Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Main page)
Jump to: navigation, search


Main Page error reports[edit]

Shortcut:
Main Page toolbox
Yesterday
June 2
Today
June 3, 2015
Tomorrow
June 4
TFA TFA TFA
SA/OTD SA/OTD SA/OTD
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
POTD Main Page v.
POTD regular v.
Today's featured list (Mondays and Fridays): requests
TFA/OTD/POTD/TFL Queue
In the news: candidates · discussion · admin instructions
Did you know: nominations · discussion · queue
Protected main page images
Protected pages associated with Main Page articles
Error reports · General discussions · FAQ · Help · Sandbox
Main Page history · Main Page alternatives · April Fool's
It is now 14:40 UTC
Purge the Main Page
Purge this page

To report an error on today's or tomorrow's Main Page, please add it to the appropriate section below.

  • Where is the error? An exact quote of all or part of the text in question will help.
  • Offer a correction if possible.
  • References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
  • Time zones: The current date and time is displayed in Coordinated Universal Time (14:40 on 3 Jun 2015), not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Do not use {{edit protected}}, which will not give you a faster response, and in fact causes problems if used here. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • Done? Once an error has been fixed, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history for discussion and action taken.
  • No chit-chat: Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere.


Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article[edit]

Errors in In the news[edit]

The article says that the hominin species is extinct and that it lived millions of years ago. It's not "new" at all, just new to science. Please change it to say "Scientists describe an additional extinct hominin species, Australopithecus deyiremeda." I didn't know what "hominin" was, so I was surprised to find that it was an ancient species, not something that's still alive. 192.12.149.16 (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Changed to "newly-discovered early hominin species". I'm about 89% sure I got the hyphenation right, but double-checking appreciated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the hyphen, per MOS:HYPHEN. ["A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) unless part of a larger compound (a slowly-but-surely strategy)."]
Incidentally, the previous wording was not erroneous. Published definitions of "new" include "having but lately or but now come into knowledge: a new chemical element" and "having existed before but only recently discovered: a new comet". —David Levy 00:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't think the previous version was wrong, just less clear than optimal. If I had said "newly discovered species", I wouldn't have used a hyphen, but I was under the impression the additional adjective "early" meant that you needed one. I'm not too fussed, if you're right, then good fix, and if I'm right, then someone will come along and sort it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it a 'newly discovered' 'early hominin' species or a newly 'discovered early' hominin species (they were expecting to discover it in July but unexpectedly found it this month)? However, I don't know enough about obscure grammatical constructs to change it, or care much further for that matter. Stephen 00:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that additional clarity is preferable. I noted that "new" wasn't incorrect because the edit was performed in response to someone who believed otherwise. ("It's not "new" at all...")
To sidestep the hyphen matter, I've replaced "Scientists describe a newly discovered early hominin species" with "Scientists announce the discovery of an early hominin species". —David Levy 01:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Chinese cruise ship sinking – Suggest adding the word River. Sca (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    Our own article omits the word. BBC headlines omit the word (e.g. "China ship capsize: Hopes fade of finding Yangtze survivors"). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I saw that re our own article. Doesn't necessarily make it right. My thought is, some (esp. younger, esp. U.S.) readers of English WP might not instantly know what the Yangtze is. (It's not a household word over here.) Anyway, even if it happened on the Mississippi, I still would include River to be complete & specific. Sca (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Errors in the current or next Did you know...[edit]

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day[edit]

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture[edit]

The caption for today's featured picture (3 June 2015; the Geneva drive) contains the text:

Such a mechanism is used in film projectors, watches, and indexing tables, among others.

Unfortunately the target of that link (indexing (motion) does not contain the term indexing table, nor does it provide any clear explanation of what an indexing table is. The article most closely associated with the image (Geneva drive) only refers to an indexing table, without explaining what it is. I havn't a clue what an indexing table is (that is why I followed the link in the first place) so I cannot help there; perhaps the reference in the above sentence should simply be removed. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Quick Google search gives examples such as this. I believe this falls under "WP:SOFIXIT" territory. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • How?. I cannot make the change I proposed because the main page is protected. And a YouTube video of a revolving blue table is hardly going to help me describe what an index table is in the indexing (motion) article, let alone be an acceptable source. For a start I cannot for the life of me work out how a Geneva Drive can be used in such a device; it looks to me as if the rotation is either manual or controlled by an electronic timer, assuming that is what the featured count-down display was. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the last or next featured list[edit]

General discussion[edit]

Shortcuts:

Outage?[edit]

It looks like wikipedia.org was down for about a half hour today - there was some kind of vague error message in its place. Challenger l (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A widespread outage would have caused lots of discussion afterwards but I have seen no other mention. If there was an outage then it must have affected a limited number of users. If you want to report a problem another time then please give an example link and quote the message you saw there. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Challenger l -- this may be what you're looking for. Eman235/talk 15:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
There was a 5-minute period with no edits between https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=664338980 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=664338981. Maybe some users were affected for longer. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
That looks exactly like what was happening, Eman235. The next time I see anything like it, I'll copy the error code and screencap it too. Challenger l (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In the news: Pictures should clearly correlate with stories[edit]

We really need to indicate somehow the connection between the photo and the corresponding story. It's very easy for a reader to assume the pic and the top-listed story correspond, because the reader has to read down the whole list to see a parenthetical mention ("...pictured") which is easy to miss. Suggest we either put the photo beside the story (which would be very easy to do) or somehow caption the photo. Otherwise we get some pretty interesting/strange/funny apparent "correspondences" between the photo and whatever the first-listed story is, like today, where a pic of a guy shouting excitedly is shown right next to a story on Ireland legalizing same-sex marriage. (I happen to think it's great news, but obviously we shouldn't be implying that FC Barcelona head coach Luis Enrique takes any position on the subject! ) Happy editing.... --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 08:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Not as easy as you think... In wiki markup, placing a floating image element inside an unordered list is not possible; it creates a listgap. It also threatens to displace the footer when the image is too low. So it was a conscious decision to place the image on top. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Being a 'non-technical wikian' - is it possible just to bold (or otherwise highlight) the relevant entry? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Good idea -- or at a minimum, highlight the word "pictured". But also see proposed solution below ("the list floats but..."). --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 14:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It occurred to me as well. One thing that can be done about it is to have the story with the picture at the top always. Whenever a new story is to be entered, we can just add it right below the "top story". That way there will be no confusion between the photo and the entries. 117.192.161.77 (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Stories are listed in the order in which they occurred; changing that comes up now and then but has never gained consensus to be done. I think it would be more confusing to mess up the order for the benefit of readers who simply don't read carefully. We can't fix all problems for all people. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • This perpetual glitch has been discussed repeatedly in recent years – notably in June 2014. Apparently those in the know technologically have not found it possible to devise a workable solution. Sca (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Proposed Solution -- The list floats but presumably the picture does not, in which case the following would work: Keep the story to which the picture correlates pinned at the top, and only have the stories beneath it float. A new story gets pinned at the top whenever the picture is to be changed. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 14:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S. And in any case, a "thank-you" to the techies who do what many of us cannot. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 14:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Alas, it is the picture that floats. It is also implemented using a template, which cannot be used inside list items, or between two list items without breaking up the list. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Edokter - Ah, it is challenging, isn't it! Minor tweak: what about bolding "pictured"? That would very likely catch the reader's eye better than italics. And/or major tweak: auto-caption the picture? --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 18:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
We tried the former, which wasn't well received. (Complaints related to distraction and undue emphasis, I believe.) The latter has been discussed without establishing consensus to implement it. (I don't recall whether technical limitations played a role.) —David Levy 21:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@ David Levy -- Hmmm... maybe there's another way more recognizable than itals but less obstrusive than bolding (font, color, symbol -- cf. Edokter). Caption seems best, surprised at opposition... maybe worth reopening if it's been awhile. Cheers. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 00:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Middle 8: In general, people want the various sections to match each other as closely as possible. Also, I don't know how the caption could fit properly without increasing the image's size significantly (which we avoid to prevent problematic line wrapping at lower resolutions).
Of the implementations discussed, leaving the item related to the image at the top of the section (until a new image is used, at which point the blurb would drop down to its reverse-chronological position) strikes me as the most promising, particularly if we stipulate that the blurb mustn't be retained beyond the point at which an item tagged with a later date is bumped from ITN. (This would leave ITN without an image from time to time, exactly as it does currently.)
Such a solution would entail no additional coding, present no technical barriers, and require only minor procedural adjustments. Perhaps more importantly, it would cause no aesthetic changes (probably the easiest way to draw objections). —David Levy 03:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@David Levy - sounds good! --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 03:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Middle 8: There's just the matter of consensus. That proposal might have the best odds of succeeding, but I'm far from certain that it will. —David Levy 05:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
David Levy - yes there is that small issue. :-) Anyway, with this caveat, it may well be worth going forward with the idea pending further discussion here. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 14:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
No individual item (as opposed to "ongoing items") should ever be up for more than a week, picture or not. If things are getting that stale, there is a much bigger problem. --Khajidha (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC) PS-Put me down in favor of David Levy's proposal
So... perhaps use an icon pictured instead? Which hilites the depicted term, when not given: pictured. See {{pictured}}. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I can also make the subject term appear hilited when hovering over the image. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Icon is interesting; how would that work exactly (sorry I'm not getting it)? Icon appears next to corresponding text entry? Hover is good too but I suspect most readers don't hover. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI)

We do our best at ITN to update images when they're available. We already add (pictured) to the blurb that relates to the image. We also list items in chronological order, i.e. the most recent item appears first, regardless of image availability. For the handful that complain, we have several million who don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate volunteers' efforts (I said so above); don't make it personal. Just trying to help, and those who don't complain aren't going to be hurt by incremental improvements, and may be helped. For example we might add (pictured) or (pictured) instead of (pictured) to better catch the eye. Edokter has some good ideas. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 19:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that the millions of readers who casually check the English WP Home Page each day are simply bemused by this obvious glitch. Yet amid the welter of material on the Net, some of it confusing, they're not motivated enough to delve into WP's back pages and lodge complaints. And, true, if they look at it long enough, the explanation is there in the "(pictured)" advisories. Sca (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I suspect you need more than just your suspicion. Is this a real problem? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 21:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I mean for our actual readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, fellow editor and namesake of most groovy tune, we're all trying to keep readers in mind here. Lack of reader complaint isn't much of a metric... there are all kinds of obvious problems WP has that readers don't complain about but we fix anyway. This isn't huge but it's right there up front and imo rather embarrassing, especially when the pic and the article at the top are wildly incongruent. Most publications put photos right beside the pertinent story, no? --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 21:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The 'linking ITN entries with the relevant pictures' is a 'fairly regular topic on the MP talk page.

As ITN is (traditionally/expected to be) 'fed from the top' having a 'sticky news story with picture' as the top entry with other material sliding in underneath is likely to cause more discussion - and 'seems more difficult to a non-technical wikian' than either having some form of emphasis #or# having a separate section (perhaps above 'ongoing stories') - 'ITN with picture.' Jackiespeel (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like a separate 'ITN with picture' section could be scriptable somehow. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 22:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
But it's not just a technical problem. We don't have a glut of images to put on the main page for ITN stories, they have to be free. So often the picture is relevant to an item several down in the list because we don't have a suitable picture for a story higher up in the list. So if we start leaving the pictured item at the top, we will get far more comments about why a stale item is still being unduly highlighted. Stephen 00:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Stephen - It wouldn't be terribly stale, though, since the pic changes reasonably frequently. Agree with David Levy on this (if I'm reading him correctly) [1] --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 03:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It can get very stale. I think our worst was having the same guy pictured for more than 10 days, and a couple of times recently we've had no acceptable picture. The only reason why the picture does not align with the top item is due to lack of a suitable free picture for that top item (and many items have no pictures at all in the often newly created article). OTD has the same problem, by the way; I recall seeing their 'pictured' often being a few items down the list. Stephen 03:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Stephen - yikes! That is stale. Well -- in that case better to just let the pic drop away, right? Better no pic & no corresponding story than a stale pic & story. Allowing for that, wouldn't it be possible to keep the story and pic at the top iff they are fresh, and just vanish them otherwise? --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 14:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This problem is easily fixed by adding a short caption in small font beneath the picture. 86.183.129.20 (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    It would need to be awfully small. —David Levy 03:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
About this size? Sca (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Or closer to this. Or maybe like this. Or even like this. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 01:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Not really. Usually only a name or location or very brief phrase is required. When you actually try it, you might find that it works more easily than you expect. 109.157.12.42 (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Or it could be small-ish and right-justified in a box, which would tend to stick out a little to the left. That would probably look OK, if not great. But agree with you that easier is better, certainly to start. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 03:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the average reader even KNOW that the items are in chronological order? I didn't until I asked about this picture problem the first time. --Khajidha (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • How about not having a picture at all? A picture gives undue prominence for a particular story which is something we don't want. 61.3.104.199 (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
In the case of these small mugshots, the picture serves as a typographical device to "break up the gray" (as they used to say ... back in the day) – and an "entry point" for the reader. Sca (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. Pictures make a huge difference to the overall appeal of a page. Solid text is very daunting; pictures make it inviting. 109.157.12.42 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Could a 'technical Wikian' be invited to comment on the various suggestions? With 'highlighting the relevant entry' the simplest solution is probably best (bolding/font size/font kind/italic/colour etc). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you read WP:ACCESS? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The simplest solution is the icon ( pictured) I suggested above, and either hilites the pictured term in italics, or simply replaces "(pictured)". -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Could you post an example in your sandbox, Edokter? Am not quite understanding, sorry. But sounds promising. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
See below. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I must say I'm always a bit intrigued when this issue comes up, as the complaints are always in regards to ITN rather than OTD, which has the same 'problem'. And the 'problem' is worse at OTD because there's no preference to have the top-most items pictured there and you can't change the order of the items.
I don't know if people know the ITN blurbs are in chronological order, but it seems like the most logical way to order items, so I imagine that assumption might be made. -- tariqabjotu 01:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the issue arises more frequently for ITN simply because it's one of the first things the reader sees. I have to scroll down to see OTD. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Take today's for example. The pictured item, and a bad picture at that, is fourth out of five. Why do we need to 'fix' ITN again? Stephen 02:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Because sometimes the image and the first couple news items are wildly incongruous. And readers are used to seeing pics beside their corresponding stories (who else expects them to scan down a list besides WP?). --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 04:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
And it can be bad. For example, a story and pic of some controversial public figure goes up. Then the story scrolls down a few and a Pedophile is apprehended story appears next to the picture of the poor schmuck. Similar things have actually happened at ITN that have caused me to do a double-take. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 04:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
A picture can, and has, been omitted if such an incongruous alignment occurs, although I'm sure most updating ITN aren't paying super-close attention to that. Also, it doesn't help matters that there are few admins willing to update the image. It's quick and easy to add a blurb, whereas swapping pictures takes more time, and I guess slightly more skill. So even though we do have a free, seemingly suitable image for Nico Rosberg, it won't be added immediately.
As my quotes around 'problem' suggest, I don't see this as a serious issue. I feel like we have a workable picture for one of the first two items (which are next to the picture) most of the time, whether it's immediately posted or not. Keeping pictured items at the top has a potential for allowing stale items and pictures to fester more so than they do now. Not a terrible solution though. -- tariqabjotu 04:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Icon[edit]

20150514 ESC 2015 Måns Zelmerlöw 5748 cropped.jpg

OK, here's a demonstration with an icon instead of "(pictured)". The name is italisized (the hilite), but that can be omitted. It just to catch attention that the subject is pictured. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I honestly can't see how that makes it more obvious than the plain text we currently use: (pictured). I think we ought to credit our readers with some level of intelligence and ability to read... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
If I had not read this discussion I would have no idea what that icon meant, nor would I understand the significance of the italicisation. 109.145.19.122 (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I feel the same, especially considering there are other words, such as the film title, that are italicized. Unfortunately, I think this version would be more confusing. Deli nk (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The idea was that the icon is more noticable then "(pictured)", which is somewhat burried in the brurbs. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand the reasons, I just strongly dislike the proposal and believe it to be a solution solving a problem that isn't really that big a problem at all, assuming our readers are capable of reading English. And presumably we would have to roll any solution out to the other sections of the main page for consistency? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
We assume that everyone here can read English, but the problem is that you do not immediately (or ever, if you choose not to read down the page) see the "pictured" text. Instead, at a glance, you see the first text item and the photo adjacent, and inevitably associate the two. Where the picture obviously does not correspond to the text, the initial impression is that something has gone wrong; when it's a picture that might match, it's downright confusing. For example, when the picture of Måns Zelmerlöw was adjacent to the story about Nico Rosberg, it looked at first glance clearly as if the picture was of Nico Rosberg. It is not enough, in my opinion, to just say that people should read further. Even if they do, which is not guaranteed, by this time the "damage" is already done. 109.145.19.122 (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's any damage, but we'll have to agree to differ on that. But you take the point that this would need to happen across all sections of the main page, not just ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
TFA is already clearly linking the article to the image, I don't see what change could be made there. DYK already places the hook with an image first. OTD is the only other section that would seem to need to change. Given that the connection between chronological order and layout order is much clearer in that section due to the visible dates, I would suggest that a simple date caption under the picture would be sufficient. --Khajidha (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
But I don't think you'd want two or three solutions for the "pictured" caption on the main page, one saying (pictured), one with some odd icon and some rollover text (is that accessible?) and one with a date caption that doesn't explain what we're looking at. In fact sometimes text is required to clarify what relevance the picture actually has to the caption.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I thought we'd already decided against the icon. The proposal I thought we were discussing for ITN is the same as the one for DYK, first item gets the picture (with a "pictured" note still in the blurb to identify which particular part of it is being illustrated). TFA, being only a single item, is necessarily a different case from other sections. The idea of the date caption is just to associate a picture with a particular blurb, just as in DYK or ITN a "pictured" notice would be appended to the exact part of the blurb being illustrated. I did not recommend moving the illustrated blurb to the top of OTD (although I wouldn't oppose it), as I expected that to be met with HUGE disapproval due to the quite obvious chronological nature of OTD. Sometimes there is no best solution for all the different sections at once. --Khajidha (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't see the part where the icon was dismissed. We do have a solution that is coherent across all sections of the main page, the one we have right now. It seems that we'll be introducing a new problem (inconsistency) to fix a different problem (inability to read the word (pictured) until it's "too late"). I would prefer to keep ITN as it is and once a pictured blurb moves from the top, the picture is removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The current system is not any more coherent. TFA is one item with one picture. DYK always puts the pictured blurb first. That makes 3 different solutions on the page as is. --Khajidha (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
But the identification of the picture is consistent across each section of the main page. I think this needs more thinking and less ad-hoc proposals. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding people's "inability" to read the word (pictured) -- you have to bear in mind that people do not read material like this sequentially. Their eyes dart quickly from one part of the page to another, until they possibly come to rest on something of interest. It is quite feasible that a reader would glance at a headline about Nico Rosberg, then glance at the adjacent picture of Måns Zelmerlöw thinking "OK, that's Nico Rosberg", then move on elsewhere, and never be any the wiser. And, as I say, even if you do scan down and see "pictured", there is at that point an annoyance at having been "misled". 109.145.19.122 (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It can look slightly better with a smaller size of the icon enclosed within ( ), like this:
Måns Zelmerlöw (pictured), representing Sweden with the song "Heroes", wins the Eurovision Song Contest in Vienna, Austria.
Note that hovering the mouse pointer over the icon pops up the text "pictured on the right" (I know the icon has become a wikilink to the said text, but someone with the knowledge of these things might be able to make the icon non-clickable and still display the text). - 117.192.166.51 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Once upon a time, For a very brief period of time the word "(Pictured)" was in bold type. I thought this helped a lot, but for some reason it was reverted very shortly afterwards. ApLundell (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Caption[edit]

20150514 ESC 2015 Måns Zelmerlöw 5748 cropped.jpg

Eurovision winner
Måns Zelmerlöw

Here's a demonstration with a caption. The sizes and spacing of elements might need to be finessed, but I don't see any reason why this solution should not work. 109.145.19.122 (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • For the record – if anyone's keeping one – I'll "vote" support for the redoubtable David Levy's proposal to leave the item related to the image at the top of the section until a new image is used. Small, very short captions – such as one-word last names – could also be used (long the practice in print media with mugshots). Agree with Khajidha's observation that readers aren't much concerned about ITN chronology. (Edokter, appreciate your work, but I find the icon suggestion more confusing than effective.) Sca (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've always wondered why we didn't go with the caption. That seems to me the easiest and clearest solution that doesn't look stupid. howcheng {chat} 21:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • If you're for limiting captions to one word, what do you suggest the protocol to be for pictures which aren't of people? E.g. [2] or [3] -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Or 'Artists impression of blah' or 'Most valuable player blah', or anything else which will throw the caption over two or three lines. We've also reversed the semantic effort and now leave it to the reader to parse through the blurbs and find the one that relates to (in the example above) 'Måns Zelmerlöw'. Stephen 00:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
If it can't be done in one line that fits under the pic, then go without a caption. This would work as long as the pic is paired with the text it illustrates. Sca (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you will find (possibly with adjustment to "line-height") that at least two lines of caption will be viable. 109.145.19.122 (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed the example above to a two-line caption to demonstrate. 109.145.19.122 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The ragged right edge on the text and the fact it isn't centered under the picture bothers me, for some reason. I think it would look much better with an align="center" in the div tag. (I'd also recommend appropriate cropping of the picture such that it's sized wide enough that the text doesn't extend beyond the ends, but that's a minor thing and wouldn't need to be always done if you had an intrinsically narrow picture.) -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The caption, a.k.a. cutline, shouldn't exceed the width of the pic, and because of ITN's relatively small size, one-line captions are much better for clarity of graphics. (In the two-line example above, the lines are separated by too much space. a.k.a. leading, and the second line tends to fade or bleed into the text/copy block.) Sca (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
On the "lines are separated by too much space" point, which browser are you using? I specifically decreased the leading, and it looks fine for me in both IE and Chrome. It sounds as if your browser is not rendering it properly. 81.132.192.88 (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Firefox. Sca (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I tweaked something. Any better now? 81.132.192.88 (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, altho lines could be even a bit closer together – of course they're are still too long, IMO. Sca (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
On my end, the lines are close together (arguably too much so) in Chrome and too far apart in Firefox. —David Levy 21:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Eurovision winner Måns Zelmerlöw
Eurovision winner Måns Zelmerlöw
I see that the example was generated manually.
We have a template for captioning non-bordered images. Its use resolves the line spacing problem, but for this to be feasible in conjunction with a caption of that length (barring technical issues not yet identified), we'd need to maintain a minimum width of 100px (instead of a 100px width for the landscape orientation and a 100px height for the portrait orientation). —David Levy 21:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


Making these images slightly bigger, by the way, is in itself no bad thing. At the moment they are small to the point that sometimes it is hard to even see very clearly what the picture is depicting. This latest mock-up looks very good to me.81.132.192.88 (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The new one at right above looks good to me - but (!) I wouldn't use ital for a cutline. Sca (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I retained the italic formatting for the sake of a direct comparison with the previous mock-up, but it can be removed now. —David Levy 23:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I still prefer one-line captions, though – ones that are short enough for the pic to overhang a (centered) caption on both sides. In the present example with a flush-left caption, see how the word "wins" tends to merge into "Måns" in the caption? (Cuz there's only abt 2 picas of space between them.) Sca (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't see any such problem. Would it be possible for you to post a screenshot somewhere? 109.153.226.99 (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
A caption for this size image (100px) is not feasable. The template ({{Plain image with caption}}) David points out is also based on a table, and we're trying to get rid of tables. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
A caption for this size image (100px) is not feasable.
Please elaborate. I've regarded the idea as iffy from the beginning, but I'd like to understand the specific issue(s).
The template ({{Plain image with caption}}) David points out is also based on a table, and we're trying to get rid of tables.
Might you be able to rework the template's code? —David Levy 20:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
A caption that is restricted to 100 pixels is likely to break past the image sides if a user has a larger font set; there is simply not enaough space. But a bigger image would help. As for the template, it might be possible, but seeing all those options, I'd rather start from scratch. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please, let's fix it this time[edit]

C'mon guys, please this time let's do something to actually fix this perennial problem. It is raised time and again, but nothing is ever done. The caption solution is eminently workable in most cases. Other solutions may be available. 81.132.192.88 (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks kind of weird as the picture currently relates to the sixth story (last story, if and when another story is added) on the list. If the story is important enough to have a picture, it should definitely be important enough to be placed at the top. "The story with the picture should remain on top" is my suggestion. Of course not everyone will agree, but the best (only) way of finding a solution is to start a poll. 117.192.167.158 (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a poll isn't a bad idea. A second suggestion is to "remove the image if it relates to an item which is not at the top of ITN". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A poll is a great idea, to my mind. The solutions I see, from skimming this, are "use a caption", "keep at the top", "remove if not at top", "change (pictured) to (pictured) or (pictured)", or "use pictured". Eman235/talk 14:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
If David Levy's solution is adopted, it also could and should be applied to OTD – where today, thanks to faulty juxtapositioning, we have Mark Felt leading the Mongol Invasion of 1223. Sca (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
It should probably also be applied to TFA and DYK too, as they too periodically currently use the (pictured). Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course, any solution to this "problem" should be applied across all of the main page, this isn't an ITN-exclusive issue. TFL and TFP sometimes use (xxx pictured) to give a clearer description of what might be featured in the image. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that TFL and TFP actually have this same problem. They are a single article being illustrated by a single picture, ITN and OTD are a single picture illustrating one of multiple items. Having to dig through multiple unrelated items to find the "pictured" tag strikes me as more disorganized than reading a single item to find out what particular part of it is being illustrated. The mental disconnect is greater. --Khajidha (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Consistency is desirable. Most of the sections lack the juxtaposition issue, but a hodgepodge of two image identification methods would be sloppy and potentially confusing. —David Levy 20:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we shouldn't have more than one way of identifying an image which is relevant to a part of the main page. The "mental disconnect" argument is coming almost entirely from a handful of editors, and has rarely (if ever) been noted by anyone but that. In any case, one solution for the main page is important, as David Levy has noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. (!) Sca (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that only a "handful of editors" think the current layout is confusing? I only look at this page occasionally, yet I have seen it raised over and over again. 23:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Preceding unsigned comment posted by 109.153.226.99. Sca (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

In the News and images part 2[edit]

(As the discussion was getting rather long)

The options (ignoring for the discussion 'potential programming complexity'):

  • Have no picture at all (never or rarely suggested)
  • Image and related text 'sticky to top' - likely to cause discussion on this talk page when 'major new story without image' occurs and similar.
  • A separate section 'ITN with featured picture' (which might allow for 2-3 entries)
  • Remove the picture once the story gets to entry 2 or 3 (but keep on actual article)
  • Text against the image
  • Using existing formatting tools (bold, italic, text size etc) to highlight the entry to which the image relates.

Any further options? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough, there is no picture right now...see this. Eman235/talk 15:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Only a proportion of ITN stories will have a suitable picture - and I meant in the sense of 'no picture at all as the default.' Jackiespeel (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Jackiespeel, is Image and related text 'sticky to top' the same as David's proposal to leave the item related to the image at the top of the section until a new image is used – ?? (That's my preference.) Sca (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes - I was summarising the various options so far.

How difficult programming-wise are the various options? (The last one can be done 'by anyone who knows which characters to use') Jackiespeel (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

India heat wave[edit]

The death toll is very close to 1,800 now. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have a source to confirm that, we can update... --Jayron32 16:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
USA Today ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Death toll is now 2,000+ according to many sources like Times of India abc.net.au. 117.192.176.60 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Updates can be requested at WP:ERRORS. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
But just as a quick clue, the references in the article itself should also reflect this, the lead currently is referenced by two citations, neither of which provide evidence for 2,000+ deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Beau Biden has died.[edit]

Recent death is him, according to his Father VP Joe Biden.

As ever, this and many other stories are available for discussion at WP:ITN/C. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

Much the same arguments apply to 'On this day' pictures as for 'In the news' - the image at present relates to the last entry. (Not complaining - just highlighting the point). Jackiespeel (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this was already noted above "Of course, any solution to this "problem" should be applied across all of the main page, this isn't an ITN-exclusive issue"... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
This happened to be a particularly notable example (there being several entries above it).

Is it 'a problem' or 'a feature that needs reconsidering.' If the solution is 'simple and works' (or is 'so logical it is not actually noticed') it is a good one; if it requires much work and creates much discussion it is not. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

My local newspaper runs a feature very similar to our On this day section. Yesterday's paper started with "Today in History" above a rule line to separate it from the headline "TS Eliot's poem published 100 years ago this date". After the Associated Press byline and the statistics ( "Today is Monday, June 1, the 152nd day of 2015...") They have "Today's Highlight in History", the featured item about TS Eliot and then "On this date:" followed by the rest of that day's historical events in chronological order. They separate out two event from the list to feature at the end. Yesterday it was something from ten and five years ago, even though the last item in the regular list was from 2009.
We could move the item with the photo up top followed by a transition line like, "and in other events on this day..." to transition into the others in chronological order. If we did that, moving the one event with the photo and followed it with just such a transition line to the other events, that would resolved the perception issue where the photo doesn't match up with the event. Imzadi 1979  03:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Given 'the number of times the disconnection between the image on ITN/DYK and the entry to which it relates is discussed on this talk page' there is a strong case for something to be done.

However - the pageview-feel has to be considered: too many 'different squares' and it will look over-cluttered (and 'come up peculiar' on small screens as well). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC regarding DYK[edit]

There is currently a discussion at RFC DYK process improvement 2015. This is a solicitation for suggestions to streamline the DYK process in order that fewer errors appear on the main page. — Maile (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)