussed at the Village pump, where TAFI goes beneath DYK on the left hand side. Doing this generates too much blank space on the right hand side. As I see it, the only way to put TAFI on the left hand side is to do at least one of the following things:

1. Decrease the space for Today's Featured Article
2. Decrease the space for Did You Know?
3. Increase the space for In The News
4. Increase the space for On This Day

As far as I know, we have categorically eliminated option 2 because it would put DYK even further behind their backlog. And we have tentatively eliminated increasing ITN and OTD because there is not enough content to be viable in the long term. I am left with the following options:

1. We implement by decreasing space for Today's Featured Article
2. We add one item to each of ITN and OTD in the short term, and after TAFI matures with it's Main Page exposure, we reevaluate it's position in a month or two. This may coincide with the 2013 Main Page Redesign
3. We propose another method of implementation, such as a full page width bar, and seek consensus to implement TAFI in that manner. This would require another RFC which may or may not succeed.

I know I might be creating a false dilemma here, but the only truly viable option I see is number two where ITN and OTD add one additional item. This is the simplest solution to get the implementation completed. Note Today's version of the Main Page (Feb 11th) doesn't have any whitespace problems at all with the current implementation. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If there is no issue with the current sandbox should that be implemented?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The mock-up at the beginning of this section created an imbalance that was very difficult to rectify within the current framework. This latest version is substantially easier to balance, requiring only about two additional blurbs between ITN and OTD. I think it's conceivable that ITN and OTD could handle that on a daily basis. -- tariqabjotu 04:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the problem that there is too much of a backlog in DYK? Why not put TAFI on the right hand side, and add some hooks to DYK, which would reduce the backlog, and help the balance. MChesterMC (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This was addressed above. —David Levy 09:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Which does not really remove the possibility of such an option. I personally would have no problems with such a proposal. There might be others who concur too. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Which does not really remove the possibility of such an option.

Nor did I claim that it does. I simply noted that a relevant discussion thread (including a response to the question asked) exists above. —David Levy 14:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We did go over moving DYK to the right hand side and it was categorically eliminated. The left hand side is for featuring article type content, the right hand side for event type content. With the current structure in place, and the idea of changing it a significantly larger problem than is necessary to tackle with this problem, I suggest we leave it alone. TAFI fits into the category of content on the left, so it should go on the left

Anyways, getting back to things. I propose we do a more specific announcement with ITN and OTD, contact some people involved with the project and such, and let them know about the proposal to increase each item to one extra hook per day. If that is deemed an acceptable option, then I propose we do that and implement on the Main Page, it being the simplest method to accomplish that goal. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN has no set number of blurbs. We routinely adjust the quantity to improve the columns' balance. As one of the admins who handles this (and Tariqabjotu is another), I can tell you that a single extra blurb isn't a big deal.

OTD is managed primarily by Howcheng. It typically contains five blurbs, but quantity adjustments sometimes occur there too (as noted in the documentation), so apart from a small number of dates with a shortage of eligible articles, it shouldn't be a problem there either. —David Levy 15:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well I will post another blurb on the ITN and OTD pages, with details of this proposal and a specific link to this section. If you or someone else is aware of the specific people who should be directly contacted, please leave them a message on their talk pages directing them here. Once we have confirmation that the other two affected projects have no major concerns, then we can establish a firm start date and launch on the Main Page. Update: I have posted invitations. Please invite specific people to comment as well. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• From an ITN point of view, the spacing should not be an issue, as ITN doesn't have any fixed number of blurbs at all. ITN is generally the most flexible section, and blurbs will be removed, or old blurbs brought back, as needed to keep the main page balanced. It shouldn't affect the day-to-day functioning of ITN one iota, excepting that the oldest blurb is likely to be a day or two older than it currently is, but that's a small consideration. User:Howcheng and anyone else that pitches in at OTD is likely in for a bit more work, as that has a set number of blurbs for each day, and rarely changes off of five; ensuring that OTD has an extra blurb each day is going to require a bit more extra work than ITN will need, which is negligible. --Jayron32 05:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  OTD lists are updated annually, with some or all of the items rotated in and out. On all but a few dates (for which shortages of eligible articles exist), including an additional item requires virtually no extra work; one of the blurbs that would have been swapped out can simply be retained, with only a modicum of effort to ensure that it isn't topically similar to one of those being swapped in (something that already occurs). Alternatively, an additional blurb can be swapped in, but this isn't required.
  I'm prepared to assist in this area, in which I as fairly active in the past. (Until recently, the TFA blurbs were less consistent in length, so I sometimes expanded OTD to reduce the need to restore old ITN items.) —David Levy 05:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

People often complain here about how long "news" is retained in ITN as it is! I don't think leaving items there longer is going to be popular with main-page readers. OTD has been short by one item in the current layout (at least in my setup) for ages, so to balance, two new items would probably be ideal. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

For most dates, that's a viable option. —David Levy 07:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see why it's quite so unthinkable just to put TAFI in the right-hand column, per my earlier suggestion. It could always be styled so as to make it clear it belongs in a separate content theme. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Placing TAFI in the right-hand column isn't "unthinkable". Maintaining/expanding the existing themes is simply better. —David Levy 07:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It is going to be a million times easier to get this implemented if we stick with the left hand side below DYK scenario because a) it has been approved by the community, and b) we don't have to call an RFC, throw out the approved proposal, and vote on a new proposal that may not pass.

It seems to be the case that everyone agrees on implementing TAFI on the Main Page. It also seems to be the case that everyone wants to implement their particular flavour of TAFI on the Main Page. The reality is that only one flavour has been approved: left hand side below DYK. We need to make that approved proposal work. Then, after everyone gets used to it on the Main Page, and the process becomes successful, only then should we start proposing bigger changes, like maybe having it's own section. Maybe part of a section called "How to be an editor", with introductory instructions and some suggested articles to improve. Maybe we include one GA each week. But that kind of thinking depends on getting it on the Main Page first. Maybe we have a mini-WikiCup for TAFI. Little steps. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe I stated earlier that there are one or two days where there are only five eligible articles, so those are the days when OTD would not be able to expand at all to fill the extra space. Then there are a handful of days where there are less than 3 eligible backup blurbs, so we may have a difficult time if TFA and/or DYK happen to be long on those days (meaning we'd be showing 7 items at least). Would there be an objection to hiding TAFI when necessary? —howcheng {chat} 01:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I had never considered simply hiding TAFI when necessary, that would certainly work. If there is any way you could generate a shortlist of days that only have 5 eligible articles, earlier we had a great idea presented where TAFI could work to improve OTD articles. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Hiding TAFI when necessary sounds like a fine option, as long as it is temporary and absolutely required (for the given day). Hiding it once a week on an average would be fine for me, but more than that probably wouldn't. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

TAFI moving forward?

Here are links to the Village pump discussions:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 97#Editor recruitment with TAFI
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Unanswered questions - TAFI

I've updated the Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox to better reflect consensus for TAFI's layout per the discussion at archive 97 above. Consensus was to have one TAFI listing, rather than the three that are currently present at the sandbox page. I feel that there should be at least some sort of randomization regarding entries that are listed when editors open the Main page, since at least 7 TAFI entries will be existent. I support either a purge option or a link to the entries as is currently at the sandbox page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've undone your edit, which increased the section's size to two lines.

As discussed above, the main page already contains a prominent invitation to edit articles (which applies to all of them, not merely those selected via the TAFI process), and the "More selections..." link would lead to Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement or a related page containing a suitable introduction (in addition to the template included in each of the articles). —David Levy 08:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And I've undone yours. Why don't we start with the proposal that was community approved, and then let consensus decide what it should or should not be, than forcing our own proposal onto others.

The current consensus was that TAFI should have a single line of its own, and I would rather see it being changed by consensus only. As for "the main page already contains a prominent invitation to edit articles", I think that this applies more to articles in the TAFI than those outside; since those are already reasonably developed enough to require a special invitation to edit. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

And I've undone yours. Why don't we start with the proposal that was community approved, and then let consensus decide what it should or should not be, than forcing our own proposal onto others.

The version that you removed from the sandbox was the product of discussion and collaboration, both here and at the TAFI talk page.

The current consensus was that TAFI should have a single line of its own, and I would rather see it being changed by consensus only.

Then why did you just revert from a single-line layout (created to incorporate the collaborative improvements made at the TAFI talk page, while honoring the consensus regarding the section's size) to a two-line layout?

As for "the main page already contains a prominent invitation to edit articles", I think that this applies more to articles in the TAFI than those outside; since those are already reasonably developed enough to require a special invitation to edit.

Sorry, I don't understand. Users are invited to edit every article in the encyclopedia. —David Levy 18:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Users are invited to edit every article in the encyclopedia.

Yes. We are. But I would argue that the message "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is so small that we all kind of skim over it. And even if we read it, it wouldnt mean much. The name of this encyclopedia is "Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia". And that is what it has become. The place for school students to come to get the neat concise answers to their next assignment. Even if someone did decide they were going to edit an article, they would probably have to spend ages pressing the randomise button or searching through endles stub lists until they found something of interest. This has happened to me and more often than lot I've lost interest as a result. This is not just saying 'yes. you are theoretically able to edit any article you so choose', but rather 'hey, guess what? this is a bunch of articles that you'd probably be interested in and that need a lot of work. though many will say that everything you'd possibly want to work on has already been made a GA or FA by now is false, and TAFI is here to prove it. please don't hesitate to come by and lend your knowledge and expertise to these articles which may take your fancy'. Long story short, we are not saying you are technically allowed to edit these articles (as that message implies), but really encouraging people to get involved. That is the semantic difference here.--Coin945 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand and support the idea behind TAFI. I don't mean to suggest that every article in the encyclopedia presents the same opportunity to engage in improvement.

My point is that the main page already contains a prominent message — linked to Wikipedia:Introduction — informing readers that they can edit the encyclopedia'a articles. So a heading labeled "today's articles for improvement" conveys the concept that the articles linked below have been selected as prime candidates for improvement. There's no need to tell readers that they're invited to edit said articles, as they're included in the existing invitation. We need only advise them that these articles are especially suitable choices, which the heading accomplishes on its own.

And again, there's no consensus for a two-line layout, and the actual "More selections..." link would lead to the same page. —David Levy 18:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Our main point is that the general introduction does not really do a lot to make the potential editor realise that they can actually help the encyclopedia. While we claim to be "An encyclopedia that everyone can edit", most of the topics that would garner general interest are woefully "perfect" and do not really invite many editors.

Because TAFI is specially designed to attract editors to edit not-our-best articles which would still invite a lot of interest, a separate line of the same for TAFI makes more sense, regardless of the redundancy.

And again, there's no consensus for a two-line layout.

There was no decision in the original discussion as to how many lines we would have. What was discussed was "what those lines would be". In both these cases, we had an original decision, and I would like to see a good reason before we deviate from it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Our main point is that the general introduction does not really do a lot to make the potential editor realise that they can actually help the encyclopedia.

If that's so, we need to fix it. This is one of the most important facts to convey.

While we claim to be "An encyclopedia that everyone can edit", most of the topics that would garner general interest are woefully "perfect" and do not really invite many editors.

As stated above, I understand the issue and support the idea behind TAFI. But the plan doesn't call for us to perpetuate the misconception that most articles are "perfect" and off-limits to improvement.

As I said, if the message at the top of the page is failing to make potential editors realize that they can actually help the encyclopedia, we need to fix it. Implying that their participation is restricted to a handful of specially selected articles is one of the worst things that we could do.

Because TAFI is specially designed to attract editors to edit not-our-best articles which would still invite a lot of interest, a separate line of the same for TAFI makes more sense, regardless of the redundancy.

I don't assert that such a line makes no sense (though I'm confident that we could come up with something better than "improving one of today's articles for improvement"). It's a matter of priority. Given the need to minimize the section's size (reflected in the above discussion, in which it's noted that even a single-line version presents issues), we can't afford to double it for the sake of appending a redundant message.

And I'll again point out that DYK is the only section containing a basic description of its purpose ("from Wikipedia's newest content"). TFA, ITN, OTD, TFP and TFL lack such text, despite being less self-explanatory (and more likely to be misunderstood) than TAFI will be.

Of course, I don't oppose the idea of placing TAFI in a full-width box, thereby sidestepping the column balance issue and enabling the inclusion of significantly more content.

There was no decision in the original discussion as to how many lines we would have.

As mentioned early in this discussion, in the mockup, the section (not counting the heading) consumed a single line.

What was discussed was "what those lines would be". In both these cases, we had an original decision, and I would like to see a good reason before we deviate from it.

The above discussion demonstrates "a good reason" to minimize the section's size (assuming that it appears in a column). —David Levy 10:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said, if the message at the top of the page is failing to make potential editors realize that they can actually help the encyclopedia, we need to fix it. Implying that their participation is restricted to a handful of specially selected articles is one of the worst things that we could do.

Please note I mentioned "most topics that would garner general interest", and not "most topics". That being said, I really don't see how we imply that the participation of editors could be or would be restricted to a handful of articles. What we want to show is that editors can actually edit these articles, starting with TAFI. Until we agree upon an appropriate change to the general introduction, there is no need to not have the special introduction for TAFI. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't insert replies into my actual messages (thereby orphaning most segments from my signature). I've refactored your posts to instead quote the text to which they respond.

You've yet to demonstrate that the current invitation fails to convey the intended message. On what do you base this assertion?

If you're correct, text inviting users to edit specially selected articles would exacerbate the problem. (To be clear, I'm referring strictly to a scenario in which the current invitation is inadequate; I don't mean that a TAFI-specific invitation inherently would have this effect.) —David Levy 12:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Then why did you just revert from a single-line layout to a two-line layout?

When I said single line, I meant that there be a single line describing TAFI, which, is indeed what has been already agreed.

The version that you removed from the sandbox was the product of discussion and collaboration, both here and at the TAFI talk page.

First thing - Discussion is not consensus. Second thing - The fact that NA used a different layout, I reverted to that layout, and Coin said in favour of that shows that consensus is not in favour of your most preffered layout. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

When I said single line, I meant that there be a single line describing TAFI, which, is indeed what has been already agreed.

Not counting the heading, the section's mockup included a single line, period.

First thing - Discussion is not consensus.

Indeed, but it's the source thereof. I'm responding to your "forcing our own proposal onto others" remark by pointing out that I haven't acted unilaterally. I collaborated with others to revise the draft in a manner reflecting the community's concerns. You needn't agree with the result or support its implementation, but there's no need to condemn the efforts behind it.

Second thing - The fact that NA used a different layout, I reverted to that layout, and Coin said in favour of that shows that consensus is not in favour of your most preffered layout.

Firstly, "consensus" ≠ "unanimity".

Secondly, have you read the entire discussion (including the calls to minimize the section's size)?

Thirdly, I don't assert that the specific layout in question is backed by consensus (which can't be gauged without additional feedback). I assert that it has the potential (perhaps after additional tweaking), while the layout to which you reverted fails to account for the aforementioned size concern. —David Levy 10:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Not counting the heading, the section's mockup included a single line, period.

The mockup included a line of decription, which was agreed upon by everyone. Unilaterally removing it over supposed concerns of redundancy is not the way to go. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Again, the mockup contained a total of one line.

2. Again, my edits were collaborative, not unilateral.

3. Again, the text was removed due to space constraints, not redundancy. (I've cited the latter to explain the prioritization.) —David Levy 12:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm responding to your "forcing our own proposal onto others" remark by pointing out that I haven't acted unilaterally. I collaborated with others to revise the draft in a manner reflecting the community's concerns. You needn't agree with the result or support its implementation, but there's no need to condemn the efforts behind it.

Reverting others' efforts to try and improve the layout, and completely ignoring other concerns on the same is a bad form to approach things. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed said concerns continually. I'm addressing them right now. You needn't agree with me, but on what do you base the assertion that I'm "completely ignoring" this input?

Conversely, your reversion to a two-line layout ignores the concerns regarding space constraints. —David Levy 12:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't assert that the specific layout in question is backed by consensus (which can't be gauged without additional feedback). I assert that it has the potential (perhaps after additional tweaking), while the layout to which you reverted fails to account for the aforementioned size concern.

Removing all description lines is not the only way to minimize the sections. What is the problem with having a single article instead of 3? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I explained the problem below. (Are you skipping parts of the discussion?) I'll copy and paste what I wrote:

Even if the number of article links were reduced to one, such an addition would increase the section size's variability and the likelihood of the text wrapping to a second line.

—David Levy 12:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Do I read you correct when you are saying that one link is more likely to wrap to a second line, than three? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that isn't what I mean. I'm referring to the difference in the combined text (three article links vs. one article link and the proposed sentence). —David Levy 13:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The current layout has 3 articles + sentence; which wraps to 2 lines. If we reduce it to 1 link+ sentence, I think we can wrap to a single line in almost all cases. What will be the problem with that? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You might not realize that this is highly dependent upon a user's configuration (screen resolution, text size, window size, etc.). So what you (or I) see isn't necessarily the same as what someone else sees.

I've tested various layouts under a variety of settings. The version containing three article links and no sentence remains a single line under extreme conditions. The version containing one article link and a sentence does not; it appears as a single line under my usual configuration (and presumably yours), but it wraps to a second line under other settings realistically in use.

In one respect, this actually is worse than a setup resulting in two lines for everyone, as it impedes efforts to counter column imbalance. —David Levy 14:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Layout

Present layout as per Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox (as of this post):

• Somewhat support (for now) - Succinct and functional; doesn't overextend the length of the left column on the Main page. Just add in as a prefix to the entries to provide some context: "Help Wikipedia by improving one of Today's articles for improvement:" Perhaps consider only listing one TAFI entry for starters. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  (I've struck my support here, in support of a different version below in the discussion). Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Even if the number of article links were reduced to one, such an addition would increase the section size's variability and the likelihood of the text wrapping to a second line.
  And as noted above, the "More selections..." link is intended to lead to Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement (or whatever future page best serves as an introduction to readers), so a second link would be redundant (as would inviting readers to "improve" an article for improvement). —David Levy 14:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternate layout ideas

• Here's some layout ideas. They add more lines, but they also provide more context. I'm aware of the discussions about limiting the size of the TAFI area. These are just some ideas; possibly for future reference. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

ALT 1

ALT 2

ALT 3

Today's articles for improvement Foobar is one of today's articles for improvement. You can help! Example image The terms foobar, fubar, or foo, bar, baz and qux (alternatively quux) are sometimes used as placeholder names (also referred to as metasyntactic variables) in computer programming or computer-related documentation. (Full article...)

• {{suppport)) I like this one the best. but I think it should have a purge button as well as a "more selections" one. If we decide to go with another version, I still think we should keep the wording here: "Foobar is one of today's articles for improvement. You can help!".--Coin945 (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  Comment - I actually prefer ALT 3, because it provides space for a link to WP TAFI and an area for a topic summary for articles that are listed. However, consensus at the Village pump discussions was for TAFI entries to be listed in the left column of Main page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  As noted above, the current version's "More selections..." link would lead to WP:TAFI (or whatever future page best serves as an introduction to readers). —David Levy 14:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Leaning Support Comment - I like this one better, but consensus would need to be obtained for it to be implemented. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(I've struck my support here, in support of a different version below in the discussion). Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

As discussed on the TAFI talk page, if the section appears in a column, including an image is infeasible. (Some of the articles lack suitable images and others have images of varying proportions. Given the randomization, this would cause the section's size to fluctuate from one moment to the next, making balancing the columns impossible.)
I've changed the full-width version from purple to pink (its most likely color scheme if implemented). —David Levy 09:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

An easy fix is to simply omit images for the time being, although images do add eye appeal and draw attention to the subject. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, omitting the image would eliminate that issue (though the layouts in question still would consume significantly more space). —David Levy 14:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to implement

Since we have received input from ITN and OTD, I am proposing the implementation of this version of the Main Page, with TAFI located on the left hand side below DYK. The specifics of this proposal are as follows:

1. The section will contain only links to three articles, and a link to another page containing the full list and project related information
2. The three articles are randomly selected from subpages, which are preloaded on dated subpages in the Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/ space (for example, Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/8/1). The subpages are prepared in advanced.
3. The whitespace issue will be monitored by interested admins, and content will be added and removed on the right hand side as necessary. If ITN and OTD cannot provide enough items, TAFI will be omitted for that day.

I find this version to be the closest to the spirit of the originally approved proposal. It is important to note that no one at these discussion has said that they do not want to put TAFI on the Main Page in principle. All of the reasons not to put it on the Main Page have strictly been about formatting issues. Although this version may not be exactly as originally proposed, or everyone's favourite method of implementation, it is the closest we can get to the original proposal while still minimizing the potential for formatting issues. Thus this version has the widest appeal, and is the most easily acceptable compromise. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Here's what the current layout looks like (from Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox as of this post). Note how random entry generation is in place when the page is purged, in which new entries are displayed (try it out at the sandbox page by purging the page):

Maybe we should just proceed with this layout for now, because it would fit. I strongly recommend using mid-dots between entries, {{•}} which creates  • , rather than mdashes as above, because mdashes are typically used to denote interjections or parenthetical notions in writing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Go for it. --Jayron32 04:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see a consensus from the broader community for this. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What would you consider to be the broader community, in this case? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe because everyone's lost interest in this discusison by now. That's what always seems to happen when important discussions become walls of text. FYI, this isn't the format I would have chosen (I find it very distant and vague), but bad TAFI is better than no TAFI, right? Once it's implemented, we can iron out all the creases.--Coin945 (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sven Manguard, in the event you are unaware of previous discussions, there was consensus for TAFI to be presented on the Main page. For context, please see:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 97#Editor recruitment with TAFI
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Unanswered questions - TAFI

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that "I didn't agree with this myself earlier" is not a synonym for "no consensus" nor is "I didn't hear about this earlier". Not sure which option Sven is expressing here, but either way, consensus for this has been clear at every step along the way, and there have been widespread, very visible discussions. --Jayron32 16:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Gee thanks Jayron32, because of course needlessly being an asshole is the correct way to go about rebutting an oppose vote. As to the comment that warrants a response, no, Northamerica1000, I had not seen Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 97#Editor recruitment with TAFI. I had only seen this page, which looks like it has only have a dozen participants. I think that the consensus there is strong enough for this to go forward, so I am striking my oppose. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sven: thanks for checking in. Happy editing, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion contains multiple references/links to the previous discussion and subsections thereof. I don't see how Jayron32 was "being an asshole" by assuming that you'd read at least some of it (including the first message) before opposing the proposal.
To be clear, I appreciate your follow-up and don't hold an honest mistake against you. But the error was yours (and regardless, there's no need for name-calling). —David Levy 18:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record Sven, I laughed. Anyways, everything's all good now. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support, for the reasons explained by NickPenguin.
  I realize that this layout might not seem ideal to everyone, but we need to minimize the disruption to other sections of the main page (and the maintenance thereof). Everyone here is acting in good faith, but most of the counter-proposals appear to stem from insufficient familiarity with the issues faced, including the variability caused by differences in local configurations. (In other words, what you see on your end or I see on my end isn't necessarily what others see on their ends.) —David Levy 09:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Y Support. Let's move forward. I prefer using mid-dots between entries rather than mdashes. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  They're en dashes (not em dashes). And as noted below, we use them for this purpose in the other main page sections. I don't oppose the use of either symbol in principle, but we should utilize one or the other consistently. —David Levy 09:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  I see. After checking out Main page, yes, this is how listed entries are formatted (E.g. Recently featured articles at the bottom of "From today's featured article".) Consistency is certainly important. Thanks for the clarification. Struck some of my comments above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Per Coin, something is better than nothing. We can sort out the smaller problems later. Right now, we need to look at the many problems hitting us as we reach the Main page. Of course, I am hoping that we have the option to change the format again if required. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, that option always exists; nothing is set in stone. —David Levy 09:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Alternate 2 does a much better job explaining TAFI. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Firstly, please explain how the sentence adds any information that otherwise isn't conveyed. Secondly, please address the space/balance issue. —David Levy 12:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Fortunately, future changes can occur. It appears to be functional at this time to work with this simple layout, which can be easily implemented on the Main page in a timely manner. After this, adjustments, addition of links, etc. can be enacted per future discussion on this talk page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  In particular, if the TAFI section works well, the community may be open to the idea of relocating it to a full-width box (most likely shared with TFL, which appears only on Mondays), thereby sidestepping the column balance issue and enabling the inclusion of a great deal more content. —David Levy 18:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Seems like the best compromise, given all the considerations discussed above, and it can always be changed/improved later. - Evad37 (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with above. Time to implement.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is the time and the format/placement appears to make the most sense. Let's try it out. Jusdafax 21:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Looks like a good start for TAFI-on-the-main-page. 80.229.43.89 (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support don't see why not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Move to close This has been flogged enough. The numerous discussions given on this proposal has given editors ample opportunity to raise their objections, the bulk of which are variations on a flavour. Since the structure is already in place and well tested, I move we implement on the earliest and most convenient Monday. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  Note: One loose end is the issue regarding the main page's cache. As discussed, I've posted a request for a bot to purge it at regular intervals. —David Levy 18:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  Edit to prevent archiving. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  I've asked about requesting http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=purge once an hour every 15 minutes at the bot request. Neo Poz (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Proposal - Does anyone mind changing the more selections to point to the TAFI main page? We can change the words appropriately, but I would much rather prefer the potential reader of this column to be able to directly access a page which explains the scope of the section in a single click, than 2. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat oppose having "More selections" link directly to the project page, because TAFI's main page includes nominations, etc., rather than entries that have been scheduled as actual Today's articles for improvement. I do like the notion of a link to TAFI being available in the Main page box somewhere, but it may not be feasible at this time due to space constraints. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The plan is to either link to a new page or rework WP:TAFI's content accordingly (with the nominations subpage no longer transcluded there). The latter is more intuitive and consistent with the other main page sections' project pages. —David Levy 10:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

As explained in the discussion, that's exactly what's planned. The current target is a temporary example, linked because a suitable target page (containing a TAFI introduction and the full article list) hasn't been created yet. —David Levy 10:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The TAFI page does contain a full description and a list of articles (to the right) at the top. What it does is to have a lot more content lower down, which might be slightly counter to what should be. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The description focuses on project coordination. It should be replaced with a reader-friendly introduction focusing on article improvement. (Most of the page's current content should be relocated to a coordination subpage.) —David Levy 11:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have boldly moved most of the content from the main TAFI page to Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Coordination, and added that link into the tabbed header. We should work on the main TAFI page until that one is all fixed up and appropriate to be linked form the Main Page. As an aside, the box with all the current articles that Northamerica1000 whipped up looks pretty sweet. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternates

• Additional options, sans the example image and with TAFI information to provide context. Notice how the lengths of each column are balanced in the example layout below the alternates. See also: Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/main page placement. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

ALT 1 – with 1 TAFI entry:

ALT 2 – with 3 TAFI entries:

• Support Comment - This provides context about what TAFI is, and I like the notion of editors having three article choices from the start. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The main concern delaying implementation is the amount of space consumed (and resultant column balance issues). This version is displayed as at least two lines (double the length), and it will wrap to three lines (triple the length) for many users. (As discussed above, this is highly dependent upon a user's configuration — screen resolution, text size, window size, etc. — so what you saw and screen-captured isn't necessarily what others would see.) It also incorporates interpuncts in a manner inconsistent with the other sections (where dashes are used).
  The example image below, while undoubtedly presented in good faith, is misleading. It apparently is intended to illustrate that the proposed layout doesn't interfere with column balance, but this is subject to the aforementioned variability issue. (The columns were balanced on your end, but that doesn't mean that they would be balanced for other users.) Also, it relies on the addition of two extra items to OTD (despite the explanation by Howcheng, the section's primary maintainer, that it isn't always feasible to add one), with no indication of what's been added to ITN (where we already have a staleness problem).
  And this is all for the sake of appending a single sentence (which, as discussed above, is redundant and would link to the same page as the "More selections..." link). —David Levy 08:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support This makes it much clearer what TAFI is. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Firstly, please explain how the sentence adds any information that otherwise isn't conveyed. Secondly, please address the space/balance issue. —David Levy 12:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Firstly, this alternate actually contains a link to the TAFI page. Secondly, I don't see a space/balance issue. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Did you read the discussion (or even the message directly above yours)? —David Levy 20:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Based on the picture below, there isn't a space/balance issue. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  You still haven't read it. —David Levy 21:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  I did read it and I don't see your concern. It isn't that big of an issue. I just prefer the wording on this one. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  I explained that the picture below is misleading, as it doesn't accurately depict the page's appearance for all users and relies upon the inclusion of an infeasible quantity of OTD (and probably ITN) items to achieve the balance shown. So while you can't see a space/balance issue in that image, it exists.
  I also noted that the "More selections..." link is intended to lead to the same page linked via the proposed sentence ("the TAFI page"). These matters previously were addressed in the discussion. —David Levy 22:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Example layout (Full-sized version):

• Comment That looks great when I read it on my desktop with my widescreen monitor. However, I frequently use my tablet to browse the wiki, and this version always wraps around. The internet is increasingly being browsed by mobile devices, and I think we should take into consideration lower screen resolutions, since these kinds of users are becoming more common. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 12:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello NickP: Yep, I'm aware of these types of variances per device/browser/screen size; just an example. Yes, people definitely browse on mobile devices more nowadays; the above is more of a computer screen example. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes

I note that there are still items on my watchlist which have pending changes. That may be a mistake. However, it got me thinking that since most pages which get main page exposure are heavily vandalised, particularly if the article is already in a poor state, it might be worth considering some kind of pending changes on these (i.e. don't lock them out from IPs etc wishing to contribute, but perhaps allow their changes to be monitored before they become part of Wikipedia). Maybe it's been discussed above (it's all a little TL;DR for me) but I was just wondering if this was a consideration? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Check out this archived discussion where consensus was against adding pending changes to TAFI articles: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#PC1. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, no bother, it wasn't actually a "proposal", just a discussion, so your oppose not required. I know, from watching hundreds, if not thousands of main page listed articles, the vandalism is significant. I guess since the TAFI will be more general than specialist, perhaps more people will be watching it. Anyway, thanks for your note and your oppose and your link to the previous discussion, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Although, less than a dozen opposes to the proposal in total for something that may appear on the main page seems a little weak, borderline pathetic. Maybe we need to revisit it at a wider forum than just the Village Pump?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Why so many eagles?

Ahem! I'm watching you! Aaarr, arr, arrr....!

Any reason the featured article of the day has been about an eagle for three consecutive days? —  AjaxSmack  03:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

WT:TFAR has a discussion about this; it was intended as a loose theme to tie together several otherwise-unrelated articles and pictures. GRAPPLE X 04:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's systemic raptor bias. There's a well-known strong anti-passerine element at Wikipedia which is crowding out all bird point-of-views except those from birds of prey. I think we need an RFC to more fully investigate this. --Jayron32 04:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, and a secret remains... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget The lunar module Eagle in POTD! 86.133.209.129 (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not just that... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• And today's POTD (Morgan Pressel's hole-in-one) carries the trend... :D onebravemonkey 09:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Anything strike you about Wikipedia:Main Page history/2013 February 17? Bencherlite^Talk 09:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Psssst, they're on to us! No helping! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but don't worry, they'll never find that clue now... Bencherlite^Talk 09:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Great! Perhaps a new addition to the top of the Main Page: Today's Eagle Count? onebravemonkey 09:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Or perhaps we can grow up and focus on the best product we can manage, rather than tortuous phrasing to amuse a tiny clique. Kevin McE (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say "Just close your eyes and think of Wikipedia", but then you'd probably dream of eagles. On a serious note, it's going to last less time on the main page than Lugo did. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• That's going to be sarcasm failing to work on the Internet again. When are they going to fix that?onebravemonkey 10:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I got it! Cary Grant in POTD and the mention of his film The Eagle and the Hawk. I'm off to do some serious editing now, Kevin McE. ... 86.133.209.129 (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Aha! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

One of these nights, the long run of Eagles jokes will end and some desperado on the border will leave the hotel California--when hell freezes over. Jonathunder (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh... so everything is dust in the wind? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we're in Kansas anymore... Jonathunder (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Meh, tornadoes still give you wings. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm amazed at where this is going... --Jayron32 14:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I feel sorry for the TFA selector, walking through this world all alone. Freedom? That's just some people talkin'. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Liberty and freedom don't come cheap.--WaltCip (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) The same will know why he put LIBERTY in gold on the Main page today, and took the liberty to stage another eagle tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, the eagle's out of the bag now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Is someone peeing about again? Good! :-)   An optimist on the run! 15:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

At least they're not taking the piss. GamerPro64 15:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh that thread was good. Thanks Optimist. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

While I've got everyone's attention about the TFA slot, I'll just issue my usual advert/reminder that if you want to help choose which articles appear as TFA, please nominate or comment at WP:Today's featured article/requests. The more dates that are filled by the community's views, the fewer empty dates I have left open to play these puerile, pathetic games with fill in off my own bat. Thank you. You may now return to your regular diet of bird-based puns. Bencherlite^Talk 15:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well prepared advert. Here is mine: take away a few restrictions, and I will follow, - until then: find prepared noms here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, please stop complaining about TFAR whenever I try and encourage more to participate. It really isn't helpful. If you have issues to raise, try my talk page and / or the TFAR talk page. Bencherlite^Talk 16:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are still craving for more eagles, tomorrow's POTD is a Bald Eagle. :-) Th4n3r (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's almost as if TFA and POTD were working in harmony for a change... Bencherlite^Talk 00:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Downright odd, the coincidences behind this thread. Erm, ... out of Eagles references now. Woof? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have one, never fear, at The Last Resort as I Take It to the Limit. With the POTD, the TFA, and all linked recent TFAs on "eagles", all I can say is The Eagle has Landed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, and when are we going to see the inevitable entry concerning the band of Don Henley, Glenn Frey, et al? Stizzleswick (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly not tomorrow, considering the quality of the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Featured Picture

The caption reads "Raja Shelducks prefers", should that be "Raja Shelducks prefer"? Seems like a grammar issue? ★★RetroLord★★ 04:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Odd, not showing up like that for me. Tried purging the cache. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Fixed by closedmouth. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wording of recent events

The bit on the Academy Awards currently reads; "Argo wins Best Picture and Daniel Day-Lewis a record third Best Actor at the 85th Academy Awards.". Would "Argo wins 'Best Picture' and Daniel Day-Lewis a record third 'Best Actor' Award at the 85th Academy Awards." as i feel the current version is a little confusing, as it could easily be read as him being the 3rd best actor of 2012. --Jonie148 (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added the hyperlinks to Best Picture and Best Actor awards, I think it is clearer now. --Tone 09:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, That certainly looks clearer to me! --Jonie148 (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Why has TAFI not been implemented?

I believe we are teetering on a dispute at this point. If we cannot get this implemented we should probably inform the general community and begin the Dispute Resolution process. If this can be avoided it would be nice, if not I am prepared to begin with a request for formal mediation as I believe this is something that needs a binding resolution. Arbcom is also a possiblity. I see no reason why this is being held up at this point. Thoughts?--Amadscientist (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is only being held up because a request for a bot to purge the Main Page's cache at regular intervals is still waiting to be fulfilled. - Evad37 (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That means there really is no actual dispute. Thanks again!--Amadscientist (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Day Lewis Third best?

Why are we only mentioning the winner of third best actor and not the first and second best? (Just kidding of course, but the phrasing is odd and I did read it like this at first). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 14:00, 25 February 2013‎

Note this has been mentioned briefly above. I find the links help a lot, but if it's still unclear for you do you have any suggestions for improving it? —Noiratsi (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"..and Daniel Day Lewis wins (the award for) Best actor for a (record-breaking) third time." and then move "at the 85th academy awards" to the front of the sentence. The stuff in parentheses can be left out. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

National Day in Kuwait

In the mainpage section the National Day in Kuwait is marked in 1950. Well, a friend of mine from kuwait says this should be 1961 instead. Can someone take a look at it? Thanks. --Dps04 (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Looked at it and changed it. The Kuwait News Agency refers here to the 40th National Day anniversary on this day in 2001, which would fit with 1961 not 1950. Bencherlite^Talk 16:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Mauritia is a new paleo-continet needs to totally fgo on main apge and i need a bit of credit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritia_%28microcontinent%29

209.236.86.221 (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)