Talk:Main Page/Archive 157

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 150 Archive 155 Archive 156 Archive 157 Archive 158 Archive 159 Archive 160

Suggested another category

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

Please see Talk:Main Page/Archive 153#Over one million articles, Talk:Main Page/Archive 154#Proposal: Add million-article level to Wikipedia Languages section, Talk:Main Page/Archive 155#1,000,000 +, and Talk:Main Page/Archive 155#Wikipedia size: Implementation of proposed changes for some of the more recent discussions of this perennial proposal and the reasons it has not been implemented. --Allen3 talk 12:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Can we get some sort of note box like that about national varieties of English added to let people know not to post this sort of thing? --Khajidha (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


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

It's the third out of the five there, "Authorities open fire on demonstrators in Libya and Bahrain amid continuing protests across the Middle East and North Africa." Sven Manguard Wha? 01:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Howcheng appears to have restored an old version of the template by accident; Libya had its own blurb earlier today. StrPby (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Re the final ITN item at this moment on Bahrain, I think we need to remove it ASAP. We were right to run with it on the 18th/19th, but the military stood down 3 days ago. —WFC— 13:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages

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

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

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

Nav box

Can anyone check this to see if it's good? --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Good for what? It's overly colourful for my tastes, and hasn't got anywhere near as many items on it as {{Main Page toolbox}}, but it does seem to work. You have two links to Talk:Main Page though. Modest Genius talk 19:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page: Where to ask?

The main page of Wikipedia (and not of the English Wikipedia) has some problems. The entry for languages for 10,000+ do contain the entry "Kurdî / • کوردی • " and the one for 1,000+ the entry "كوردی ". This is strange. Where am I going to ask? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sae1962 (talkcontribs) 07:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC) template Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You haven't posted yet, I was going to post for you but upon checking I can't find the problem you refer to nor any sign it's been fixed recently. Are you perhaps confusing کوردی with something that looks similar like کوردی  ? If so do note these don't link to the same thing I presume it probably translates in to something like 'language' in multiple related languages. I have no idea if these are different to someone who understands the script, they look the same to me however they do appear to be using a different character set or different characters since a search doesn't find them both. P.S. Strangely enough your second one actually find's the text under 10000+ (which led me to believe the second one didn't exist) while your first one, if you only copy the Arabic alphabet part finds the one under 1000+. Did you make an error in copy and pasting that here Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Those two Arabic-script words are the same and both seem to say kūrdī or something similar (not knowing the language I'm not sure if that's accurate). (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the languages but the strings at are different according to a copy-paste into Ctrl+F, and they link to different languages. "Kurdî / كوردی" under 10 000+ links to the Kurdish language Wikipedia at ku:, while "کوردی" under 1 000+ links to the Sorani (also called Central Kurdish) Wikipedia at ckb:. I found the language names at meta:List of Wikipedias. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The Kurdish [1] version starts with (the start is to the right!) "U+0643 ARABIC LETTER KAF", while the Sorani [2] starts with "U+06A9 ARABIC LETTER KEHEH". I don't know the script but it appears that KAF ك changes display to look like KEHEH ک when it's part of the language name Kurdî / كوردی (the right-most character of that string is KAF ك and not KEHEH ک). PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I can read enough Arabic script to know that the two names both say "Kurdi". (PrimeHunter is correct that the letter kaf changes shape when joined to the curly thing the left, that is the 'long U' sound.) The larger wiki is for Kurmanji, the most widely spoken of the Kurdish dialects, and the smaller is for Sorani, the less widely spoken. So they are both correctly, if unhelpfully, labeled "Kurdi". Per meta:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Kurdish (Sorani), it appears that smaller wiki split from the larger last November, as Sorani is written in Arabic script and Kurmanji is written in Latin script, and there are other linguistic differences.
Getting back to the OP, I have started a discussion at meta:Talk:List of Wikipedias#two languages listed as Kurdish with a suggested fix. To change, you would need to change template/temp and then request a Meta admin at template to make your changes live.
As noted at Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#What about the first Main Page, at, English Wikipedia has no direct control over those pages. - BanyanTree 05:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

to create a new project on indian recipes

hi I want to create a new project named WIKIFOODIA. can you pls. guide me to create this one. the project contains Indian recipes. how to prepare them etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nd2476 (talkcontribs) 10:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not contribute to Wikia's Recipes Wiki instead? If you want to start your own Wikipedia-like website, a good place to start is Mediawiki. — Pretzels Hii! 11:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
There is also Wikibooks:Cookbook:Recipes which you could say is more closely related to Wikipedia as it falls under the Wikimedia umbrella. GizzaTalk © 01:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal for layout of the Main Page

I'll have something that solves every problem in in about 30 mins. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Further analysis of the aesthetics (Coming soon!) Sven Manguard Wha? 20:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sven's mockup is fine with me. And I agree with him that we should be polling on the general principle of featured lists, and not (yet) on any particular layout. Raul654 (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
What Raul said. --Dweller (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't work with the featured sound proposal, however, at all. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The proposal which secured virtually 100% support from the community over several days of transparent discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, this section should be archived. Immediately. The proposal for featured sounds was based on careful analysis of how many sounds we had, making sure the proposal gave us plenty of time to ramp up featured sound promotion rates before we hit the point where we were in danger of running out. It was a conservative proposal, just like FPs had when they first went on the mainpage - FPs replaced ITN one day a week, as I recall. This proposal would not work,a nd Sven should not have proposed it without speaking to the rest of the Featured Sound team. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
And the whole point of the FS discussion was that it used the existing space taken up by FP without lengthening the page in the way this alternative proposes, thus avoiding a good number of the difficulties of the 2008 main page redesign discussions (which went on for ages and led to no change). If FS / FL get bogged down in a main page complete redesign discussion, then nothing will happen. BencherliteTalk 21:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a rather negative take on the status quo, considering the support for inclusion is a given. We now have coinciding proposals for including worthy new content on the mainpage, so getting the design right from the get-go is important, rather than having this discussion again somewhere down the road. There's no reason to penalize Featured Lists because the earlier proposal left them out, which I think was unfortunate. In fact, I'd like to know what on earth they were thinking when they did that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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

I'm sure it stinks (or sucks donkey balls, as Moni3 would say). I've been in a similar situation and lost a Wikifriendship over it. It happened, it's unfortunate. But there were problems in that several proposals were put forward concurrently. The best way forward now is to put the past behind, and work for an integrated solution that makes the best sense and that will avoid future agida. I, for one, apologize sincerely to you for my misunderstandings here, but I think they resulted partially from FP and FS having left FL out, which was seriously a wrong way to go about this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
No, FL wasn't really left out. We agreed that the FS proposal worked. We had a premature chat about it on this very page. I started a discussion well over a week ago about the possibilities of lists on main page, FL members were well advised as to the technical solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The FS proposal mentioned FL, but we talked and agreed that it'd be too confusing to have FL in the same proposal, due to the desire to give examples of sample FLs making a combined proposal a bit long. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
In hindsight, I think that was a rather large and unfortunate strategic mistake. There is no logical reason for FPs and FSs to go on the mainpage while leaving out FLs, and that RFC was consequently flawed from a design perspective. And I agree with TRM that it's unfair for FL to be paying the price, but a sensible integrated solution is needed. I certainly think a daily FL makes much more sense than two FPs, and this should have all been contemplated at once, in one proposal. This reminds me of the ill-fated RFC on ArbCom voting several years ago, where they put forward so many changes at once without considering the combined effect of each change (a larger ArbCom composed of members with marginal support-- it was a poorly designed RFC because it didn't account for all factors, and a well-designed proposal here would have dealt with FLs together with FPs an FSs, as they are certainly worthy of mainpage space if FSs are.) So, how 'bout if y'all voluntarily recognize that it was an ill-formed proposal, and work towards something that makes more sense wrt FLs, since they were left out ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
As I said before, FLs weren't left out. The FS proposal was good, moving onto the main-page is a little like rediscovering the holy Grail. Once the possibility of something other than FA making it onto main-page reared its head, we jumped on it. The technical issues suit FL fine. One list a week suits FL fine. We don't need or want seven lists a week right now. We want to walk before we run. We don't to be accused of sub-standard featured material. We want to take our time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(edit conflict) You're not being shot to bits at all. The all of the people here are strongly supporting FL getting on the main page, including Raul and Sandy. The issue here is the aesthetics. I've got about 20 mock ups that I'm tossing around right now, frantically, as this took all of us off guard. A solution can be found. I happen to like the way that the mock up I generated looks, however Adam is right in that it might not be realistic.
What is happening here is that we are trying to balance the needs of several parties that all grouped together to make this happen. It would be an awful shame if one of those parties got screwed in the deal.
  • Featured Pictures bought into this because the split of the FP section into two sections would allow them to drain their massive backlog. They would be able to run 12 pictures a week (assuming two days where one of the slots was an FS) or 11 pictures (with an FL and the two FS) instead of 7. If we don't split the FP section, we'd be screwing over FP.
    • Can I interject here? FP may have a massive backlog, but that's not really a problem except to certain people (not me). My preference here is for FP to have a 100% width box for panorama days. If FL & FS share a row (however many days per week that might be), that would be the ideal solution IMHO. I also happen to think 2 FPs is a bit overkill. howcheng {chat} 06:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Featured Lists bought into the FS proposal because it gave them time to prepare and let us test the waters for them. Also, it became clear within hours that running both proposals at the same time was chaotic and created the illusion that FS and FL were competing with each other, which is categorically not the case.
  • Both FS and FL are bought into this because it gives them spots on the main page, which FP has shown to be an effective way of raising participation and quality.
  • All of this was made clear from the beginning, and FS has received a community mandate to run on Saturdays and Sundays with all of this information out in the open. The three featured processes, who already banded together to make this happen in the first place, need to stick together in this, make sure that everyone gets what they want, and do so in a way that comes out aesthetically pleasing. This sounds much harder than it actually is. I believe we can do this, and I believe that in the end just about everyone will be happy with the results. We just need to calm down and work together. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the gist of your post, and suggest that it should be a foregone conclusion that, if FPs and FSs get mainpage space, so does FL, which is equally worthy. But the design portion of the FP/FS proposal was flawed because FL was left out, and had everything been weighed at once, the conclusion might have been different. I prefer all of Sven's mockups to the confusing notion of alternating days, and think FL most certainly is ready for a daily shot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Note, there seems little point in "emergency layout" discussions. The FL proposal should continue to its natural conclusion, and the result of the FS proposal should remain valid, unless someone can prove that it is somehow nullified. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
And note, the design wasn't flawed because it incorporated lists soon into the FS proposal. Adam Cuerden ensured it would with his technical solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think that's where we need to be. FS has consensus to get some real estate on the MP. Now we're seeing if FL has the same consensus. If both are established in the affirmative, then the rest is just the details; annoying, bothersome, better handled by anyone on the planet that's not me details, but just details. The basic idea of 'FL's on the mainpage, yea or nay?' cannot be allowed to get lost in a debate on the exact specifics, which can be left to various stakeholders including Raul, SG, TRM and others to figure out, and then should be a snap to get any more consensus that would be needed for, once a solid consensus in favour of granting both processes some form of real estate is demonstrated. Courcelles 22:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Then someone should inform the FS people their work and consensus was effectively a waste of time. The consensus to finally put something other than FA and FP on the main page has been established, but all the technical work, as it turns out, despite consensus, has been wasted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Mainpage design isn't my strongpoint: I initially stayed out of the discussion, other than questioning potential design issues at FL, because I thought FS would only be sharing some of FPs space at the bottom of the page. I misunderstood from the get-go. So I'm in the unfortunate position now of opposing the process I find most worthy of being on the mainpage along with FAs, because of what I still view to be a faulty conclusion from a proposal which did not contemplate good mainpage design with inclusion of FL from the beginning. I suspect this is the last time I'll stick my neck out to stick up for FL, though, and I should move along now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sandy, I don't know why you'd feel such indignation. You followed Raul to oppose the proposal despite him supporting an identical proposal. We then discussed the fact that FS and FL worked together, to an extent, to develop a mix-and-match technical solution. This was still unacceptable to Raul (and you) but not to the community who supported it wholesale. FL then worked hard to ensure their similar proposal had high quality in mind, minimal expectations with one list a week, and a controlled selection system. All of this is effort is truly laudable and the FL community should be recognised for coming together (along with Sven and Adam from FS) to propose a coherent solution. Suddenly, in the middle of it all, we get spanners. I don't want this to ever be the last time you stick up for the FL community, but we've been second cousins, twice removed from FA for so long that given an opportunity to be on the main page, we grasped it with both hands, and all twelve fingers. We wanted to assure quality, we wanted to be non-controversial, we wanted a simple plug-and-play technical solution, and it all seemed fine. Then all Hell broke loose. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
No longer under consideration.
No longer under consideration.
No longer under consideration.
(undent) Explained above. FAC, DYK, ITN-- we all get criticized when we put a mistake on the mainpage, yet FL says they can only be ready on a limited basis, and there were two piecemeal proposals that resulted in an ameteurish failure to look seriously at design (compounded by misunderstandings). Either FLC is ready or it's not; if they are, let's do it with professional design. If you think your work isn't ready for prime time, and want to be featured only once a week, in spite of having more than 1,300 FLs, something is wrong, and you are asking for an exemption from scrutiny that other processes are not afforded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed FL are ready on the basis of one day per week, just as the community has already accepted that FS are ready on the basis of two days per week. Your suggestion that there was an "amateurish failure" to look seriously at design is ill-informed - I have examined dozens of different design concepts for flaws, browser compatibility, screen resolution, and accessibility in the past week and you can see some of them by following the numerous links at User:RexxS/MainPageFL - and I'm only one of many editors who have put work into ensuring that this proposal had a sound, well thought-out rationale before it was proposed. The FL community has even anticipated the need for flexibility to fit in with varying design decisions made by others. Compare these candidates with these condensed versions to see that FL is capable of fitting in with other featured content, whether a short amount or large amount of text is required. If you want professional design, we'd better hire a professional web designer, because all we can actually count on is what we unpaid amateurs are willing to volunteer. If you don't think Adam Cuerden is up to the job, I'd be happy to hear who you would prefer. I think you can assume that the work is ready for "prime time" because the proposal has been made; yes, the proposal is asking for only one day per week and I really would think that the very people who have spent so much time working in the area would be the best judges of their own resources. The only thing that is "wrong" is that the FL community has made a modest proposal that they can guarantee the quality of, rather than running the risk of 'biting off more than they can chew', and it is unfortunate that it does not fit with your own view of what should have been proposed. I apologise for being blunt about that, but I hope you can accept that not everyone will agree that a scheme which varies its content from day-to-day is automatically a recipe for poor design. --RexxS (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Just giving you fair warning. I've got a new batch of mockups coming in very soon that I believe will solve every problem. They look fantastic! Sven Manguard Wha? 01:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • How do these look? This is a flexable setup that uses enough shared resources as to make coding feasible, get's everyone what they want, and looks excellent. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Your new mock-ups are startlingly similar to what I had in mind. (I'd planned to work on mock-ups of my own, but I now see no need.) The only major change that I recommend is splitting the featured list into a separate box with different coloring (perhaps orange), due to the lack of a thematic connection.
Excellent job! —David Levy 02:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been informed that if I proposed that the coders would flay me alive. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Pardon? —David Levy 03:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have the feeling that the FA folks is just trying to prevent FLs from appearing on the main page at all cost.—Chris!c/t 03:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't get that feeling. What I do see is that we all have the same general goal (getting FLs on the Main Page, along with Featured Sounds), but different visions regarding how that will be accomplished. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I have the feeling that Chrishmt0423 isn't reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If my reading is correct, and it may not be since I haven't read everything that transpired in the last few hours, what Raul and Sandy did in FL is a slightly more agressive form of what Howcheng did in the FS vote. Howcheng supported, but stipulated the condition that he'd oppose if it didn't look good in the end. Raul and Sandy opposed, but stipulated they would support once they had assurances that it would look good. In the end, it's going to look good and it's going to function. The idea of an Fa conspiracy is a tad... absurd. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Thank you; at least someone still AGFs. And it will have my support as soon as the design issues are resolved (which will not happen by ignoring the fact that the original proposal was incomplete, hence flawed, and didn't give adequate space to FLs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sven, are you still working? I don't see Raul's proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
For the life of me I can't seem to find Raul's link. I saw it before but don't remember which comment it's in or the exact layout he recommended. I won't be around tomorrow (flying) and really shouldn't have been around yesterday (midterm studying) but I can do it Saturday if you find me the link. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You can find it mid-way down in this section of his talk page. Nomader (Talk) 18:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think a daily TFL would be the way to go; there are nearly 2k of them, and nearly one promotion each day, which is more than enough. I really don't like the idea of two FPs, though, even with better aesthetics the idea seems kinda... weird. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of a daily TFL, a sentiment shared by at least one of our FL directors, probably more. I think the original proposal is best in the short term, and I don't see why it would necessitate a double FP slot on the other four days. Medium term, I believe that FL and FS could share a slot 7 days a week. Long term, daily slots for both will hopefully one day be feasible, and I have made a start on that sort of design in my userspace, based on Raul's ideas.
But for now, I think we should learn from the FA experience. FA struggles to maintain the necessary reviewer levels, but TFA runs smoothly. FLC isn't much smaller than FAC, but it is smaller, so would presumably suffer a greater hit if it were on the page daily. FSC simply wouldn't cope. For those processes to be able to sustain daily updates, they need to fuel growth, which in turn would be best achieved by main page exposure. An all-or-nothing approach is not the way forward here. —WFC— 11:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • TWO FP A DAY IS NO LONGER UNDER CONSIDERATION Clearly poor communication has plagued these discussions. The two FP a day idea effectively died with Howcheng's comment above at 06:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC). Right now the current idea we're working with is that the purple bar is the only are effected by this change, as follows: For four days, it will remain one long bar with a single FP. For the other three days, it will be split 55/45 (same as green/blue) with an FP on the 55 left side, and an FS or FL on the 45 right side. The coding would be done in such a way that splitting the boxes would be automated, and preparing FPs would be unaffected. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
This sounds good. I think the bottom mockup image should now be removed to avoid confusing people.—Chris!c/t 03:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Specifics to be ironed out

Whatever design is being considered as acceptable to the community absolutely needs to include the fact that there will not be sufficient resources to generate one featured list per day for the main page. This is precisely why I wanted the initial proposal to start small and maybe grow. And it looks like Featured Sounds need only two days per week. So there's a fundamental discussion to be held. Either (a) the main page is allowed to be differently formatted on those days, (b) the main page uses consistent formatting but something else has to fill the space on the remaining four days a week, (c) we don't put FS or FL on the main page or (d) something else someone could suggest. The Rambling Man (talk)

I agree. I've broken this out into a subsection, as I believe it's an important point of discussion. My personal opinion is that we should start off with (a) until we've had time to develop and grow the processes. If it was possible to link the two boxes up for panoramas, I'm assuming it will also be possible to do this. Hopefully, the FS and FL sections will mature, and eventually be in a position to share a daily slot (one having 4 days per week, the other 3). —WFC— 19:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned above, the current proposal is as follows:
  • The only section being altered is the horizontal purple box.
  • On all days except Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, the purple box will look identical to it's current form, with one box taking up the full width, containing one featured picture.
  • On Saturday and Sunday, the box will be split into two, with a width ratio of 55/45, identical to the ratio between the green and blue boxes, with the 55% side on the left, identical in width to the green box. The larger box on the left would contain a featured picture. The box on the right would contain a featured sound.
  • On Monday, the box will be split into two, with a width ratio of 55/45, identical to the ratio between the green and blue boxes, with the 55% side on the left, identical in width to the green box. The larger box on the left would contain a featured picture. The box on the right would contain a featured list.
  • The coding would be as such that the width and number of boxes would adjust automatically, based on the day. Featured Pictures would not have to change their preparation process or code.
This is based on the comments by Howcheng, by the coders, and by the community. I hope this clears everything up. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, sounds pretty good to me. The only thing that seems to be a sticking point with some of the community is that there's an expectation that FLs should go from zero per week to seven per week, i.e. one a day. I've said a couple of times that the FL community are quite capable of committing to that right now, so those in favour of a one-a-day solution are not going to be satisfied by this proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
If that change were to take place, it would require a separate proposal. I can almost guarantee that such a proposal would involve a totally new design solution. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
(I'm 100% certain that TRM meant to say that the FL community aren't quite capable of one a day) I'm fully behind the proposal in this form, and look forward to seeing the designs in action in the near future. If these sections start to outgrow themselves over the coming months, we can always make a second proposal later. —WFC— 07:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops. Yes, I did mean we can't support one per day. WFC speaks for me here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
It should be relatively simple for FL to move to 7 days a week in future, by claiming a new location. There's going to be some code that forbids FL on FS days, to prevent a main page train wreck, but I'll leave a note in the documentation saying exactly where it is and how to remove it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

there will not be sufficient resources to generate one featured list per day for the main page - can you explain what, exactly, is preventing you from doing this? You have ~1800 already (so that's about 5 years worth) and even if you don't promote many new ones over the next 5 years, you can always repeat them. (It's not a big deal, I promise!) Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

They had a thread and a discussion on it and want to start small to learn the ropes and make sure they have good content out there. It's a freaking pilot, man! An experiment. We've gone through YEARS of not having the lists on the page at all. Go read the thread where they discussed it, but at the end of the day, the people doing the work want to start partially versus completely. Who cares even if they are wrong! Let them run the simple, positive improvement over the status quo that they have hashed out.TCO (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes, we did discuss it as a community and agreed that we are not confident that we have the numbers of people to guarantee that one-per-day would be maintainable. In time, and hopefully main page exposure will increase interest in the featured list process, we would aim to support a similar process to TFA/R but right now, we do not feel that's possible. And no, we don't want to repeat main page content. I think you (Raul) seem to be one of the few people who actually likes that idea. It seems the community is content with our simple proposal, and now the technical issues appear to have been clarified, it would appear this solution is the right stepping stone on the path to TFL/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I echo the above. The main page is littered with sections where it can be argued that we are systematically pushing our resources, often with a tangible effect on the output. While I can understand why my ITN comments below may have been taken as being too harsh, it's beyond question that we would ideally like to have a quicker turnover. While I think others have been equally harsh about DYK, it's undeniable that with anywhere between 28 and 36 a day, it's a struggle to be on top of the verifibility of each one. OTD runs pretty smoothly to be fair, but to a lesser extent is open to the same issues as DYK faces. Even TFA, which for all the quirks in the scoring process is an efficient system, is nonetheless labour intensive. And as far as I can tell, it has only gotten to the position it is in today through careful management, painfully learnt lessons, and the strong overlap of contributors at FAC and TFA/R.
With Featured List Mondays (FLM), we have an opportunity to try something different, and to take the lessons from TFA into account. We have the opportunity to slowly develop and tailor the relationship between FLM and FLC. We have the opportunity to start from a position in which we can build up a hunger for more regular representation, as opposed to being told that it has to happen. In which we can, starting from a low base, develop an understanding of just how much work it will take to become daily counterpart to TFA. In which we can build up a massive stockpile of blurbs. In which we can take our time to audit all FLs, and ensure that the proportion of lists that are main-page ready catches up with the corresponding ratio for FAs (a situation that we have made great progress on in the last two years to be fair). In which we can tentatively explore whether there is a benefit to a direct relationship between FLC and FLM, for instance whether it would be a net positive or a net negative if we encouraged nominators to draft blurbs. There are so many reasons for starting it this way, and provided the main page design is tight, little reason not to. —WFC— 09:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for the severe lack of jargon —WFC— 12:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In the News

Seriously? Two days after the Oscars, they're still the top news over the epoch-making events in the Middle East? Seriously? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news site. There is no "Top News". The Oscars might be the "Top Substantially and Reliably updated article relating to a current event." That's a bit unwieldy, though.
Feel free to [recommend other articles that would fit that bill, of course. APL (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Stories are listed in the order they occurred (most recent at the top), not in importance. ITN is not a news ticker, we do not attempt to have a continual stream of stories. We highlight articles which have been updated to reflect current events, and the quality of the update is one of the key criteria. Feel free to suggest more stories at WP:ITN/C if you think we should be posting something that we haven't. Modest Genius talk 19:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"Epoch-making events"? Somebody doesn't know what the word "epoch" means. (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps he means it like "Man, those events in the middle east really made my epoch! I'm going to be smiling for the next ten million years." APL (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, his usage is correct according to Wiktionary. "Epoch-making" is synonymous with "epochal". -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What a stunning example of why participation in WP is not expanding. Although I've been editing in fairly narrow content areas for more than two years, I've never commented on this page before, never had anything to do with "In the News" and don't know how it's composed — and this is the stone-throwing response I or perhaps a newbie would get? A simple link to the relevant procedural guidelines with a suggestion that I become informed or involved would've been smack-down enough. And please note:

  • Epoch-making: "of major importance; likely to have a significant effect on a particular period of time." Please check your own dictionary. Somebody's not as smart as he thinks he is, so perhaps I should take that into consideration in judging the quality of response here. Also, don't assume I'm a man. I'm not.

Finally, this is also an example of placing one's head firmly up one's own posterior orifice. (Shall I define either of those last two words?) If the purpose of "In the News" is to call attention to WP articles that provide information on topics currently, um, in the news, it makes us look juvenile and parochial (sense 2) if, in an encyclopedia, an article on an American award to actors is the best example of the content we can provide to illuminate current events. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Love that phrase, "stone-throwing." It brings to mind Biblical passages such as "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
As for the word "he," it is (as an erudite user like you will know) a commonly-accepted pronoun which in English may be used for a person of unknown gender. This is, naturally, why you referred to the anonymous, unknown-gender poster as "he" (quote: somebody's not as smart as he thinks he is). Of course, it is also why the other replies referred to you as "he"... no one assumed anything about your gender.
Speaking of that anon, let me apologize on behalf of all civil Wikipedians for his (or her) rather impolite response. I'm glad to see that most replies from registered users were quite helpful in answering your query, and the unhelpful one seemed mostly to be indulging in a bit of good humor.
So, back to the stone-throwing allusion. If new users are driven away from Wikipedia, I, like you, wonder how many of them leave because of sarcastic references to their intelligence ("Shall I define either of those last two words?"), unnecessary offense-taking ("a simple link would have been enough" (said link having been already provided by Modest Genius, above)), and unproductive self-censure ("it makes us look juvenile and parochial" posted outside the proper forum to which MG directed you). Truly, let he or she who is without sin... Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 17:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Modest Genius was helpful and responsive. The IP address felt the need to respond with uninformed snark, which was greeted with approval by the initial respondent ALP, whose remarks you find so helpful. These remarks were not censured for their inappropriateness, and yet when I reacted in kind, I was. But don't worry, I'll never bother to point out anything on the home page again. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. I did think APL was being helpful.
More productively, though, maybe APL's half-jesting initial comment points us in a good direction. The label "In the News" seems to be what misleads many, many people into making similar inquiries/complaints here. Have we ever looked into renaming the section to, say, "Current Events Articles" or something that looks less like the news ticker many believe it to be? Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 20:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
And now I see the discussion above that is focused on exactly that question. Oops. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 20:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

To those scoffing at those giving importance to In the News of the Front Page

Featured list proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In reading this discussion as well as rereading the featured sounds discussion, I noticed that there were not a great number of people who commented on the simultaneously proposed increase in the number of featured pictures in either discussion. That seems to me that the discussion participants may have been confused with regards to that point even after the featured sounds discussion passed, as the increase to two FPs/day wasn’t really talked about that much. I’m glad to see, with Howcheng’s comment of 06:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC), that the idea of two FPs/day was taken off the table. I think a separate discussion would have to be conducted to see if the community likes that idea.

There is general agreement to put featured lists on the main page; that part is clear. How we shall do so remains to be decided, as there is no solid consensus on that. I’ll leave the section below open for discussion on that point. Once the few best designs have been agreed upon, another RFC should be conducted to poll the community on which “they” prefer. NW (Talk) 15:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The initial proposal for how it would look.

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of proposal

Mockup of FLs sitting below DYK & TFA

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

Well, the coding proposal allows for the list to be placed on the left-hand side on the main-page, under the featured article/DYK, if that would be considered acceptable to all parties. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I just saw the other draft on your page Rambling Man. Left alignment is better in my opinion. I support this proposal, by the way. – Novice7 (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
As I say, the proposed coding caters for both! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I like the look of that mockup you posted on my talk page (might be worth posting that here). It certainly makes more sense to have it left aligned, and I'm happy to accept that. --Dorsal Axe 17:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I've added a small thumb here. Not wishing to repeat myself too many times already, the proposal supports both configurations! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I absolutely agree with this proposal. – Novice7 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The FL process has developed beyond recognition from the sorts of lists that made the grade in 2006. Nowadays we have a large, diverse stockpile of high quality material, that is worthy of being featured on the main page. —WFC— 17:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support discussed above. – Novice7 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: There is a large selection of high quality lists covering a variety interesting topics, and they certainly have as much of a right to be on the Main Page as featured pictures and sounds. Hopefully this will inspire people to create new Featured Lists as well. BigDom talk 17:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. --Dorsal Axe 17:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support The FL process has finally matured to the point where it's appropriate to include them on the main page. We've come a long way since the process first started, and I'm more than happy to support. Nomader (Talk) 17:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Good work deserves to be featured, and the samples I looked at from the subpage linked above were very good work. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Wiki needs to grow or die. I see the general having of more types of featured content on the front page, very good. Not just for what we deliver to our readers, but for how it motivates us to up our game, knowning that we will have "front page" view. I know that runs through Sandy's head all the time. It is a good influence on the content work and even spreads beyond featured work itself. Lists are something we've been figuring out, and still are (are they "good" or "bad", how do we make them best use for the reader, what are the boundaries of list and article.) I think getting stuff to front page, will end up helping us work through these things and just improve overall as a content source. The simple way of starting with just a few features, and of picking the clearest best stuff, without a lot of upfront process, makes sense. We can evolve from there, but starting simple and "certain to succeed" makes sense. TCO (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I supported putting featured sounds on the main page, but I never supported a second featured picture, nor was that ever mentioned in the proposal (such things were explicitly left to be decided later). Frankly, that would look very stupid and I oppose it. I support putting featured sounds on the main page, and featured lists too, if we can find a non-wonky way of doing it. Raul654 (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    To quote the third sentence under "Featured sounds vote" (above) "The basic proposal is that a second featured pictures section is added to the main page. On Saturdays and Sundays, this will become a Featured sound section instead." Don't know how you can say that a second featured picture was never mentioned in the proposal, Raul. BencherliteTalk 18:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, I missed that part. I was looking at the mockup, which apparently only applies 2 or 3 days out of the week. What I'd like to do is find a non-stupid solution that makes everyone happy, like the 2x3+1 layout I mentioned on my talk page (featuring lists, sounds, and pics every day of the week, in their own dedicated panes). Raul654 (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, per Raul. If the design issues are sorted out, and Raul switches to Support, my !vote can be considered the same as his. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
To summarize and update my position per the capped commentary below. I do not support the current proposed layout and design: I do support FLs on the mainpage. I'm glad to see discussion progressing now towards rationalizing the two proposals (Sounds and Lists) towards a mainpage design that will most benefit our readers. My "oppose for now, per Raul" was only because I will be traveling and won't likely be able to weigh in as this is finalized, and I will fully support once the design issues are worked out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Have I missed something here? Where are we proposing a second featured picture? —WFC— 17:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    The very first sentence of Rambling man's proposal: Following on from the proposal to include featured sounds on the main page alongside a second featured picture on Saturdays and Sundays Raul654 (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    This was in the FS proposal, and has been agreed by the consensus of the community. We just followed in its footsteps... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    (e/c) I have to admit to being confused as the "technical details" here are virtually identical to those of the FS proposal. The screenshots are mockups, as stated, and the coding proposed by User:Adam Cuerden in the successful FS proposal would be the same as that used for FLs. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    If the design issues are sorted out to Raul's satisfaction, I'm a support (I also agree that pictures and sounds should be on the mainpage, but only if Lists are as well), but working out the design issues is crucial in mainpage proposals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    Well, Raul supported the design of the FS proposal, and that's identical to this one, which he now opposes as being stupid. I guess we'll have to see what the remainder of the community think! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    You're mis-characterizing my position. I support putting featured lists and sounds on the main page, but I think the proposed layout is terrible. And I would have opposed the featured sounds proposal for the same reason too, had I read all the fine print. Raul654 (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    It wasn't fine print. It was the second paragraph of the proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    Arguing what Raul missed or didn't in the proposal now won't be as productive as working out the design issues. There is support for including the content: the question is how. My !vote is contingent upon working this out with Raul because I will likely be traveling as the details are worked out, and if that occurs, please count my !vote as the same as Raul's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    I think the FP mention should be stricken altogether from the proposal; what we want to do on non list days is irrelevant as far as lists themselves are concerned. —WFC— 18:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    Why not just HAT this proposal and start a new one with a sensible layout? Raul654 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    I think that's a much better way forward. It's clear that some version of the proposal has support, but we should not separate that from design, which is crucial to discussions of mainpage proposals. I agree that starting over is the way forward, focusing now on design, given that the support is there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    Well as this is Wikipedia, let's allow the community to decide. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    I'm curious to know what you had in mind Raul. Something more akin to what we had for the 10th anniversary? --Dorsal Axe 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    I think this makes a lot more sense than the current proposed layout. Raul654 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    That's the long-term goal, but this is meant to allow the first steps to be taken towards getting these established. Once the systems are in place, it can be expanded. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    That's a case of putting the cart before the horse. I think we're better off putting the best possible layout on the main page, and letting those systems evolve to suit the task, rather than choosing a sub-par one to suit the systems we have now. That's certainly how it worked when FA hit the main page back in '04. Raul654 (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    Besides which, we'll be having this discussion again in a few months if we don't just Do It Now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    Yep, I think we all get the idea that you're in complete support of Raul! Since the FS proposal was allowed the dignity of being able to run to closure, it would be decent of the FA director et al to give the FL community a similar run. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    If given the choice between bad option (the current proposal, which is a good idea with a horrible implementation) and worse one (the main page as it exists today), most people will choose the bad choice. I think they deserve a good option too. And Sandy brings up a good point, that if we don't do it right now, we're going to be stuck with a bad layout until maybe we have another big discussion at some point in the future. Raul654 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    Personally, I think, push-come-to-shove, with 1,989 FL's and something like six to seven more a week, and factor in an increase of participation once there is a main page slot, the FL process could produce five quality lists a week to go with the two featured sounds. (The reverse would be much more challenging, as there are less than one-tenth the number of FS). Though the utility of this idea is also because the FP people are generating pictures at a greater rate than they can run them, and it has been discussed before the value of main page slots to attracting image donations, and the detriment to the same in the year+ backlog and fairly opaque system. Courcelles 20:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    While not my ideal solution, I think that's a very reasonable compromise that would alleviate my biggest objection (the two FP redundancy). Raul654 (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    So what you're saying is that because you think the main page should have the same layout every day that any featured content has to be willing to provide content every day of the week? But as a compromise that you'd accept FL providing content 5 days a week, with FS 2 days a week? Have you considered asking the editors whose time you are volunteering whether they consider that realistic 'before making your counter-proposal? How about a counter-counter proposal: you've accepted that FS should be featured 2 days per week, (that discussion is closed above) - so it is clear that the main page will look different from day to day; why not spend some time explaining how you feel FS on two days per week and FL on one day per week ought to be realised to meet your aesthetic standards. That would at least give the community and the coders a push in the right direction to produce an acceptable solution. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    Okay this is moving fast. Stop the presses, I have contingencies! (Don't stop the polling, just stop this line of discussion and give me about 10 minutes to churn out my mock up please. No reason for this to death spiral at the moment. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    Discussion on visuals below. As I say below, I can keep on generating mockups when needed. You should be voting on the idea of FLs on the main page. We can fine tune placement later. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support In a best case scenario, we would be able to rotate the four types of featured content that never get any MP space (lists, topics, sounds, and portals) instead of running a second picture four days a week... but the proposal on the table is better than the status quo. (Not to mention the FT promotion rate is too low.) Courcelles 18:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (obviously, given my involvement with FL). Featured lists have improved immensely in quality in the last few years and there is a lot of excellent material here that is likely to be of interest to our readers. BencherliteTalk 18:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Looking at the example above, the list's lead he took is not really small by size. We must ensure we take FL with such size. The layout won't be ideal like above if the lead is small.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Questions:
    1. I share Raul's concerns regarding the layout mock-up. Am I correct that this is merely a non-binding example (and we'll have an opportunity to propose/discuss alternative implementations later)? That was my impression during the previous discussion.
    2. Is there any special significance to Wednesday? I believe that it would make more sense to use Friday or Monday, thereby grouping together all of the special content (in a memorable/promotable manner) instead of needlessly switching back and forth.
    David Levy 18:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Hi David, thanks for your questions. (1) the proposal above states "If this proposal passes, coding of the FL main-page inclusion will be put up for review, including a mock-up of it in action, and a "rubber-stamping" vote at simple majority to confirm its use." so yes, the mockups are precisely that, mockups, with scope to be modified. (2) No, not really, it was simply to provide natural breaks in the second FP listings. Your proposal has merit, so a Friday or Monday could well be a better bet. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • @David: There are many permutations of ways to lay out content, so for you and any others who want to see some examples, the page User:RexxS/MainPageFL has links to over a dozen possibilities - and that's just for the case of a Featured List in the same row as a Featured Picture. You can change your browser width and see the effect of different design decisions at different screen resolutions. I'm sure Adam Cuerden, who has kindly volunteered to code the changes if this proposal passes, would be happy to hear of any preferences from interested editors if we reach the second stage. --RexxS (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - it should be possible to put FL on the left (by simply switching the locations of its and FP's box on those days), but that's a separate debate that can be had once the mock-up's ready. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Regarding the second FP slot on the main page, that was on the FS proposal, which passed already. So, to oppose the entire FL proposal because they failed to read carefully what was in the FS proposal is unfair to us FL folks.—Chris!c/t 19:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. I'm no formatting expert and must bow to others on that subject, but to me FLs clearly deserve a place on the main page. You could make a strong argument that FLs, not FSs, should be getting on the main page twice a week. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Popping-in-during-lurking-but-not-editing-sort-of-wikibreak-type strong support ... overdue. --Dweller (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as an obvious addition to the Main Page. Both current proposals have my support. Imzadi 1979  22:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Clearly, without-a-doubt support. About time. StrPby (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support this proposal to have a featured list on the Main Page one day per week. The FL community has spent a lot of time carefully examining resources, both in terms of number of FLs and volunteer time to prepare such material. I believe that the equity of having a range of featured material is now recognised. The community has already agreed to have featured sounds on two days per week, and I see no convincing reason why featured lists should be denied the opportunity to be featured on the Main Page as well. Additionally, I do not see it as productive for other editors to make counter-proposals in the middle of seeking consensus for the present proposal that do not respect the careful evaluations made by the FL community. The layout of the different types of featured content is obviously subject to community decision, but I would respectfully submit that this proposal is establish the principle, not the detail. --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support — I'd say something, but I couldn't put it any better than RexxS did — KV5Talk • 01:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: The main page is not for everything...too much content makes it ridiculous-looking. No matter what, it would be better to avoid a new section and feature a list every so often in TFA. MonoALT (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support idea but only if later we have a layout prepared and consensus also supports that. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, though for now I presume this is just about havign lists in principle, rather than specifics or where it'd go. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Why not? Since there are almost 2,000 featured lists promoted, these featured lists have never appeared on the main page. JJ98 (Talk) 07:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Someone get a spine and just do it! Lugnuts (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support in principle on the same basis as featured sounds. I don't quite understand the sudden layout issues, but I'm sure they can be resolved, even if it's more troublesome than people expected. Rd232 talk 08:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support The TFL principle, format is a bit off for me but that can be ironed out later. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support THIS proposal in principle, subject to overall design considerations achieving consensus. Primarily agree with RexxS. Sandy's & Raul's concerns are muddying the waters. Support the 'idea' of FLs on MP, as well as FS; a separate discussion can be had regarding layout subsequently, if this proposal garners sufficient interest. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 12:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, including the proposed layout. I prefer the FL on the left, but that's a minor point. I'd also be happy to see FLs on the main page more than once a week once the FL people feel they're ready. --Avenue (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I would love to see featured lists on the main page. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per duh. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as they are featured lists, and this will lead to further scrutiny on such lists that make it to the Main Page - the same as with FAs. As far as implementation is concerned, I kind of liked what we did for the 10-year anniversary at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 15, 2011 and would alternatively propose we do something like that on a biweekly or even weekly basis instead of an article. –MuZemike 21:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Support the proposal on the Featured Lists people's own terms. I think its absurd that people outside FL are trying to determine how many FLs they should run a week. If they feel they should start slow then thats the way it should be. Acer (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - We have many FLs, this'd be a great chance to showcase them alongside the other quality Featured content. —Ancient ApparitionChampagne? • 2:55pm • 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - but i would like to see it start off with 2 FL a week, as the math works out nicer i think (3FP, 2FS, 2FL), and once more people taker part in the nomination procedures, FP should get squeezed out of the slot.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll add my support to this one too. FL's need better publicity (and it'll give me the incentive to finish the one I'm working on). —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support adding FLs to the main page. If this requires removing something else, my vote would be to junk DYK. *** Crotalus *** 16:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support FLs have come a long way and deserve to be featured. – SMasters (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support FLs on the main page (no issue with that at all). Not keen on two Featured pics on one day, but as that seems dead in the water, I'm happy to support. WormTT 11:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support In my view featured lists should have most of the time in the second slot though - I'm not sure that FPC is promoting 11 pictures a week these days anyway and the featured sound promotion rate is pretty low. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I am surprised that sounds get two a week and lists get one a week. Pics definitely deserve every bit of the extra four a week. I'd like a general understanding that some flexibility could be negotiated from time to time on that count—a little give and take among the genres (pipe dream). Tony (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, if this discussion is still open :-) Lists of lists made me a Wikipedian; I love the idea. SJ+ 13:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia design

Can't somebody come up with at least the personal preference option to design your own skin? The standard is bland and boring, as are most of the other skins. There should be the option to self-design your own skin in your preferences.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You already can, see WP:SKIN and WP:CUSTOM. Admittedly you have to do it by modifying an existing one, but it's entirely possible. However, what does this have to do with the Main Page? Modest Genius talk 21:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to base it on another skin; you can start form scratch by using MySkin, which is completely empty. Edokter (talk) — 01:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Improving "Other areas of Wikipedia"

I feel that this could be easier to read -- perhaps a two-column table -- and could have better links. How do people feel about linking directly to the Wikipedia Signpost from here? I know it has long been considered a community-internal link, but the article quality is reliably excellent, and it's starting to be cited in other publications and research papers. I think we have a right to be proud of it and to promote it a bit more as part of the public face of Wikipedia. (Perhaps I should check with the Signpost editors to see if they would mind the extra traffic :-) SJ+ 13:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Since when did the signpost become the public face of Wikipedia? I definitely never saw such a proposal and from some of the stuff I've seen there I would strongly oppose such a proposal. Speaking of opposition, since you're talking about improving stuff have you already searched and came across what happened last? time this was proposed? Talk:Main Page/Archive 152#Addition of Signpost Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

russell falls featured picture

todays featured picture looks very much like it's been photoshopped. it's possible that it's just a really poor quality camera or exceptionally slow shutter setting. regardless this picture looks like in game footage from an RPG or FPS Game. this picture can't do justice to the place it's of (presumably), and doesn't do justice to the featured picture section. i suggest that in future more care is given to picture selection, there are literally millions of better images and probably hundreds of better images of russell falls. i found this:

(and others) in a yahoo search taking all of 30 secs, and this picture is of smaller size, higher quality and much better composition. thats clearly my opinion but not on the merits of the place pictured, merely on the poor quality of the image used when other better photos are easily available as free for use wallpapers. user : teknotiss (for such a small thng i really couldn't be bother to log in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a four-second exposure, not a photoshop. These issues were discussed at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Russell Falls 2.jpg when it was made a Featured Picture 18 months ago. The images go up on the Main Page in a first-come, first-served basis in the order they were promoted (barring a few shufflings for anniversaries and to prevent two images of similar things on successive days). Modest Genius talk 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
ok thanks for clearing up the selection process. However it's still not a good shot of russell falls. Would anyone know why such a poor quality shot would be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Others disagreed with your assessment. You're welcome to participate in the selection process, thereby contributing to future decisions.
Also note that gratis and libre are distinct concepts; the "free" photographs that you found elsewhere might be the former and not the latter (in which case Wikipedia cannot use them). —David Levy 20:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you david i know where to find the candidate pictures now so i can comment. I would note that being placed in an unobtrusive link inside the "More featured pictures" isn't ideal for getting people to comment on them, but thats for another thread i suppose. As for the gratis vs libre issue, well I agree, I just used that picture as an example of how many images there are and easy they are to find. It wasn't a statment of this should be used, more that this is a better shot and the current image looks bad on wikipedia's front page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teknotiss (talkcontribs) 20:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to take your own photograph of the waterfall and release the rights to it so Wikipedia can use it, we'd be most grateful...  狐 FOX  09:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It's actually not incredibly easy to find a free image as plenty of people who have tried will tell you and while there are a fair number out there that we don't yet have I think you vastly overestimate how many there are particularly quality ones so your point seems somewhat moot. Incidentally the picture in question is also a featured picture on the Commons and Spanish wikipedia. Of course both have different criteria, in particular I believe the Commons is more concerned about whether it's a good photo (or whatever) rather then how well it represents the subject (which does matter to us). If I understand Commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Results/R1/ALL/Table correctly, this picture received 22 votes in round 1 of voting for picture of the year 2009 in the commons which considering the most was 61 votes and its relative position isn't something to be scoffed at. (Incidentally there was another picture of the same waterfall File:Russell Falls Mt Field National Park.jpg that got 21 votes that year). In other words, while you are entitled to your opinion, it seems quite a lot of people dont share your view of how bad this photo is. BTW while I have no experience with that particularly site, I wouldn't trust images on some random site like that to actually be free in either sense of the word. Note that the 'More featured pictures' isn't an attempt to get people to comment on candidates. While we welcome feedback we tend to keep that off the main page because readers (who the main page are for) aren't particularly interested in it. Note that by the time an image makes it to the main page, it's probably been a featured picture for over a year as somewhat has pointed out above. Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"but yes, you are right"

I was answering the question - but could have redirected to either the 'English language talk page' on WP or the presently underdeveloped English Language wiki on Wikia. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Or Wikipedia's language reference desk. Graham87 02:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a mention in the header section to the effect that 'for language queries see (list).' We all have the occasional 'grammatical puzzle.' Jackiespeel (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any point to In The News anymore?

Issues regarding In the news

subheading added by David Levy 00:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Yes, either it needs to be changed every six hours like clockwork or it's use is diminished considerably. Here's what the issue is:
In the News What's on my news tickers
  • Behgjet Pacolli (pictured) is elected President of Kosovo
  • A 6.3-magnitude earthquake hits Christchurch and the surrounding Canterbury region in New Zealand, causing major damage and at least 75 deaths.
  • Protests in Libya spread to Tripoli, as the government uses warplanes and mercenaries to attack the protesters.
  • In stock car racing, Trevor Bayne becomes the youngest person to win the Daytona 500.
  • The Iranian film Nader and Simin, A Separation, directed by Asghar Farhadi, wins the Golden Bear at the 61st Berlin International Film Festival.
  • Authorities open fire on demonstrators in Bahrain amid continuing protests across the Middle East and North Africa.
  • U.S. Will No Longer Defend Law Banning Same-Sex Marriage (NPR)
  • Gadhafi's Forces Maintain Their Hold On Tripoli (Essentially country is split East/West with Gadhafi controling only the west side) (NPR)
  • The confirmed death toll from Tuesday's magnitude-6.3 quake near the city of Christchurch rose to 75, and officials said it was almost sure to climb further. (NPR)
  • Democratic Party of Japan suspended the membership of Ichiro Ozawa, a shadowy political figure who once led the party, but who was indicted last month in a political financing case. (NYT)
  • Bahrain King in Saudi Arabia to Discuss Unrest (NYT)

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

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

Per Sven. Update more often (and therefore be more diligent on what goes on the mainpage under ITN) or scrap. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You're comparing ITN to news tickers, the purpose of which is to relay breaking news. The section's purpose, conversely, is to link to encyclopedia articles created or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events. Perhaps we can find a way to increase the turnaround, but the content can't be "changed every six hours like clockwork" unless the appropriate encyclopedia articles exist. —David Levy 20:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this would often happen, or if Sven did it deliberately, but all five things Sven listed actually have articles that could contain the information. Too often a news ticker is over events that don't (or shouldn't) have articles... or ITN becomes "On the sports page", which as I like sports, I don't really mind, but the concepts aren't the same. Courcelles 20:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Articles to link to from my selections, in order: the mentioned law, the Libya protests, the earthquake, the DPJ (and the minister), and Saudi - Bahraini relations (which should exist whether it does or does not.) Sven Manguard Wha? 20:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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

  • The section is called "in the news", not "today's main headlines"; ITN isn't a rolling news channel (on WP at least). People can go to wikinews if they want the day's top stories in wiki format. StrPby (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
@Sven the articles get updated as event goes on and are read over and over throughout the time they are on ITN. Just because it happened few days ago does not mean it should be removed. Go to ITN/C if you have a new item that you would like to nominate that is not on ITN yet. atleast do some research on what the section is or how its gets updated before complaining. -- Ashish-g55 02:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
So you're response to "the process needs to change" is "do some research on what the section is or how its gets updated before complaining". That's not at all helpful. My point is that if the ITN prompts are out of date, they reflect poorly on the main page. You could easily tweak the wording of the sixth one to reflect more current realities and then it would actually be "in the news" instead of "live, from last week's papers." Sven Manguard Wha? 03:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Urm, yes there is. It's the only part of the main page I actually read or care about. MonoALT (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I only read ITN as well. If more people edited Wikinews *cough, cough*, we could just have a bot update a small ticker at the bottom of ITN as well. But WN never ends up covering half the breaking news because not enough people edit there. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Every single person I talked to about Wikinews said that Wikinews was a waste of time, suffered from chronic corruption and ineptitude, and was even more hostile and partisan than Wikipedia. Why anyone would want to join that project is beyond me. Also I oppose importing content from other projects automatically. There's a whole bunch of things I'd trust bots to do on Wikipedia, but quality control is something that needs a human touch. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Obviously you haven't spoken to many people, Sven. AD 14:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I used to be a regular editor on WN, but gave up. It is a waste of time. Nobody reads it (because you can read free news just about anywhere) and, more importantly, a sizeable majority of the editors there are (or were when I left) more interested in bickering and power struggles than in writing, which means that when an article does get written, it has to wait so long for a review (because they have fully fledged flagged revs) that it's no longer news by the time it gets published. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Sounds just like Wikipedia - except for the page views. AD 17:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Actually Sven's spot on about Wikinews. Ugh, terrible place, even just reading the discussions there... Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If a bot was updating the main page with Wikinews content, perhaps more people would edit Wikinews... The ITN section itself doesn't make much sense to me. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a news service, and Wikinews is. If there's going to be news shown, it really shouldn't be a Wikipedia effort. --Yair rand (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Sven, maybe instead of judging Wikinews you should actually try it out, which you evidently have not. I was told last year that Wikinews is a horrible place. I later tried writing there, and it was fun. Is it annoying and disgusting at times? Yes, but it's about the same as here, except the smaller community makes the problems seem larger. I write news, not drama; that's the point of WN. Also, your quality control issue seems to be baseless because you don't seem to understand how Wikinews works. There is an independent review process conducted by approved experienced users and the frequency of crappy content published there is about the same as how often we get bad articles on ITN here. Why anyone would slander a project without even having tried it for his or her self is beyond me, Sven; maybe you should be asking some other people for their opinions instead of spreading around misinformation? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
        • You assume that just because I don't edit there I know nothing about the project. Yes, I have not edited there, I freely admit that, but I have read the articles there, just like I've looked at the definitions in Wiktionary, the books at Wikibooks, the quotes at Wikiquote, and the collections of media at Commons. Wikiquotes is perhaps the best repository of quotes I've seen in any form. Wikibooks shows great promise. Wikitionary is pretty good but still outclassed by a few offline tomes, and if I expanded into another project from this one, I'd probably choose that. Commons, for all it's issues with communicating with the rest of the WMF family, is a damn good resource. Wikinews, however, I've never found adequate. Many of the articles on top importance stories, such as their article on the earthquakes, are okay, however my New York Times app brings me more stories that are better written and have more depth, at a rate faster than Wikinews does. When four months ago I was looking for things to do, I asked a few people about it, and the response was uniform, that behind the scenes it was often bitterly partisan, especially in the areas that I was interested in, and that their experiences made them not wish to return after their initial trials with it. I was advised to stay away from trying to write there, and my edit count there shows that I took that advice. I'm sorry that what I said caused so much drama, it could have been worded better, but I don't think that my assessment on the news quality or the backend drama is wrong. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I particularly loved the time - in the middle of Jimbvo claiming historic artworks were Porn on Commons, in order to placate Fox News - that a Wkinews editor begged me to talk about historic arttworks, spent ays interviewing m for hours, then decided to give Jimbo three weeks to respond before the site spiked the story as old news because he didn't. Of course, they ran Jimbo's next press release on the topic,just left out all they got me to do. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • (days old interjection) Having written about 10 pieces for it last year, I can say Wikinews does indeed suck giant balls, it does have some serious community based defects (and infact 1 giant one), however, ITN, and Wikipedia in general, has very much played its part in starving it of contributors, in the ridiculously lenient way it treats editors who obsessively and immediately write about crap which is totally NEWS and is never in a million years going to have any historic notability whatsoever, or their enablers who completely ignore basic guidance like EVENT and at Afd continually pull out fantasy nonsense like 'oh well we can always delete it in 6 months if it's not notable', which is so untrue its unreal. There are also editors out there who clearly get a massive buzz out of receiving their ITN credits, particularly single topic obsessed editors, so much so that they either don't know or don't care that this is an encyclopoedia, not a news dump, as they fire up yet another 2011..... redlink. One editor in particular doesn't even bother with the article creating part, he just continually nominates here, and then grants the credit to himself wen he gets lucky and is first on a genuine ITN topic. And that's his sole contribution to Wikipedia. Other than also violating basic image copyright (to illustrate said news stories). MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In a few hours it'll be Friday in parts of the world. Are we seriously going to still have this thing on as news a week after the event? If this is par for the course, "In The News" should at least be renamed, either to something suitably vague such as "Recent Events", or something more descriptive, such as "Probably In the News At Some Point In The Last Few Weeks". —WFC— 06:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe "This week in the news" or as WFC said "Recent events". That's better. – Novice7 (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
WT:ITN is that way if you want to propose it. StrPby (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
We've had discussions of changing the name before, many people agree the name isn't the best but we've never had a proposal people agree on. Regardless, I've never seen any evidence for anything close to consensus for turning ITN into a newsticker and in fact plenty of people are strongly opposed to the idea. In other words, any proposal which treats ITN as a newsticker is dead in the water. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I never said I wanted a newsticker, only that my newstickers are far more useful that this section. As for changing the name, I think several people here liked "Recent News" as a replacement, perhaps offering up that might get consensus. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen the point of a news section. We are not a news site, and we only report facts from stuff already reported... quite different from Wikinews, which does not have an origial research ban. Encyclopedias traditionally don't provide news, and imo only the highest quality articles should be featured on the main page. By their nature, current events are anything but. Removing ITN and maybe even linking to Wikinews will help increase participation there. AD 14:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopaedia. We have many articles on events that were current at the time and many of them spring up very quickly after an event and are of a decent quality. These events are often of great interest to readers, so it makes sense (imho, anyway) to highlight the decent articles on the MP. Obviously, ITN depends on there actually being an event to write an article on and so it can get stale on slow news weeks, but if we had greater participation at WP:ITN/C and more people working on the articles, ITN would be updated quicker when there is something with which to update it. Trying to make the best out of a feature you don't like doesn't mean you can't keep criticising it. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
There has also been a decent amount of progress towards posting more stuff, I can only encourage more of you guys complaining to get involved and try and make it better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Harry Mitchell is spot on about the role of ITN and about Wikinews: if WN were a business model, you'd dump it straight away. And equally, as a model for the Foundation's ideals, it's just totally misconceived, even though I admit I'd have been right behind it when it was launched years ago (sounds like a great idea until you face the big picture of news production and consumption). But worse, the English-language Wikinews is run by a pretty nasty clique, and User:Wackywace (another refugee from there?) told me on his talk page there are only six active editors. WN is a shameful waste of Foundation resources and should be closed, in all languages.

But to comment on ITN: I agree that it's not a normal news service, and surely people don't go to WP's main page to get their news. I think it is very well conceived in its anchorage to actual newsworthy articles that are being updated. I like it. It is ideal as a dynamic, fast-changing balance to the featured content on the main page. (Don't get me started about the bloated DYK section—that is very very wrong for the main page, displaying articles at the very opposite end of the quality spectrum from the featured content, with such poorly conceived and mostly boring, lame blurbs.)

However, despite my good opinion of ITN, I do wish for three things:

(1) A faster process from the breaking of the news to the updating of the article(s) to the nomination to the posting. I know it's hard to achieve (a slightly more official hierarchy of specialist admins/rosters?), but it is important to be prompt, given the speed of the news treadmill around the world nowadays. News goes stale mighty quickly nowadays, even when the primary purpose is unusual compared with standard news services.
(2) More flexibility in the number of current items, and in how long each one stays up.
(3) A smarter approach to wikilinking, as you know I've banged on about. Why aren't we funnelling people to the newsworthy pages, and perhaps to one other, very occasionally two other articles that are not already linked to from the newsworthy page? The practice of always linking country names, and bunching links together, is no longer used in articles and breaches the style guides. On this matter, what the style guides say makes plain good sense, even if the main page is not stricly speaking bound by them. Tony (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I generally agree here. I'm neutral on this area's continued existence; as long as it is properly maintained, it serves as a tie in between Wikipedia and the rest of the world, which is a useful thing to have. To his points specifically:
1) While we can't mandate that people write about current events, it does seem to happen consistently, so that's not an issue. Tony is right in that the news is a rapidly flowing thing today. I believe that someone needs to check the section every 12 or so hours and make sure things are current. It's relatively easy to update a prompt on an ongoing event without even changing most of the wikilinks, and just as easy to look at the top stories of the past few hours and make sure that the current prompt isn't outdated. It just needs to get done.
2) Agreed.
3) Agreed. The current average in the section is 5, with most having four and some having 6 links. I'd aim for 3. If almost everything is blue, it loses the point. For example Oscars is easily reachable from any of the other prompts linked, and it's not the subject, so it should be cut. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Could some of these issues be fixed by changing the name of the section? Something that doesn't make people think it's supposed to be a news-ticker with up-to-the-minute news?
"Topics In the News" or "Edited for Current Events", perhaps? APL (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps 'In the news this week' or 'Currently ongoing stories'? Most people using WP regularly will know that ITN entries have a 'sticky tendency.' Jackiespeel (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
"In the news this week" would be a very accurate description, to be fair. —WFC— 08:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
In the news this week seems good to me. I also think Tony talks a lot of sense. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
"... this week" does imply a slower turnaround. And ITN is short and neat. Tony (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Implying the slower turnaround is half of the point. Much of the frustration at the moment is that we present stories that are stale or considerably outdated as news. This Week's News is equally short and neat, but more accurate. It would give us a stronger licence to do what in practise already happens. —WFC— 15:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, a name change will be worthwhile if (and only if) it removes the word "news." Otherwise, we'll never adequately address the misconception that it's a news ticker.
Because of the misleading name, some readers have argued the point even after we've explained the section's nature. ("But it says 'in the news' right there! So if it's not a news ticker, why do you call it that?") And they're right. —David Levy 16:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
"Recent Events articles"? Perhaps still a bit clumsy but describes that these events happened recently and that this section refers to the articles pertaining to said events. Including 'articles' may help in clarifying that this is recently updated encyclopaedic content rather than a news ticker. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 17:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
This is where the name change idea invariably falls short. We've never managed to come up with a title that fully conveys "articles updated to reflect recent events" in a non-clumsy manner.
So maybe we should stop pursuing that goal. After all, the current title conveys none of that information, so it might be a good idea to settle on something that conveys as much as possible and eliminates the problematic "news" association.
Perhaps just "Recent events" would suffice. It doesn't include a mention of article updates, but it's still an improvement over the status quo (and it isn't awkward construct). —David Levy 17:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
So far I think Recent events and This week's news are the two that might work. My preference would be for recent events, but this week's news might pacify those who want "news" retained. —WFC— 19:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
In addition to reinforcing the misconception that the section is a news ticker (and increasing the outrage regarding our failure to include various stories), the name "This week's news" would promote the additional misconception that the section is intended to report all of the top headlines from either the current calendar week or the past seven days.
The section sometimes includes events from more than a week ago (and would, in such cases, be objectively outdated instead of subjectively so). And during periods of relatively frequent updates, we would receive complaints about the absence of blurbs that scrolled off. (This already occurs occasionally, but the "This week's news" title would greatly exacerbate the problem by providing a realistic expectation that everything from the past week be included.) —David Levy 21:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
"Recent Updates"? Lovelac7 03:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
That possibility occurred to me. The problem is that it's likely to be confused with this.
If we can't convey both the "recent events" and "article updates" elements via the section's name, omitting the latter seems like the lesser evil. —David Levy 03:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
General comment - and just why is this discussion taking place here and not at WT:ITN where more ITN regulars are likely to see it and add input? This just reeks of trying to get a one-sided "consensus" without proper input from the community of editors who would be most affected by any change. StrPby (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
This discussion pertains primarily to the section's presentation to readers, no?
In any event, why not simply post a pointer at WT:ITN? I'll do so now. —David Levy 23:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I love having news on the main page. I like "Recent events" as a title. And for the record... I think Wikinews is underused and nifty. SJ+ 13:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing that was directed at me StrPby. This started out as a rant, and was only posted because the standard processes to discuss ITN were as lively as a morgue that day. I wanted to know if I was the only person who felt that something wasn't right, and the answer was that others did too. But once the existence of the post was finally acknowledged, it evolved into a constructive discussion about practical steps that could be taken. You're right to say that no change could happen without ITN being consulted first, but suggestions of deliberate bias are wide of the mark. —WFC— 14:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I am alone in thinking thinking that ITN is appropriately named. To me, it simply means that the section contains WP articles which are 'in the news'. IMO that does not necessarily mean that it is a news ticker. I understand that many people do misunderstand the title for some reason, but I also haven't seen an better name, though as I said I think it doesn't need a better name.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

From a stylistic standpoint, In the news is better than any other name ever suggested. And yes, when one understands its intended connotation (articles updated to reflect events in the news), it makes perfect sense.
The problem is that the latter often doesn't occur. We have no means of determining percentages, but we frequently receive messages (here and on other pages) from users under the mistaken impression that the section is a news ticker. Even some administrators have made this mistake, so it's hardly confined to newbies.
You acknowledge above that "many people do misunderstand the title for some reason," but you go on to say that you "also haven't seen a better name" and "think it doesn't need a better name." I agree that we've yet to come up with anything that sounds as good as In the news, but I don't understand your belief that the goal isn't worth pursuing. Is it your position that the intended connotation should be obvious, so we needn't worry about those who fail to grasp it?
I strongly believe that if we're forced to choose between style and clarity, the latter is far more important. —David Levy 17:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
In the news is the best name for the section. Unfortunately, the section doesn't live up to its name, but that's a reason to change the ITN process, not how it is called. GreyHood Talk 13:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
In the subsection below, you make excellent points regarding the section's shortcomings. But none of them pertain to the fact that as long as its title contains the word "news," it will be mistaken for a news ticker. Only if it were a news ticker would it "live up to its name" in many people's minds. —David Levy 17:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Changing the label without changing what's behind this label will hardly solve any problems. ITN currently acts as slow news ticker, and whatever new name we could assign to it, it would look like a news ticker. So, what should we better do: a) make ITN faster news ticker, so that there will be no outdated news; b) make ITN an "encyclopedic news ticker", so that it will serve for navigation in encyclopedia and encouragement of its improvement, not only for listing the "significant news". GreyHood Talk 18:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
As I said, you've made excellent points, and I agree that significant reform is called for.
My belief that the section's name should be changed is unrelated to the issues that you've cited. It is not an attempt to downplay or compensate for the shortcomings listed below. It's an attempt to address a common misunderstanding that otherwise will persist, irrespective of whether we fix the other problems. We should improve both the label and the content behind it. —David Levy 19:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to make ITN an encyclopaedic news ticker, to post stuff that's in the news in some way, but that is good encyclopaedic content then we would be posting things like iPad 2, because iPad is a GA. Additionally we'd also be highly likely to become very Anglo-American centric as that is where most of Wikipedia's content is focused. But I think it would be a shame to lose a pretty worldwide focused current affairs source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
In my proposal below, I've tried to give featured content and international significance equal weight in the nomination procedure. GreyHood Talk 21:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

ITN issues in detail

The fact that ITN is not dynamic enough (too often displaying outdated news) was discussed in the several topics at Wikipedia talk:In the news. There is a number of reasons behind the situation:
  • 1) There are not enough regular editors on ITN, while newbees and non-regular editors are often thwarted by too strict criteria (at the same time arbitrary in application, known to regulars but unwritten in the guidelines), slow and often unclear process.
  • 2) There are too few admins monitoring WP:ITN/C. Often admins have to be poked individually to post some news items (ready for posting and agreed upon), or poked to explain why the items that received enough support are still not ready for posting (due to the unsufficient update or other technical issues).
  • 3) Obviously significant news or articles on WP:ITN/R are sometimes not posted because of the lack of sufficient update or because of other technical issues. Editors like to nominate items, but simply do not put enough effort to prepare the available news for posting.
  • 4) Less significant, but still major world news (making headlines in the media internationally) are often not posted because some editors consider them insignificant, and could freely oppose in any case, despite any arguments on the contrary.
  • 5) Several major topics on ITN are strongly underrepresented, and in fact there is standing bias towards them. Economy and technology news are often not posted with the arguments like "it is business as usual" or "it's advertising". News are often not posted due to the established precedents and practices of opposing certain kinds of events.
  • 6) There is no mechanism that gives featured or good content a priority in posting. It would make sense to take opportunity to display featured, or good, or even B-class articles even if the news related to them are not exceptionally significant. Afterall, Wikipedia is not a news agency and the MP should feature more of the best content.
  • 7) Current ITN process is slow, time-consuming, and at the same time not formalized enough. The level of support or the proportion of supports/opposes required for posting is not defined clearly. Discussions may last up to five days, when the news already became stale. The ITN timer currently becomes red after 24 hours since the last posting, while the proper time should be at least 12 hours, so that to urge posting of at least 2 news items per day, which would garantee that there would be no stale news on ITN (there were suggestions to change the timer, but they had't success with recurring arguments along the line that quality should have priority over quantity). GreyHood Talk 13:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you've done a good job of summing up all the issues. I frankly think if the section is to stay at the top of the front page within a reasonable timespan we have to get something posted on average every 12 hours, obviously sometimes it will be quicker, and sometimes slower but overall that should be the target we aim for, so number 7 is very important to get right. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree – #7 would in effect make ITN exactly what we're saying it's not: a news ticker. Having a new item up every 12 hours would only reinforce the idea, imo. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 14:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
A new story every 12 hours would still mean stuff would be there for 3 days on average, that's 3x longer than the featured article is up, 3x longer than on this day, and 12x longer than did you know. And that's far less frequent an update than news sites.
Additionally a lot of the shortfall can be made up by posting other topics as well as we handle elections, disasters and sport, so we wouldn't really be significantly diluting the quality of the stories that are posted.
And lets not forget its only one story, even weeklies like the Economist add quite a few stories every week. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposals for ITN improvement

I've moved this to a subpage - see WT:ITN3.0. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Now an RFC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

ITN picture alignment

With the ongoing 'ITN picture/topic misalignment discussion' - how feasible would it be to have the #word# 'pictured' in 'a colour'/more instantly visible typeface' - so readily visible? (But this will be one of the regular discussions when WP celebrates its 100th birthday - along with too much sport/beasties/US/other usual suspects) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

At one point, we tried displaying "(pictured)" in bold text. This quickly proved unpopular. —David Levy 18:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

One of those 'complaints whichever way you do it' topics with the same six suggestions being (g). 'Anybody who uses WP regularly' knows to look around the ITN section for the relevant entry.

Aren't we about due for a 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells about the main page' discussion? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not always bump the item related to the picture to the top and put other items in whatever order is otherwise being used? --Khajidha (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's newest articles

Well, it is in reality "From Wikipedia's newest or expanded articles". Shouldn't we correct that to be more factual? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, in any case it is about newly created content. No need to be over technical, IMO. At least where we have limited place on the Main page box. --Tone 22:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the OP in principle, but we'd need to find a phrasing that fitted into the available space. "From Wikipedia's newest or expanded articles" would work fine on large screens, but wrap onto two lines for small ones (remember not everyone maximises their browser). Besides, they're not really the 'newest' articles anyway, usually several days old. Something like 'from recently expanded articles'? Do we even need to mention Wikipedia here? Modest Genius talk 22:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we're getting a bit too pedantic here about the wording. I don't think the reader needs to know whether the article is completely new or just expanded. The important part is how good the content is. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
"From Wikipedia's newest content"? That would clear up any anomoly, as well as no longer implying that lists do not make it through to DYK. —WFC— 14:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
But not all content qualifies - adding new information to existing articles but without being a 5x expansion does not qualify for DYK. Modest Genius talk 17:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
That not all new content can be on DYK does not make the statement "from Wikipedia's newest content" inaccurate. —WFC— 23:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
(the above point about -est notwithstanding) —WFC— 23:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
"...newest content" seems to be the most appropriate. Expanded articles are essentially new content. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Why does this note even have to appear on the main page? Yes, the qualifications should be listed on the nomination page, but there doesn't seem to be any need to mention them here. It doesn't really matter to the reader how the DYK items are chosen. --Khajidha (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it does because DYK is intended to highlight new content and show off the fact we are constantly getting new articles and stubs becoming real articles. A common question is why some DYK items seem boring or stuff everyone knows because people think DYK is supposed to highlight interest facts that people may not know but that isn't its primary purpose nor the way it is set up. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Making a Decision on the Main Page Layout

I'm not sure I even know what proposal Adam is working off of is, and at this point, I don't care. I spend weeks trying to hear everyone's opinions and make everyone happy, and in return Adam throws a tantrum on my talk page. Do whatever you all want. It'll work, or it won't. I've learned a valuable lesson today about how much consensus actually matters. Depressing really. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what's happening with FS and FL

We now need to be pragmatic, and figure out the way to move forward. I think it would be wrong to attempt to progress that discussion until Adam has the opportunity to participate, should he wish. In the meantime I would suggest that we reflect on the way forward individually, but put the discussion on hold until some time after 12:00 UTC. —WFC— 00:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please correct this error (third time of asking)

In OTD, as reported above - 'license' in the Raymonde de Laroche entry in OTD should read 'licence'. Am posting here as no-one seems to be taking any notice of where I posted above in the OTD section, and the error has been up for 13 hours now. Thanks (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why an article about a French woman should be written in British English? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why it shouldn't be? (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that's the start of a boring, pointless non-argument. Happy pancake day. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a silly issue, but fwiw, the article itself uses the British spelling of licence. Resolute 15:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it makes no difference to me particularly, the hook being used links to an article with USEng spelling... Damned if you do, .... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It's even funnier than that. From Raymonde de Laroche: "... an airplane pilot's licence." and "... the first woman in the world to receive a pilot licence when the Aero-Club of France issued her license #36 ...". No doubt someone will grasp the nettle and regularise the transatlantic spellings. --RexxS (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Funny? -- (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I found it incongruous (hence mildly amusing) that someone objected to the use of en-us in the hook which has a lifetime of less than a day, when the article itself uses a random mixture of en-gb and en-us and has been that way for months, if not years, without anyone mentioning it. --RexxS (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Raymonde de Laroche has been regularized to en-gb. Someone may want to check it since I'm American. howcheng {chat} 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Damn, we'd better fix that to fixed-wing aircraft (there was a conflict war over this on Steve Fossett, where one argued that he was American and the other argued that we were an international encyclopedia. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

When we reach the WP equivalent of 'the least interesting day of the 20th century' we can have a main page devoted to 'all the usual problems' - multiple-English-spelling-systems, excess of US-sport-animal and plant-(continue according to taste) pages over previous week. misalignment of ITN articles and images, articles deemed inappropriate by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells and so on. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You are rather fond of banging on about Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells, aren't you? [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] It's a very convenient way to belittle the opinions of anyone who you disagree with. Give it a rest. (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Where are we with FL and FS?

Joint apology
  • Okay, just to be clear, I've talked with Sven. I misread the timing of his actions, he didn't realise I was misreading them and got naturally upset, and we're both horribly embarassed as to what happened. We're going to take a couple days off the FS/FL proposal, then move forwards again, working together. we apologise to everyone for the disruption, and letting our spat get way out of hand. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I should have done more to keep Adam in the loop, I didn't realize where he was in the coding, and should have done more to make sure I was up to date on the technical aspects. I readily admit that I got swept up by the madness from yesterday, and said things that were better left unsaid. We both have things to be shameful of, and I too offer a joint apology to everyone. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)