Jump to content

Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Main Page/Archive 207) (bot
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Wikimedia project page for Main Page discussion}}

{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}}}<!--
<!---
Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page using the "'''NEW SECTION'''" tab, or use the '''EDIT''' link beside the section heading to add to it. The section edit link and "'''New section'''" tab are important, so please use them.
Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page using the "NEW SECTION" tab, or use the "EDIT" link beside the section heading to add to it. The section edit link and "New section" tab are important, so please use them.
--> {{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
-->{{Talk:Main Page/HelpBox}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-vandalism}}}}
{{Annual readership|title=the Main Page}}
{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200k
|maxarchivesize = 200k
|counter = 179
|counter = 207
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(3d)
|algo = old(3d)
|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Main Page/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}{{Talk:Main Page/Archives}}
{{MPH alert}}
{{bots|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=539296113#Could_we_maybe_turn_off_SineBot_on_this_page.3F -->
{{Centralized discussion}}
{{bots|deny=SineBot}} <!-- disable SineBot on this page to make reverts easier per discussion 20/02/2013 [[Special:PermanentLink/539296113#Could we maybe turn off SineBot on this page?]] -->
[[Category:Main Page discussions]]
__TOC__
__TOC__
{{clear}}


=Main Page error report=
= Main Page error reports =
{{Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors}}
<!-- ---------------
Please do not write anything here.
Please go to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors to place an error report.
To discuss the contents of the Main Page, please start a new discussion using the "New section" button above, or use the "[edit]" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.
--------------- -->


= General discussion =
{{Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors}}
{{Shortcut|T:MP|WT:MP}}


<!-- This is the old notice about the donation message from 2009 (?)
~~~~
Please leave this stickied at the top of the page, to avoid repeated posts about it
~~~~

=How to remove the donation notice=
'''Logged-in users''': go to my preferences, select the 'Gadgets' tab, check the box 'Suppress display of the fundraiser site notice', click 'Save', then bypass, your browser cache (Ctrl + F5 on Internet Explorer, Ctrl + Shift + R on Firefox) to see changes.
'''Not logged in''': [[Special:CreateAccount|Create an account]] (this takes very little time, all you have to do is pick a username and password), then follow the above instructions. It is beyond the control of the English language Wikipedia to remove the donation notice for users not logged in. Alternatively disabling JavaScript may be used to prevent the article from being displayed, although this may affect other script based browsing.
-->

=General discussion=
{{Shortcut|T:MP|WT:MP}}
<!-- ---------------
<!-- ---------------
Please ''start'' new discussion at the bottom of this talk page, or use the EDIT link beside the section heading to add to it. The edit link is important, so have the courtesy to use it.
Please *start* a new discussion at the bottom of this talk page (e.g. using the "New section" button above), or use the "[edit]" link beside a heading to add to an existing section.
------------------- -->
---------------- -->
== Why "did you know?" ==

The DYK section of the Main Page is populated with the newest content. Given Wikipedia's already exhaustive nature, any new content is always going to be obscure and little-known. So the answer to 'did you know?' is always going to be a depressingly overwhelming 'No'. The title 'Did you know?' implies interesting facts which you might not know but would be pleased and fascinated to be told. By contrast, Wikipedia's DYK section is obscure and trivial by design. Might there be a more appropriate title for it? It rather smacks of sarcasm and satire to sincerely ask readers whether they knew that Général de Brigade Henri Vanwaetermeulen began his career in the French Army as a private soldier (a random example from today's DYK). —[[User:Noiratsi|Noiratsi]] <small>([[User talk:Noiratsi|talk]])</small> 10:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:Good point: Maybe a better title would be “You may not know this, but…”. OTOH maybe, in English, “Did you know” is shorthand for just that. Interesting argument, [[User:Moonraker12|Moonraker12]] ([[User talk:Moonraker12|talk]]) 14:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
::The MP is a 'lucky dip bag' - and 'DYK' is short for 'You may not know - but may be interested to find out that...' (and it would have been amusing to have a link to watermelons near Vanwaetermeulen). [[Special:Contributions/80.254.147.68|80.254.147.68]] ([[User talk:80.254.147.68|talk]]) 14:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:"Given Wikipedia's already exhaustive nature, any new content is always going to be obscure and little-known." Didn't we just have a DYK from a brand new article for "cup" just a few weeks ago? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 17:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
::Did you knows come not just from newly written articles, but also newly expanded articles and (as of a few months ago) articles just promoted at GAC. This means that we do occasionally get very high-traffic articles at DYK, but I agree with Noiratsi that it's perhaps not the ''best'' title. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 17:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Indeed we do, for example [[Silver Cross Tavern]] got almost 200,000 views when it appeared on DYK. Proof that DYK is definitely not just a collection of facts that one might have a passing interest on. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<font color="red">The C of E </font><font color="blue"> God Save the Queen!</font>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]])</span> 16:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
:::It's simply a snappy name to apply to a section designed to showcase the newest content added to the wiki, in the form of easily digestible interesting trivia. I don't have a problem with the name at all, to be honest. --<font face="papyrus">[[User talk:Connelly90|''Connelly90'']]</font> 17:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:::A new title would be change for the sake of change.<span style="background:#C2C2C2">[[User:Gaarmyvet|<font color="red">'''Jim&nbsp;in&nbsp;Georgia'''</font> ]][[Special:Contributions/Gaarmyvet|<font color="white">''Contribs''</font> ]][[User Talk:Gaarmyvet|<font color="blue">'''Talk'''</font>]] </span> 18:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:I don't see any problem with the existing title. It's not meant to be taken literally. No one is expected to run down the list answering "No, No, No, ..." [[Special:Contributions/86.151.118.96|86.151.118.96]] ([[User talk:86.151.118.96|talk]]) 03:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The expected answer is "No, but I will check it out." or "No, and I don't care." or "Yes, good that Wikipedia also knows it!" Maybe the title could be changed, but I don't see an overwhelming reason why. I don't oppose it, but a good title must be found. --[[User:Conspiration|Con]]<sup>[[User talk:Conspiration|structor]]</sup> 16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with OP. It's condescending to the max as it is. [[User:Aaadddaaammm|Aaadddaaammm]] ([[User talk:Aaadddaaammm|talk]]) 04:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:I can see there's people on both sides. Myself I'm divided too; I can see why 'DYK' ''is'' an okay title, but at the same time it still strikes me as far from perfect every time I see it on the MP. I wonder would it be better or worse if it were simply titled "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content"? At the moment that line is rather awkwardly placed as a sort of cross between an aside and a subtitle. —[[User:Noiratsi|Noiratsi]] <small>([[User talk:Noiratsi|talk]])</small> 11:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

:I've got it! Let's call it "What if I told you that..." (WITYT) or maybe "Consider that...". Maybe something else, but WITYT is very catchy, in my opinion.'''<span style="color:#ffd700;"><span style="background-color:#000000;">მაLiphradicus</span></span><span style="color:#c0c0c0;"><span style="background-color:#000000;">Epicusთე</span></span>''' 08:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
::Probably because it reminds you of the [[Morpheus (The Matrix)|Morpheus]] meme.[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/matrix-morpheus] <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 18:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Maybe that's it, ha-ha! In any case though, most of the facts on the DYK page really are facts that the average person wouldn't have any clue about. '''<span style="color:#ffd700;"><span style="background-color:#000000;">მაLiphradicus</span></span><span style="color:#c0c0c0;"><span style="background-color:#000000;">Epicusთე</span></span>''' 18:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think 'Did you know' sort of indicates obscurity in it's connotation. I wouldn't talk to somebody and say 'Did you know...' about something most people knew. It's generally used linguistically to prepare someone for information they did not know. If it's information they may know you'd be more likely to say 'Of course, ...' or 'Well, you know that...' or 'As you know...' [[User:Zkbt|Zkbt]] ([[User talk:Zkbt|talk]]) 17:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
:I think "Did you know" is fine. It's metaphorical and not meant to question one's knowledge. However, since it's a collection of supposedly interesting factoids, "Believe it or not..." could be an alternative. '''[[User:cmglee|cm&#610;&#671;ee]]'''&#9094;[[User_Talk:cmglee|&#964;a&#671;&#954;]] 20:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

::"Believe it or not..." may be quite nice; it makes me think of [[Ripley's Believe It Or Not]]! Also, I understand the metaphorical principle of DYK; I can see how that, in practical speech, we normally only say "Did you know..." before we tell someone information we have recently found out and think is pretty neat. Based on this, I could see the title of "Did you know..." being a "trivia" section that's wanting you to find out the information and tell your friends, "Hey man, did you know that...?" So either way I find okay. '''[[User:LiphradicusEpicus|<span style="color:#ffd700;"><span style="background-color:#000000;">მაLiphradicus</span></span>]][[User:LiphradicusEpicus|<span style="color:#c0c0c0;"><span style="background-color:#000000;">Epicusთე</span></span>]]'''

==Pine Tavern==
It may be the oldest restaurant in Oregon, but [[Pine Tavern|the article]] reads like one giant advert. What do the DYK team actually check? '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Dick Laurent is dead]]</sup> 14:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
:Totally agree. I see zero EV in this article or DYK blurb. The [[Pine Tavern]] may be a charming establishment in the charming tourist town of Bend (to which I've been several times), but this is free advertising. [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 15:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's another zero EV DYK blurb on the main page that took one of the most interesting areas of science today, the evolutionary biology of the Liliaceae, a major plant family, and turned it into another article completely, the tulip trade article.

... that when the '''tulip''' trade reached Antwerp in Belgium in 1562, they were mistaken as vegetables?

Except, tulip is not linked to the tulip trade article, the DYK is about the Liliaceae, a fascinating group of plants, and botanists have made major advances in the understanding of this huge plant family, its evolutionary relationships, and how this relates to the spread of angiosperms, the diversification of the monocots and modern plant ecosystems. But we have a DYK that conveys nothing about this fascinating subject, and is a bad link when there already is an article about the tulip trade. DYK the most boring thing about the Liliaceae is already written up in another article?

I don't think the DYK team have the interest to check much of anything. --[[User:AfadsBad|AfadsBad]] ([[User talk:AfadsBad|talk]]) 18:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

:But you do, so you can ''be'' that difference! Welcome to the team! --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 20:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
::Being that difference would be removing a bad DYK from the main page, and that is impossible. Errors are largely ignored. DYK editors fight you when you point out mistakes, then removing your comments about the problems with the DYK articles from the template, so the articles can be promoted without the errors being corrected. Meanwhile the bad article, to which editors are indifferent, is copied into cyberspace permanently. Like the 50,000 google hits I got for a misspelled plant family. Be that difference would require that Wikipedia be able to correct errors and have editors who welcomed editors who could point out errors. Correcting them gets too many nasty comments. So, no, being that difference does not seem likely in a hostile editing environment. At some point, though, editors ought to care how bad Wikipedia looks when it makes silly DYK quotes. There are other problems with this quote, besides the offense of dismissing the interesting evolutionary science. --([[User:AfadsBad|AfadsBad]] ([[User talk:AfadsBad|talk]]) 20:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC))

:::I'd be interested to see how many ERRORS report against TFA, TFP, TFL, ITN and DYK. It feels like every single day I see someone noting a serious (i.e. '''pull it off the main page''') issue with a DYK article. Because DYK offers a ''quid pro quo'' review structure, it's clearly always a conflict of interest to "sanction" a DYK because it means that your own DYK will be more likely to be "sanctioned". Anyone fancy doing some analysis of ERRORS? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

::::It's often pointless to report an error with DYK, because they rotate quicker than the typical admin response time. I've lost count of the number of times I pointed out a problem with a DYK blurb only for it to rotate off the MP without any action being taken. These days I don't bother looking at it, let alone reporting mistakes. [[User:Modest Genius|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 00:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::And then the ignored errors are in the articles forever, they sit on the DYK templates, they're prominent as a hook on the top of article talk pages. Why not make a place for them, a category at least, "Articles that appeared on the main page with errors?" The interesting thing would be to tally how many times WikiCup racers contributed to errors. Maybe getting articles on the main page and winning contests on Wikipedia will eventually require accuracy.
:::::Every time someone just moves an uncorrected error off of the main page, they are accepting that article as it is, approving an error. The main page is read by many editors who don't edit Wikipedia. One of my office mates used to post corrections about errors, but her error reports were always ignored, the mistakes staying in the articles for years. The errors are never repaired, as far as I can tell, no matter how bad they are, such as a hook that redefined [[Tunicate]]s--it was nonsense, yet it was on the main page. Of course, it's not only the main page where errors remain uncorrected--I corrected a misspelling of a plant family name that sat on en.Wikipedia for 7 years, and had generated 50,000 Google hits of the misspelling. Errors that hit the main page are bad. They need corrected in the article, on the template, everywhere they occur. Too bad getting them off of the main page while creating an accurate encyclopedia is so much lower in priority than making quick repartee at ANI. --([[User:AfadsBad|AfadsBad]] ([[User talk:AfadsBad|talk]]) 23:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC))
::::::The error is usually in the blurb, rather than the article per se. [[User:Modest Genius|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 23:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Sometimes it is in both. Should I be more or less worried that DYK editors can't read their own articles well enough to write an accurate blurb from them? --([[User:AfadsBad|AfadsBad]] ([[User talk:AfadsBad|talk]]) 00:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC))


Another one

The main page says, "DYK ... that the moss species ''Chorisodontium aciphyllum'' can survive for more than 1,500 years frozen?"

The article did not make this conclusion, it discussed that a single group of scientists is making this claim based on results of an experiment that grew the plants once from one moss core. But en.Wikipedia is reporting this primary research as established fact.

Must be WikiCup season again, time to avoid the main page. --([[User:AfadsBad|AfadsBad]] ([[User talk:AfadsBad|talk]]) 18:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC))


::Most every DYK reads like an April Fools Joke, or some faux-clever witticism. [[User:Cosprings|Cosprings]] ([[User talk:Cosprings|talk]]) 03:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, they often do miss the interesting fact to make up something faux-clever. --([[User:AfadsBad|AfadsBad]] ([[User talk:AfadsBad|talk]]) 04:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

== Baloney ==

This is nuts! There's more Gibraltar spam on the home page! [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 01:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:::What on earth has some loose April Fool's hooks got to do with Gibraltar? And for the record 3 or 4 of the "Gibraltar spam" articles passed GA fairly recently. And no, I wasn't paid to promote them, I didn't need much work on them.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 09:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:Let's face it. Wikipedia is ruined now. [[User talk:GamerPro64|<font color="red">GamerPro64</font>]] 01:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::I'm 100% serious. Don't mock me!! [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 01:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::*[[Gadsden flag|Don't Tread on Me]]!&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 01:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

*Great. Goddamn April First complainers all over again.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 03:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
**Its April First? How the hell am I able to know when that comes around? [[User talk:GamerPro64|<font color="red">GamerPro64</font>]] 03:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
***You put your right foot in, you put your right foot out. You put your right foot in and shake it all about.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 03:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:*I find your lack of faith disturbing. –[[User:Prototime|Prototime]] ([[User_talk:Prototime|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Prototime|contribs]]) 03:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::*[[Faith (disambiguation)|Found some Faith]]. [[User talk:GamerPro64|<font color="red">GamerPro64</font>]] 03:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:::*Personally, I throw all of my faith into the [[Jimbo Wales|Church of Wales]]. [[User:Ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 03:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::::*I'm a repentant member of the [[Chapel of Russia's Resurrection|Church of Putin]]. Where can I register?&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 03:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::*I just [[Drinking_the_Kool-Aid|drink Kool-Aid]]. –[[User:Prototime|Prototime]] ([[User_talk:Prototime|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Prototime|contribs]]) 03:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::* LOL [[User:TheChampionMan1234|The]][[User talk:TheChampionMan1234|ChampionMan]][[Special:Contributions/TheChampionMan1234|1234]] 02:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Just for this, I think I'll work on Gibraltar articles just to get them on the main page to piss off the anti-Gibraltar crowd. How's that for pissing in your cheerios.--[[User:ColonelHenry|ColonelHenry]] ([[User talk:ColonelHenry|talk]]) 19:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

== Welcome to our new sister project! ==
{{hat|reason=[[April Fools' Day]] is done for this year, closing non-serious proposal}}
Please see the bottom of the following list for our new sister project.

Wikipedia is hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other [[wmf:Our projects|projects]]:
<table class="layout plainlinks" style="width:100%; margin:auto; text-align:left; background:transparent;">
<tr>
<td style="text-align:center; padding:4px;"> [[File:Commons-logo-31px.png|31px|link=commons:|Commons]] </td>
<td style="width:33%; padding:4px;"> '''[//commons.wikimedia.org/ Commons]''' <br> Free media repository </td>
<td style="text-align:center; padding:4px;"> [[File:Mediawiki-logo.png|35px|link=mw:|MediaWiki]] </td>
<td style="width:33%; padding:4px;"> '''[//mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki]''' <br> Wiki software development </td>
<td style="text-align:center; padding:4px;"> [[File:Meta-logo-35px.png|35px|link=m:|Meta-Wiki]] </td>
<td style="width:33%; padding:4px;"> '''[//meta.wikimedia.org/ Meta-Wiki]''' <br> Wikimedia project coordination </td>
</tr><tr>
<td style="text-align:center; padding:4px;"> [[File:Wikibooks-logo-35px.png|35px|link=b:|Wikibooks]] </td>
<td style="padding:4px;"> '''[//en.wikibooks.org/ Wikibooks]''' <br> Free textbooks and manuals </td>
<td style="text-align:center; padding:3px;"> [[File:Wikidata-logo.svg|47px|link=d:|Wikidata]] </td>
<td style="padding:4px;"> '''[//en.wikidata.org/ Wikidata]''' <br> Free knowledge base </td>
<td style="text-align:center; padding:4px;"> [[File:Wikinews-logo-51px.png|51px|link=n:|Wikinews]] </td>
<td style="padding:4px;"> '''[//en.wikinews.org/ Wikinews]''' <br> Free-content news </td>
</tr><tr>
<td style="text-align:center; padding:4px;"> [[File:Wikiquote-logo-51px.png|51px|link=q:|Wikiquote]] </td>
<td style="padding:4px;"> '''[//en.wikiquote.org/ Wikiquote]''' <br> Collection of quotations </td>
<td style="text-align:center; padding:4px;"> [[File:Wikisource-logo-35px.png|35px|link=s:|Wikisource]] </td>
<td style="padding:4px;"> '''[//en.wikisource.org/ Wikisource]''' <br> Free-content library </td>
<td style="text-align:center; padding:4px;"> [[File:Wikispecies-logo-35px.png|35px|link=wikispecies:|Wikispecies]] </td>
<td style="padding:4px;"> '''[//species.wikimedia.org/ Wikispecies]''' <br> Directory of species </td>
</tr><tr>
<td style="text-align:center; padding:4px;"> [[File:Wikiversity-logo-41px.png|41px|link=v:|Wikiversity]] </td>
<td style="padding:4px;"> '''[//en.wikiversity.org/ Wikiversity]''' <br> Free learning materials and activities </td>
<td style="text-align:center; padding:4px;"> [[File:Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-icon.svg|35px|link=Wikivoyage:|Wikivoyage]] </td>
<td style="padding:4px;"> '''[//en.wikivoyage.org/ Wikivoyage]''' <br> Free travel guide </td>
<td style="text-align:center; padding:4px;"> [[File:Wiktionary-logo-51px.png|51px|link=wikt:|Wiktionary]] </td>
<td style="padding:4px;"> '''[//en.wiktionary.org/ Wiktionary]''' <br> Dictionary and thesaurus </td>
</tr><tr>
<td style="text-align:center; padding:4px;"> [[File:Nuclear Blast Animation Blinding Light.gif|41px|Wikifission]] </td>
<td style="padding:4px;"> '''[//en.wikipedia.org/ Wikifission]''' <br> Free access to fissionable materials</td>
</tr>
</table>

Now all we need to do is to update [[:Template:Wikipedia's sister projects]]... --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 04:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
*I don't know, I think we should wait until Wikifusion is ready.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 04:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:*The WMF (or rather, the radioactive crater formerly known as the WMF) keeps delaying the launch of Wikifusion, so as Wikipedia's official [[Dalek Supreme]], I decided this was a good day to release Wikifission. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 05:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::*We should probably center the image, mainly because someone will complain that their eyes are burning from the fact that the whole thing isn't in perfect harmony with itself. [[User:Ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 06:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:::*Agreed. (And, brilliant.) [[User:Ansh666|ansh]]''[[User talk:Ansh666|666]]'' 07:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::::*Careful, the project might be unstable. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<font color="red">The C of E </font><font color="blue"> God Save the Queen!</font>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]])</span> 08:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

*In other news, the [[Wikimedia Foundation|Wikiminati]] have approved the use of {{Plain link|https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Nuke nuclear weapons}} for all administrators. Efforts to make the process of becoming an administrator easier are underway, so that as many people as possible can take part in this fantastic program.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 10:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:*"Efforts to make the process of becoming an administrator are underway"? I hear that dropping words out of sentences is an early sign of [[Kryptonite|radiation poisoning]]... --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 12:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::*Ix-fay, or-fay e-thay ive-hay!&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 12:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


==Add number of editors in the topmost banner==
*My eyes are burning from the fact that the whole thing isn't in perfect harmony with itself. --[[User:Stfg|Stfg]] ([[User talk:Stfg|talk]]) 20:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I suggest this addition for the following reasons:
{{hab}}
* It encourages people to become editors via argumentum ad populum.
== New framework for main page ==
* It is a interesting fact about the scale of Wikipedia
{{hat|reason=[[April Fools' Day]] is done for this year, closing non-serious proposal}}
* It dispels reoccuring myth that only 100 or so admins edit Wikipedia
After an [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Main Page redesign|extensive discussion]] exploring the general idea of redesigning the main page, a general consensus has emerged that a radical redesign is not a viable short-term goal. But the underlying framework of [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edokter/Main_Page?withCSS=MediaWiki:User:Edokter/Main_Page.css that design] has proven to be a potent foundation on which any future design can be built, and replaces the aging layout practices of 2006 to bring it more inline with today's layout recomendations.
* It demonstrates the motto "anyone can edit".
I suggest formatting it like this:
<br/><div id="articlecount">[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}]] active editors · [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</div><br/>
[[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


*I strongly support this addition. ''[[User talk:Cremastra|Cremastra]]'' ‹ [[User:Cremastra|u]] — [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|c]] › 00:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
With that in mind, we would like to replace the underlying layout with this new foundation. Several advantages include:
*''"100 or so admins edit Wikipedia" factoid actualy just statistical error. average admin does not edit Wikipedia. [[Spiders Georg|Sockpuppets Georg]], who lives in cave & passes RfA 10 times each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.''{{pb}}But yes, this seems like a great idea! <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
# Flexible layout which allows future modifications to be implemented more easily.
*I shall lend my support as I like this idea. It ties in well with the post on social media by the Wikimedia Foundation (earlier today, yesterday?) about "Wikipedia in numbers". '''[[User:Schwede66|<span style="color:var(--color-base, #202122);">Schwede</span>]][[User talk:Schwede66|<span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>]]''' 09:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
# Responsive design; sections will stack instead of being pushed off-screen. This also makes the page more mobile-friendly (for those prefering desktop view on mobile).
*Support - and maybe also add a edit count? Something like this might work: <div id="articlecount">[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFEDITS}}]] total edits · [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}]] active editors · [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</div> <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>[[User:CanonNi]]<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]])</span> 09:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
# Typography preview; the upcoming [[mw:Typography refresh|Typography refresh]] has already been incorporated as a preview.
*I can't see any downside of adding the number of active editors, which is an impressive number given that the count is just for the last month. The number of edits seems a bit meaningless since it is a huge number that is hard to grasp and since what constitutes an edit is so variable. [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 09:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*Also support this. It's a minor but potentially quite impactful addition. '''[[User:J947|<span style="color: #1009bf;">J</span>]][[User talk:J947|<span style="color: #137412;">947</span>]]''' ‡ <sup>[[Special:Contribs/J947|edits]]</sup> 09:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
* Good idea; I like the model that {{u|CanonNi}} proposes above. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 17:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*I like Ca's suggestion of just including the number of editors. I'm not super keen on adding the number of edits as it is fairly meaningless to most casual visitors. Also, it will always be off because of caching (and I don't want us to get useless reports of "I made an edit but the number didn't go up!"). —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 17:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Very good point, Kusma, about useless reports. '''[[User:Schwede66|<span style="color:var(--color-base, #202122);">Schwede</span>]][[User talk:Schwede66|<span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>]]''' 18:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
* The interpunct might need to be replaced with a line break on mobile devices, for aesthetic reasons. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 10:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Maybe just a comma to separate them. [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 11:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Personally, I think a comma would be out-of-place since this is not a list. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 11:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::It’s a list of two counts [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 11:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


:Id support. Maybe something somewhere which explains what active means. '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Other then that, the main page should look very familiar. Some older version of Internet Explorer may show a small gap between colored sections, but that is a small trade-off, as the flexibility of this design is more future-proof then the current layout. Please test the page in any way you can, under any platform, and report any bugs.
::The wikilink to [[Special:Statistics]] already provides an explanation. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 13:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I dunno about other people, but because the link is the amount of people, I'd expect the link to be to the list of people. If it were "active editors" that was linked, I would click it to find out what "active meant". '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 13:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The number of articles link also goes to [[Special:Statistics]], though. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, that's also a bit dumb. Maybe if we linked both the term and the amount to the same link. '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::How about linking the number of active editors to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians]], where it is explained? [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 12:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*Sounds like a good idea. I would but the editors after the number of articles, though – best to lead with the bigger number. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*This appears to be [[WP:BIKESHED]] problem; I believe it would be best if we went ahead with the original formatting and discuss the minute details later. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I never said it was a problem, just a suggestion. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Sorry, I didn't mean to reply to you in particular. I've changed the indentation level. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 15:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*Displaying the 'active editors' variable significantly discounts all of prior editors associated with those millions of articles being discussed in the same line. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I suppose you could say something like, "[[Special:Statistics|6,925,100]] articles in [[English language|English]] written by [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|<nowiki><number of users that have made >0 undeleted mainspace edits></nowiki>]] editors" to be maximally precise. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 16:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::What I'm saying is that the {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}</nowiki> is certainly way more than the {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}</nowiki>, and that the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}</nowiki> certainly would not have been possible with only the later. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Advertising how many "active" users we have isn't necessarily a problem, I'm saying we shouldn't in anyway suggest that such a low number of contributors has led to the number of articles we have to casual readers, reporters, etc that would read the line. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Perhaps something like "currently maintained by X active editors"? (Which also discounts all of the many unregistered editors). — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::"by over" maybe.... — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Why, though? "X active editors" isn't saying that that's all the editors who've ever been. It's doing the opposite, by qualifying "active". Getting a bot to keep a tally of total editors ever, per Joe, could be a cool idea, but there's nothing misleading or incorrect about just listing active users, and it's potentially of more interest to readers. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::I'm not opposed to somehow advertising the currently active editors, just saying we should ensure that such a figure isn't associated with the total count of all articles made by a much much larger group. (As the original problem is suggesting that readers are underestimating the number of volunteers that have built Wikipedia). — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


:I absolutely support this. Maybe also include the number of edits made in the current calendar day? [[User:ApteryxRainWing|ApteryxRainWing🐉]] | [[User talk:ApteryxRainWing|Roar with me!!!]] | [[Special:contribs/User:ApteryxRainWing|My contributions]] 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
<div style="text-align:center;">{{clickable button 2|Main page with new framework|url=//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edokter/Main_Page2?withCSS=MediaWiki:User:Edokter/Main_Page2.css|class=mw-ui-constructive mw-ui-big}}</div>
::Better would be in the last 24 hours, especially as most readers will not know when Wikipedia's midnight is. Certainly better than a count of all edits since Wikipedia began, although not a priority in my opinion. [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 09:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Jmchutchinson|Jmchutchinson]] Well, Jimmy Wales lives in the Carolinas so it could reset at midnight Eastern. Although last 24 hours works as well [[User:ApteryxRainWing|ApteryxRainWing🐉]] | [[User talk:ApteryxRainWing|Roar with me!!!]] | [[Special:contribs/User:ApteryxRainWing|My contributions]] 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thinking it about it a bit more, maybe the preceding calendar day ("yesterday") would be computationally easier. We certainly don't want a figure that increases from 0 each day, and it may be undesirable to have one that fluctuates minute to minute. Instead maybe consider over the last week up to and including yesterday, to iron out variation over the weekly cycle. [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 14:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I don't see the point in this, or the relevance of this number to readers. It might make sense on a page intended to be viewed only by editors, but the Main Page is for readers. None of the bullet points are convincing e.g. I've never heard anyone suggest that there are only 100 editors. It's a only minor bit of clutter but would serve no useful purpose. Besides, it's not clear what constitutes an 'active' editor - the very different numbers quoted above suggest this could be seriously misleading. [[User:Modest Genius|<b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:[[Special:Statistics]], where the number comes from, defines it as "any editor that has performed an action in last 30 days", which appears to include IP editors as well. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 23:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It is labeled Active <em>registered</em> users - of which IP editors are not. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 23:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Thanks for the correction; when the language is set to Spanish, it just reads "active editors". I wonder if it is possible to get a count of all editors, including IP editors. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 02:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::A single editor could have many IP's and a single IP could have many editors. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 18:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Yes, that was a problem I imagined; though I do not want to discredit the work of IP editors, they are hard to keep track. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
* I suggested this idea back on December 8 at the VPR[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=1261895671], so yes I would support it. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 03:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
===Next steps===
I see a broad consensus for including the number of active editors, but there seem to be a lot of discussion on the finer details, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Should I make a RfC for this? [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 14:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:Yes, most of us want the number of edits/active editors in the banner, but an RFC might help figure out the smaller details we keep arguing about [[User:ApteryxRainWing|Apteryx!🐉]] | [[User talk:ApteryxRainWing|Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲]] 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


===Informal RfC===
<div style="text-align:center;">{{clickable button 2|Alternative design - version 2|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ|class=mw-ui-constructive mw-ui-big}}</div>
{{Archive top|status=Minimal participation|result=Despite the RfC being open for 16 days and pinging previous participants, it attracted only two respondents, showing the lack of interest in this topic. I will assume most people did not see an issue with my original formatting suggestion when they !voted "support" and submit an edit request. This close does not preclude any future discussion about the formatting or new additions to the proposed text. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Five questions to decide on the formatting. Note that this doesn't preclude any further changes in the future.


====Which figures should be added to the current text?====
Please state your opinion below.
# Active editors (original proposal)
# Active editors and total edit count
# Active editors and edit count in last 24 hours(bot required)
# Active editors and all-time editors(bot required)


*'''Support 4''' if possible, '''support 1''' as a lower-effort but still effective alternative. '''Oppose 2 and 3''' per the concerns raised above that it would create confusion among new editors/readers who would not realise that the count cannot update immediately. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
===Support===
*'''Prefer 1, then 3'''; dislike total edit count and all-time editors as too large numbers, with no sense of what is happening now. [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
# As proponent <span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:Edokter|<span style="color:#008"><i>E</i>dokter</span>]] ([[User talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#080">talk</span>]]) — </span> 12:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
# Time to [[April Fools' Day|Seize the Day]] --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 12:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
# '''Support''' A very well-rounded design, I should say.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 12:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
===Oppose===
# Maybe this is an April Fools Day joke, but when I clicked the preview button (as opposed to the first link), the header text was in some weird Comic Sans-like font that looked completely unprofessional and amateur. If the fonts can be fixed, sure, but not before. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup></span> 13:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
#:<small>cough</small>
#I will continue to '''oppose''' all main page redesigns than don't include lots of animated gifs. And a hit counter at the bottom of the page. '''Weak support''' for Comic Sans though, because it's pretty funky. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]]&nbsp;:&nbsp;[[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 13:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Not enough mainspace edits, administrators should write... wait, where am I? [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;</span>]] //</span> 14:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Not enough ponies. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] ([[User talk:Carnildo|talk]]) 22:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
#'''Strongly support "Alternative design - version 2"''', but '''"oppose Main Page with new framework"''', which makes Wikipedia look too professional. –[[User:Prototime|Prototime]] ([[User_talk:Prototime|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Prototime|contribs]]) 22:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


====Which symbol should be used as the separator? ====
===Shimmy===
# Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
# Alip Roolf. [[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 12:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
# Use comma


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
===Kill it! Kill it with fire!!===
"A general consensus has emerged that a radical redesign is not a viable short-term goal"? nice April fools joke, but no such consensus has been established. Nor has anyone shown any interest in a main page redesign process that actually tells us what the consensus is. Instead, year after year, a methodology is used the has never resulted in any firm answers. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 14:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


====Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins? ====
:*"No consensus has been demonstrated that editors will realistically not achieve consensus on any substantial changes to the main page in the near future, so I will continue to oppose any and all incremental changes until such a consensus can be demonstrated to my satisfaction. Also, stop using the failed process that you didn't use." [[Special:Contributions/85.255.233.108|85.255.233.108]] ([[User talk:85.255.233.108|talk]]) 20:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
# Use line break
# Use comma


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::*Really? Care to show me a diff of me registering an oppose !vote on any incremental improvement to the main page? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 22:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


====How should it be ordered?====
===Discussion===
# Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
April Fools!♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 13:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
# Bigger number(s) first
* Not sure what's going on with the font... I have changed it back and posted a second version with the font restored. --[[User:NickPenguin|<font color="darkgreen">Nick</font>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<font color="darkblue">Penguin</font>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<font color="blue">'''contribs'''</font>]])</sub> 14:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}
== Complaint ==


* '''Support 1 or 2.''' ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
There's not enough material about cricket and video games on the front page. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 12:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:I'm more annoyed by the front page displaying the feminist agenda everywhere. I mean, where does The Hulk get off stating his opinions like that? [[User talk:GamerPro64|<font color="red">GamerPro64</font>]] 18:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


====Wikilinks?====
But there are minors visiting here all the time! And we now have fucking and titties right at the start! ... XD :D [[User:Abhinav|Abhinav]] ([[User talk:Abhinav|talk]]) 23:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
#Wikilink all of the numbers to [[Special:Statistics]] (original proposal)
:Right you are. Around 12 hours ago it was quite entertaining, but in the last few hours we've been back to the same kind of silly vulgarity we had last year, and was commented on then. Do we really have an average age of 4? --[[User:Stfg|Stfg]] ([[User talk:Stfg|talk]]) 23:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
#Wikilink only the first number to [[Special:Statistics]]
:*It was deliberate, putting the sexist-ish hooks together. THEN [[Feminist Hulk|FEMINIST HULK]] SMASH!&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 23:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
#Wikilink "active editor" to [[Special:Statistics]]
:::I wasn't grumping about that so much as about the fugging and the wankard and the titties. We did that kind of stuff last year. To death. --[[User:Stfg|Stfg]] ([[User talk:Stfg|talk]]) 23:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
[[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 12:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::*To insult and mock feminists? Fucking, breasts, Wanker(d), hooker cockups, then slap those feminists. All this talk about the 90% male editorial posse, and everyone wonders how and why. Next time I see one of those posts, I'll just paste today's April Fools main page DYK list as the final answer. 4 might be generous. And, yes, it will be just as laugh gaining next year. --([[User:AfadsBad|AfadsBad]] ([[User talk:AfadsBad|talk]]) 23:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
::::*Who is saying Feminist Hulk is a dig at feminists / women?&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 23:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::*Sure, we'll put Feminist Hulk on the main page, but only after we get our "boys will be boys fun" out of the way to show that, sure, we'll put Feminist Hulk on the main page, but first the fucking breasts wanker(d) hooker Little and Big Cockups, then, just to show we're equal opportunity, after a long line of filth, that's exactly where Feminist Hulk belongs. Sure, who is saying it is a dig at feminists to put them in the sewer and the whorehouse and with the porno jokes where they belong? --([[User:AfadsBad|AfadsBad]] ([[User talk:AfadsBad|talk]]) 00:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
:::*(ec) "Titties" (small white breasts) = one of the sexist hooks I was referring to. No, it was not nominated to be run like that, but I tried to mitigate the "childishness" of it with some more succinct humor.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 6:50 am, Today (UTC+7)
::::*It just came off as the typical misogynistic-dominated fun of boys at Wikipedia. From reading outside and inside reports, this is obviously something women have to quickly get used to on en.Wikipedia. You want me to like it and laugh, also? A smart April Fools was not possible? It had to be sexually graphic and offensive for humor? Again, 4 might be generous. --([[User:AfadsBad|AfadsBad]] ([[User talk:AfadsBad|talk]]) 23:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
:::::*If you find it offensive, I understand. However, if you are saying it came off as "misogynistic-dominated fun of boys at Wikipedia" owing to its placement on a page with fugging and breasts, please give me an example of how Feminist Hulk could be presented as actually smashing (read: combating) these and other patriarchal and misogynistic constructions (i.e. women's breasts as a symbol of their worth, among others) without "put[ting] them in the sewer and the whorehouse and with the porno jokes"? Those "whorehouse" / porno jokes are a manifestation of what Feminist Hulk is combating, along with ideas such as there only being two genders (and that one must fit into one, otherwise one is deviant), and possibly the construction of masculinity / masculinities (likely, as Feminist Hulk smashes the gender binary, which would by definition include the traditional concept of men needing to be masculine, but unclear from the article).
::::::To shoot down the obvious examples, having Feminist Hulk smashing the gender binary first, followed by hooks which are possibly sexist, would be to say "No matter what women do, they will never have have equality, even if they appropriate the epitome of (the patriarchy's idolization of) brute strength". Having Feminist Hulk on a day without any possibly sexist hooks would be to have Feminist Hulk smashing things which are not present (and thus out of mind, and thus generally not considered an immediate threat, an issue considering the fact that women's rights are at the forefront of discourse in certain areas of the globe).&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 00:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Right, can't have an article about feminism on the main page, unless it's in its appropriate context. I think you made my point. --([[User:AfadsBad|AfadsBad]] ([[User talk:AfadsBad|talk]]) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
:::::::*And you are misreading my post (my apologies, I did not clearly indicate that I was referring to the joke). My concern was with the meta-joke of Feminist Hulk literally "smashing" the gender binary (only possible on April Fools Day, under current rules). The article could certainly have been run as a normal hook, on any day, as with the numerous articles related to women and feminism which were run through March.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 00:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::*Do you realize why there were "numerous articles related to women and feminism" in March? So it could have been run in March, along with other womanly things about the 50% of the population that gets main page attention 8% of the time? No, I don't get the meta-joke, because it was buried beneath a juvenile pile of garbage. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a little boys' playground. The hooks were disgusting, especially when looked at in a line of breasts, wankar(d), fucking Little and Big Cockups. It just said, "No, we're not an encyclopedia, we're a social network, but don't think Facebook or LinkedIn, head right to Reddit and keep going downhill from there. It just put feminism where it usually sits on en.Wikipedia, buried beneath the juvenile, vulgar boys in-club. Glad you had your laugh, but, hope you're not really going to make this argument next big RFC or discussion about why en.Wikipedia can't get and retain women editors. That's my say, more effort than anything could possibly return, so why bother to say anything more. I am woman, hear me no more--got that covered on en.Wikipedia. --([[User:AfadsBad|AfadsBad]] ([[User talk:AfadsBad|talk]]) 01:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
:::::::::*International Women's Day on 8 March, with the month (Women's History Month) also dedicated to commemorating women's struggle for equality. I contributed several hooks, and I'm having trouble AGFing with these patronizing questions.
::::::::::If you believe that Feminist Hulk should have not been run as an April Fools hook, then you should discuss this with [[User:Gobonobo|the article's writer]] and [[User:Gamaliel|the reviewer]]. My involvement with the article begins and ends with its inclusion on the template (and the attempt to make a meta joke with the ordering). That's all.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 01:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::And with your attempt to hijack the discussion about the juvenile and offensive article hooks on the main page by somehow relating these hooks to your meta joke, in a way that I have yet to understand. You're the one who foisted your hook or whatever your contribution is onto the bottom of the fucking wankards Little and Big Cockups pile, not me. --([[User:AfadsBad|AfadsBad]] ([[User talk:AfadsBad|talk]]) 01:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
:::::::::::*Lack of GF = Confirmed. Thank you, and have a nice day.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 05:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::*I do question why he has a problem with cockup, It's just a British slang word for mistake. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<font color="red">The C of E </font><font color="blue"> God Save the Queen!</font>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]])</span> 08:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::*Not even just British; I've seen it across the Pond as well. The issue is the word "cock" itself. As if there were never roosters. Mind you, if the term were "[[wikt:tits up|tits up]]" (as in "We tried to reach the pole, but everything went tits up"), there'd be complaints as well.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 08:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


* '''Support 1''', neutral on 2 and 3. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
== Proposal to implement new framework for main page ==
*'''Support 1''', unless active editors is the only statistic shown, in which case 3. [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 22:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


====Discussion====
:''We've had our fun. Now let's get back to business. The fonts were a joke (obviously), but the proposal itself is quite genuine.''
:If a bot is difficult or resource hungry, an edit count for yesterday (preceding calendar day) would serve the same purpose as a count in the last 24 h. [[User:Jmchutchinson|JMCHutchinson]] ([[User talk:Jmchutchinson|talk]]) 08:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::From a maintenance and server load perspective, a bot updating daily is no different than a bot updating every minute (i.e., just a line of code's difference and resource usage that rounds down to 0). <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Ca|Ca]] Do you expect people to respond here with their opinions on these 5 issues? Or is this just a draft for a forthcoming formal RfC?
:If you plan on having another, better-publicized RfC, I'd recommend relisting the original question {{green|Should this be added at all?}}; the original consensus for this had less than 10 editors. [Personally, I think it's a great idea. But all changes to Wikipedia face incredible opposition, so a stronger consensus would be helpful in overcoming that.] <span style="font-family:cursive">[[User:Ypn^2|<span style="color:green">''ypn''</span>]][[User talk:ypn^2|<span style="color:blue;font-size:90%;vertical-align:12%">^</span><span style="color:purple;vertical-align:45%;font-size:75%">2</span>]]</span> 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I should have been more clear, but yes, I was expecting people to give their opinions. However, I am waiting before pinging everyone to see if anyone have any more suggestions for the questions. I count 13 people who support the proposal and one who explicitly opposed it; I feel that a RfC is going to have the same consensus for inclusion. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 05:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::So perhaps you could split the five questions into separate subheadings, to allow for clearer discussion of each issue? <span style="font-family:cursive">[[User:Ypn^2|<span style="color:green">''ypn''</span>]][[User talk:ypn^2|<span style="color:blue;font-size:90%;vertical-align:12%">^</span><span style="color:purple;vertical-align:45%;font-size:75%">2</span>]]</span> 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Good idea [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 07:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'd add a 4. option with both active users and all-time editors, as {{u|xaosflux}} suggested above. (Maybe after the total articles count, "{{green|... created by {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} editors}}"). [[User:Alexcalamaro|Alexcalamaro]] ([[User talk:Alexcalamaro|talk]]) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::I've added it, but using <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}</nowiki> would be inaccurate since it includes user accounts with zero edits. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 16:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Since a week has passed for suggested additions, I'll be pinging previous participants tommorow to decide on the formatting. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 16:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Pinging participants: @[[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] @[[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]] @[[User:Schwede66|Schwede66]] @[[User:CanonNi|CanonNi]] @[[User:Jmchutchinson|Jmchutchinson]] @[[User:J947|J947]] @[[User:Stephen|Stephen]] @[[User:UndercoverClassicist|UndercoverClassicist]] @[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] @[[User:Lee Vilenski|Lee Vilenski]] @[[User:Joe Roe]] @[[User:Xaosflux]] @[[User:ApteryxRainWing]] @[[User:Modest Genius]] @[[User:Some1]] @[[User:Ypn^2]] [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 12:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
* I've added my replies/thoughts under each individual item, which might help to keep/make consensus visible despite the many moving parts. There's a very large danger of [[WP:BIKESHED]] here! ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Just to confirm, did you receive the ping? I'm afraid this RfC is going to flop. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 15:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I don't think this is the best format for reaching consensus on relatively minor details. Maybe try just proposing a version based on the feedback above and iterate accordingly. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 20:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I believe the lack of engagement here shows general apathy for the formatting. I don't want to try to wrangle in RfC after RfC, wasting community time. I plan to simply submit an edit request with the original proposed formatting if this RfC gets less than five responses. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 09:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I think that would be wise: [[WP:EDITCON|consensus can be tacit]], after all, and it seems reasonable to suggest that many editors who have seen this and not commented have done so because they have no strong opinion on the points of "contention". ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 14:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Yes. I think for once Wikipedians' ability to bicker over a comma has disappointed you. ''[[User talk:Cremastra|Cremastra]]'' ([[User:Cremastra|u]] — [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|c]]) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
===Edit request===
{{edit request|ans=y}}
Per above consensus, please implement the original proposal of replacing the following


<nowiki><div id="articlecount">[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</div></nowiki>
After an [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Main Page redesign|extensive discussion]] exploring the general idea of redesigning the main page, a general consensus has emerged that a radical redesign is not a viable short-term goal. But the underlying framework of [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edokter/Main_Page?withCSS=MediaWiki:User:Edokter/Main_Page.css that design] has proven to be a potent foundation on which any future design can be built, and replaces the aging layout practices of 2006 to bring it more inline with today's layout recomendations.


with
With that in mind, we would like to replace the underlying layout with this new foundation. Several advantages include:
# Flexible layout which allows future modifications to be implemented more easily.
# Responsive design; sections will stack instead of being pushed off-screen. This also makes the page more mobile-friendly (for those prefering desktop view on mobile).


<nowiki><div id="articlecount">[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}]] active editors · [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</div></nowiki>
Other then that, the main page should look very familiar. Some older version of Internet Explorer may show a small gap between colored sections, but that is a small trade-off, as the flexibility of this design is more future-proof then the current layout. Please test the page in any way you can, under any platform, and report any bugs.


The interpunct (·) should be replaced with a line break on small screens via Templatestyle (
<div style="text-align:center;">{{clickable button 2|Main page with new framework|url=//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edokter/Main_Page2?withCSS=MediaWiki:User:Edokter/Main_Page2.css|class=mw-ui-constructive mw-ui-big}}</div>
[[Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css]]
), which I am not how it'd be implemented. ChatGPT gave me a potential solution of using a ID'd span tag on the interpunct and hiding it on smaller screens, but I have limited CSS knowledge and can't verify if it would work properly. I know this is a technical request so I will be grateful if a technically-oriented admin can help out. Thanks! [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 15:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


:I've created a mock-up of your proposed changes at[[Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/(editable)]] and [[Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/styles.css]] (based on the code at {{tl|hlist}}). I'll hold-off actually making the changes since I don't actually see a RfC (only two informal discussions) and I'm unsure a [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS|local consensus]] is sufficient to change the main page. [[User:Sohom Datta|<b class="skin-invert" style="color:#795cb2; display: inline-block; transform: rotate(1deg)">Sohom</b>]] ([[User talk:Sohom Datta|<span class="skin-invert" style="color: #36c;">talk</span>]]) 06:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Please state your opinion below.
::Thanks for the mock-up! It works perfectly on my end. The Localconsensus issue was also a concern of mine. However, this discussion has been open for almost a month and in a dedicated forum for proposing main page edits. The participants include a wide variety of experienced editors, with very solid consensus for its addition (13 to 1). A more widely attended discussion would be very unlikely to change the results. The consensus for the current wording was achieved back at 2006 redesign of the main page, and I didn't see any mention of the active editor count in the discussions. So I don't think this proposal overrides any previous consensuses. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, I'll leave this thread open for comments (technical or otherwise) for a bit. If no concerns are raised I'll +2. [[User:Sohom Datta|<b class="skin-invert" style="color:#795cb2; display: inline-block; transform: rotate(1deg)">Sohom</b>]] ([[User talk:Sohom Datta|<span class="skin-invert" style="color: #36c;">talk</span>]]) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Seems good to me. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the mock up. Looks splendid. From my perspective, this is ready for implementation. '''[[User:Schwede66|<span style="color:var(--color-base, #202122);">Schwede</span>]][[User talk:Schwede66|<span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>]]''' 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks good. ''[[User talk:Cremastra|Cremastra]]'' ([[User:Cremastra|u]] — [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|c]]) 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks good to me too. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{done}}. Just a small additional comment. "English" is an everyday word and probably does not need linking to [[English language]]. But that's a separate discussion &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 22:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:'''Comment:''' I just saw this editor count on the main page and wanted to come by and say I love it. Not just an interesting statistic but a reminder to all visitors that this is a volunteer project not just a faceless and hegemonic Establishment entity. Nicely done everyone!! Proud to be one of the 116,430! [[User:Jengod|jengod]] ([[User talk:Jengod|talk]]) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
===Support===
# '''Support''' The benefits of using this framework are many. Especially the fact that it eliminates tables and makes the whole thing easier to modify, and therefore, other incremental proposals would be easier to pass. It is a strong improvement over the current design, and it has been developed over the course of many weeks. The differences between the current main page are almost non-existent, except for a few behavioural changes which can be explained. --[[User:NickPenguin|<font color="darkgreen">Nick</font>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<font color="darkblue">Penguin</font>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<font color="blue">'''contribs'''</font>]])</sub> 01:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
#'''Support''' assuming we can get the IE11 bug below fixed, and any other browser compatibility issues fixed. Glad to see this finally happen! [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
#'''Support''' and looks great in Windows 8.1. All the rest are just software tweaks. [[User:GenQuest|<span style="color:Purple; text-shadow:brown 0.1em 0.2em 0.1em;">GenQuest</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:GenQuest|<span style="color:Purple; text-shadow:brown 0.1em 0.2em 0.1em;">"Talk to Me"</span>]]</sup></small> 04:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


== Proposal: delink "English" ==
===Oppose===
#Layout fails catastrophically in IE 11. Can't really be considered for deployment until this is fixed. [[Special:Contributions/86.167.125.50|86.167.125.50]] ([[User talk:86.167.125.50|talk]]) 02:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Can you provide a screenshot? --[[User:NickPenguin|<font color="darkgreen">Nick</font>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<font color="darkblue">Penguin</font>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<font color="blue">'''contribs'''</font>]])</sub> 03:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Sure, see [http://oi60.tinypic.com/24p9t3r.jpg]. The page is about a million miles wide, and most or all of the missing content appears way off to the right somewhere. [[Special:Contributions/86.167.125.50|86.167.125.50]] ([[User talk:86.167.125.50|talk]]) 03:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Confirmed. Not million miles, but lines don't wrap on IE11. [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 03:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::I can't see the screenshot; it looks like the image was removed. <span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:Edokter|<span style="color:#008"><i>E</i>dokter</span>]] ([[User talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#080">talk</span>]]) — </span> 10:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::I don't know why the image has disappeared. Even so, to fix and test it someone will need IE 11 anyway, so will be able to see for themselves. [[Special:Contributions/86.130.67.56|86.130.67.56]] ([[User talk:86.130.67.56|talk]]) 11:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I fixed the wrapping issue, but I cannot see if the boxes still align at the bottom (they should though). <span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:Edokter|<span style="color:#008"><i>E</i>dokter</span>]] ([[User talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#080">talk</span>]]) — </span> 11:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Everything looking good to me now in IE 11. Thanks for that. [[Special:Contributions/86.130.67.56|86.130.67.56]] ([[User talk:86.130.67.56|talk]]) 11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


Propose to remove the link from "English" to [[English language]]. This is an everyday word and per [[WP:OVERLINK]], we should avoid linking everyday words. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
===Discussion===
*It seems slightly spacier than the existing version (viewing in the latest version of Mozilla Firefox) and the column balance is somewhat different. More space is needed in the left column between TFA & DYK. I quite like the behaviour at narrow widths, but I'd suggest cutting to the single-column format at a slightly narrower width. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 01:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


:It may or may not be considered a bug, but with my font size at 26, the words "Technology" and "All Portals" in the upper right extend out of the rectangle that starts at "Welcome to Wikipedia". It looks funny but it still works that way. Firefox 28.0 Windows 8.1 1920x1080 pixels [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 05:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:I can't find the previous discussions on this, but the main page isn't an article, and it doesn't seem an overlink to link to the language the encyclopedia is linked to when introducing the encyclopedia. We [[WP:SEAOFBLUE]] "free" and "encyclopedia" too, it's a limitation of the format. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 08:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::"Free" (in the sense we use it) and "encyclopaedia" at least plausibly something that a reader might need defining for them. There's nobody reading the English Wikipedia that doesn't know what English is. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Knowing what a topic is is not the bar for a link. I certainly don't think it's less defined than "encyclopaedia", and speaking of encyclopaedia, I've seen enough engvar "typo" fixes to know there's a lot about the English language many readers don't know. That's not to be demeaning, there's a lot I can learn from it too, it's the only Good Article out of the four articles linked. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 08:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*I would oppose removing it. The main page serves as a place for readers to see examples of the kind of work we do, and perhaps become engaged to write and edit themselves. As such, [[English language]], which is a GA and looks quite well structured and referenced, is a good link to have. It also shows how linking to other topics works, alongside [[encyclopedia]] and [[Wikipedia]]. As CMD says, it's also the language of our project. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:[[English Wikipedia]] might be a more appropriate target, but I can't see the benefit of linking for the sake of linking. Plenty of links to good and featured content lower down the page! &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 10:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:In actual articles, I 100% agree with this - in practice this being used means that most articles have a nation or language as a link almost immediately. However, the main page isn't an article, and if we were to start using all the MOS on it, it would be a completely different look. '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 13:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*Where has it been established that "a general consensus has emerged that a radical redesign is not a viable short-term goal"? Was there an RfC that was closed with a determination that this is the consensus? A straw poll of some sort? A count of comments with diffs so the count can be verified? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 06:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
*Oppose removal, per [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]]'s excellent points. It's a good link to have, and there are probably quite a few people who make their first edit as a result of clicking through it. [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 22:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:'''Oppose'''. 'English' can have multiple meanings; our [[English]] article is itself a disambiguation page. This is not an encyclopaedia about England, or English people, or any of those other meanings. The link to [[English language]] is necessary to clarify how the Main Page is using that word. [[User:Modest Genius|<b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 12:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Broken on [[Dolphin Browser]]''' 10.2.8 (no wrap, just lots of white space on the right) on Android 4.1.2 but works fine with Chrome 33 on the same device ([[Droid Razr HD|Droid Razr Maxx HD]]. Looks great in Firefox 28, Chrome 33, & IE 10 on Windows 7. --[[user:mav|mav]] ([[User:Mav/Reviews|reviews&nbsp;needed]]) 14:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:06, 10 January 2025

Archives: Sections of this page older than three days are automatically relocated to the newest archive.

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Main Page error reports

Shortcuts

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

  • Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
  • Offer a correction if possible.
  • References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
  • Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 12:04 on 11 January 2025) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
  • Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
  • Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
  • No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
  • Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
  • Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.
Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

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

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

The hook for Aquilegia daingolica needs to be changed to ..."that specimens of Aquilegia daingolica were collected in 1906 and 1909, but it was first described as a new species in 2013?" per Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Queue 3. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Schwede66 09:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Friday's FL

(January 17)

Monday's FL

(January 13)
Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

Shortcuts

Add number of editors in the topmost banner

I suggest this addition for the following reasons:

  • It encourages people to become editors via argumentum ad populum.
  • It is a interesting fact about the scale of Wikipedia
  • It dispels reoccuring myth that only 100 or so admins edit Wikipedia
  • It demonstrates the motto "anyone can edit".

I suggest formatting it like this:


116,790 active editors · 6,938,442 articles in English


Ca talk to me! 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Id support. Maybe something somewhere which explains what active means. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilink to Special:Statistics already provides an explanation. Ca talk to me! 13:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno about other people, but because the link is the amount of people, I'd expect the link to be to the list of people. If it were "active editors" that was linked, I would click it to find out what "active meant". Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of articles link also goes to Special:Statistics, though. – Joe (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's also a bit dumb. Maybe if we linked both the term and the amount to the same link. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about linking the number of active editors to Wikipedia:Wikipedians, where it is explained? Ca talk to me! 12:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely support this. Maybe also include the number of edits made in the current calendar day? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better would be in the last 24 hours, especially as most readers will not know when Wikipedia's midnight is. Certainly better than a count of all edits since Wikipedia began, although not a priority in my opinion. JMCHutchinson (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmchutchinson Well, Jimmy Wales lives in the Carolinas so it could reset at midnight Eastern. Although last 24 hours works as well ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking it about it a bit more, maybe the preceding calendar day ("yesterday") would be computationally easier. We certainly don't want a figure that increases from 0 each day, and it may be undesirable to have one that fluctuates minute to minute. Instead maybe consider over the last week up to and including yesterday, to iron out variation over the weekly cycle. JMCHutchinson (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps

I see a broad consensus for including the number of active editors, but there seem to be a lot of discussion on the finer details, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Should I make a RfC for this? Ca talk to me! 14:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of us want the number of edits/active editors in the banner, but an RFC might help figure out the smaller details we keep arguing about Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informal RfC

MINIMAL PARTICIPATION
Despite the RfC being open for 16 days and pinging previous participants, it attracted only two respondents, showing the lack of interest in this topic. I will assume most people did not see an issue with my original formatting suggestion when they !voted "support" and submit an edit request. This close does not preclude any future discussion about the formatting or new additions to the proposed text. Ca talk to me! 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Five questions to decide on the formatting. Note that this doesn't preclude any further changes in the future.

Which figures should be added to the current text?

  1. Active editors (original proposal)
  2. Active editors and total edit count
  3. Active editors and edit count in last 24 hours(bot required)
  4. Active editors and all-time editors(bot required)

Which symbol should be used as the separator?

  1. Use interpunct (·) (original proposal)
  2. Use comma

Which symbol should be used as the separator on mobile skins?

  1. Use line break
  2. Use comma

How should it be ordered?

  1. Smaller number(s) first (original proposal)
  2. Bigger number(s) first

Wikilinks?

  1. Wikilink all of the numbers to Special:Statistics (original proposal)
  2. Wikilink only the first number to Special:Statistics
  3. Wikilink "active editor" to Special:Statistics

Ca talk to me! 12:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

If a bot is difficult or resource hungry, an edit count for yesterday (preceding calendar day) would serve the same purpose as a count in the last 24 h. JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a maintenance and server load perspective, a bot updating daily is no different than a bot updating every minute (i.e., just a line of code's difference and resource usage that rounds down to 0). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ca Do you expect people to respond here with their opinions on these 5 issues? Or is this just a draft for a forthcoming formal RfC?
If you plan on having another, better-publicized RfC, I'd recommend relisting the original question Should this be added at all?; the original consensus for this had less than 10 editors. [Personally, I think it's a great idea. But all changes to Wikipedia face incredible opposition, so a stronger consensus would be helpful in overcoming that.] ypn^2 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more clear, but yes, I was expecting people to give their opinions. However, I am waiting before pinging everyone to see if anyone have any more suggestions for the questions. I count 13 people who support the proposal and one who explicitly opposed it; I feel that a RfC is going to have the same consensus for inclusion. Ca talk to me! 05:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps you could split the five questions into separate subheadings, to allow for clearer discussion of each issue? ypn^2 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea Ca talk to me! 07:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add a 4. option with both active users and all-time editors, as xaosflux suggested above. (Maybe after the total articles count, "... created by 48,534,518 editors"). Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it, but using {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} would be inaccurate since it includes user accounts with zero edits. Ca talk to me! 16:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since a week has passed for suggested additions, I'll be pinging previous participants tommorow to decide on the formatting. Ca talk to me! 16:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participants: @Cremastra @Tamzin @Schwede66 @CanonNi @Jmchutchinson @J947 @Stephen @UndercoverClassicist @Kusma @Lee Vilenski @User:Joe Roe @User:Xaosflux @User:ApteryxRainWing @User:Modest Genius @User:Some1 @User:Ypn^2 Ca talk to me! 12:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

Per above consensus, please implement the original proposal of replacing the following

<div id="articlecount">[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</div>

with

<div id="articlecount">[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}]] active editors · [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles in [[English language|English]]</div>

The interpunct (·) should be replaced with a line break on small screens via Templatestyle ( Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css ), which I am not how it'd be implemented. ChatGPT gave me a potential solution of using a ID'd span tag on the interpunct and hiding it on smaller screens, but I have limited CSS knowledge and can't verify if it would work properly. I know this is a technical request so I will be grateful if a technically-oriented admin can help out. Thanks! Ca talk to me! 15:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a mock-up of your proposed changes atWikipedia:Main Page alternatives/(editable) and Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/styles.css (based on the code at {{hlist}}). I'll hold-off actually making the changes since I don't actually see a RfC (only two informal discussions) and I'm unsure a local consensus is sufficient to change the main page. Sohom (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the mock-up! It works perfectly on my end. The Localconsensus issue was also a concern of mine. However, this discussion has been open for almost a month and in a dedicated forum for proposing main page edits. The participants include a wide variety of experienced editors, with very solid consensus for its addition (13 to 1). A more widely attended discussion would be very unlikely to change the results. The consensus for the current wording was achieved back at 2006 redesign of the main page, and I didn't see any mention of the active editor count in the discussions. So I don't think this proposal overrides any previous consensuses. Ca talk to me! 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll leave this thread open for comments (technical or otherwise) for a bit. If no concerns are raised I'll +2. Sohom (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the mock up. Looks splendid. From my perspective, this is ready for implementation. Schwede66 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Cremastra (u — c) 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Just a small additional comment. "English" is an everyday word and probably does not need linking to English language. But that's a separate discussion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just saw this editor count on the main page and wanted to come by and say I love it. Not just an interesting statistic but a reminder to all visitors that this is a volunteer project not just a faceless and hegemonic Establishment entity. Nicely done everyone!! Proud to be one of the 116,430! jengod (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to remove the link from "English" to English language. This is an everyday word and per WP:OVERLINK, we should avoid linking everyday words. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the previous discussions on this, but the main page isn't an article, and it doesn't seem an overlink to link to the language the encyclopedia is linked to when introducing the encyclopedia. We WP:SEAOFBLUE "free" and "encyclopedia" too, it's a limitation of the format. CMD (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Free" (in the sense we use it) and "encyclopaedia" at least plausibly something that a reader might need defining for them. There's nobody reading the English Wikipedia that doesn't know what English is. – Joe (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing what a topic is is not the bar for a link. I certainly don't think it's less defined than "encyclopaedia", and speaking of encyclopaedia, I've seen enough engvar "typo" fixes to know there's a lot about the English language many readers don't know. That's not to be demeaning, there's a lot I can learn from it too, it's the only Good Article out of the four articles linked. CMD (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would oppose removing it. The main page serves as a place for readers to see examples of the kind of work we do, and perhaps become engaged to write and edit themselves. As such, English language, which is a GA and looks quite well structured and referenced, is a good link to have. It also shows how linking to other topics works, alongside encyclopedia and Wikipedia. As CMD says, it's also the language of our project.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    English Wikipedia might be a more appropriate target, but I can't see the benefit of linking for the sake of linking. Plenty of links to good and featured content lower down the page! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In actual articles, I 100% agree with this - in practice this being used means that most articles have a nation or language as a link almost immediately. However, the main page isn't an article, and if we were to start using all the MOS on it, it would be a completely different look. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 'English' can have multiple meanings; our English article is itself a disambiguation page. This is not an encyclopaedia about England, or English people, or any of those other meanings. The link to English language is necessary to clarify how the Main Page is using that word. Modest Genius talk 12:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=1268602509"